They ARE objectively lesser maps. They are ruthlessly simple which gives few options for mental play and decision making, and the encounters are generally fairly straight forward which limits what you can do mechanically with movement options/gunfights. They are objectively limiting designs - brain dead is how I typically put it. People are free to enjoy it but that doesn't mean to confuse it with better designs, and that doesn't mean to say that people even enjoy it how they THINK they enjoy it. Rather than simply enjoying it because it's all they know.
The problem with this game is that the gunplay is bad. There's no thought involved in firing a hitscan pistol and using the abilities. You could play a giant hallway in Halo CE and it was fun because CE was fun. That same hallway in Halo 5 feels boring because you can fly through it, and the pistol is so easy to use and so hard to avoid that the encounter will be the same every single time. This is one of the reasons I have a hard time forging in this game. I love giant open spaces because they look cool and I like throwing people in environments with simple pathing that doesn't get in the way of gameplay. Problem is...there's not much gameplay to be had in Halo 5. It's all the same really unless you do something so different that the person has to completely change the way they think. On that note, imbalances are what create movement. If you balance your map too much, nobody moves. But you can't have too much imbalance... because then you're only moving in one direction. I think a map where you spawn and run to the exact same spot every single time is just as bad as a map where you spawn and don't want to move. Even if your design revolves around "sided gameplay" or "uphill tower of power" gameplay.... it's the things shaking that up which make it interesting and not 1-dimensional. So when I say moderation, I mean make your map multi-faceted. I mean, I don't think it's too much to ask for a map that isn't one dimensional...unless you're like me and trying to break the sound barrier and travel faster than the speed of light without a space suit in under 1600 objects.
They arent. And the very description of ‘donut maps’ has many different iterations. You could argue Deck 16 is a donut map, and its one of the most popular UT maps. Not everyone enjoys the same thing you do, Multi. They arent wrong for that. Telling people what they should like and telling people why they like something they shouldnt is just arrogant.
I was just writing this... Maybe it's a simple matter of wording. If saying 'better' is what's annoying to some, maybe 'advanced' is a more accurate alternative. If I like a simple design and you tell me it's objectively bad, I'm going to get pissed off with you. If I like something, I like something, **** you if you tell me it's 'wrong'. @xzamplez is right to point this out. @MultiLockOn is also correct in that maps can be objectively greater than others, but in terms of the extent and depth of what they offer and demand of the player. Some designs are objectively more 'advanced' in that they utilize a greater learning curve, range of play styles and strategic options than simpler layouts. ...but an exception to all this will occur to me the moment I post.
Thought this was going to be an interesting conversation. Then you just pulled the subjective card. What a waste of my time. Not everything level design is subjective. Throwing in subjectivity is such a non-argument It's true that some levels are pretty incomparible but that as a question of type, rather than just prrsonal preference. I actually don't know either of those maps, but if they have similar design goals, say both are team Deathmatch 2v2s for the same game, I absolutely could find an objective superior. Also those rulesets aren't specifically down to interpretation if they are designed well enough for a contest. For example a hotdog eating could test has some very airtight rules on what is considered an eaten hotdog. Yes there have been some less than well done contests in the past that have come down to subjective evaluation rather than objective evaluation but I wouldn't consider that the standard for all of "contests"
By no means am I a gameplay guy but I feel like its difficult to make a solid Halo gameplay experience when the abilities/power ups of the Spartans keep on changing every game since Halo 3. Halo 3, Halo Reach, Halo 4 and Halo 5. Like how would you even design a map with a vertical power position when you have jet packs or can clamber up to it very quickly or use a portable gravity lift.
Emmanuel Kant Also, think about perception and perspective. What is level design theory? What is a map? Shouldn't need more than one word for both questions. This will be my one contribution to this. A name and some dumb questions.
Sorry Slap, I'm not going to trust the opinion of a guys who's willing to put both a Needler and a BPR on his map.
not gonna lie. I think chill out would be pretty bad in this game. I think goat said it earlier but you could put a turd in CE and it would be a decent to good map. The spawning and kill times did wonders for the maps.
My 8 year old son wants to play coop through MCC starting from CE to Halo 5 to follow the story. The wife only lets him game on the weekends so it’s slow going but damn am I the only one who thinks CE is boring? Like 343 Guilty spark is so damn repetitive. Kill flood, take elevator, kill flood on next level which is exactly the same as the previous level, take elevator to next level and kill flood on the level that looks exactly like the previous 2 levels.
Shame I was looking for a real answer with some reasoning behind it didn't know I was talking to a child.