I swear forgehub is just constant dopamine release I'm so addicted to seeing that little red notification in the top right
i'm more interested in positive solutions than negative ones problem: "people will just run away" negative solution: "make it impossible to run away" positive solution: "make it fun to chase" problem: "people will just sit in the tower" negative solution: "make it impossible to sit in the tower positive solution: "make it easy to pinch and make the tower less powerful so they will only use it situationally" problem: "people will just spartan charge and use their ar in this room" negative solution: "never build rooms like that" positive solution: "make it harder to do those things or empower the approaching player" problem: "people will just run around this cover in a circle" negative solution: "never use cover on your map" positive solution: "open up sightlines and add elevation to discourage people from doing it" there are some things that are just DOG in Halo, like shield doors, and there are some things that can work when done correctly. problem is most people are not doing them correctly, so they always look bad. but to that i will say all it takes is one person to make it work for others to follow the example. imagine if the first key map was bad....and then the second and then the third... now people would say "key maps are objectively bad and don't work in halo". but no, the first key map mostly does what it sets out to do, so now there is a reference point. the reference point for two base two tower maps is midship, and midship was already pretty good. but literally every other 2b2t i've played has been less appealing than midship in some fashion and that tells me that people are just copying and not innovating. innovation should be encouraged. so while we all seek quality maps and things that are fair, i don't think it'll ever be possible to agree on what those are; at the end of the day, we are imperfect and driven by our emotions more than logic. personally, i can't stand vertical ladders or lifts and you will never see one on my maps. i think they're tacky and cumbersome and i've never liked using them except for on construct in halo 3. so in my mind, if they aren't as cool as construct (which admittedly was integral to its design), then i probably am not going to like it. however, it'd be a mistake to hold that against a design unless it was done poorly. the only thing i'm worried about at this point are people holding their biases against designs and missing the point....because that's how innovation dies. and i say this as a pessimist who will filter through every possible negative solution first
Meanwhile in quake champions https://www.reddit.com/r/QuakeChamp...ds_sorlag_attractive/?st=jk1jxw5k&sh=7e9f241f
The fact that you didnt know this was a debate of objectivity vs subjectivity from the beginning is odd. You should know both of them. No you couldnt. Your ‘objective’ outcome would mean absolutely nothing, because theyre both wildly successful maps for their titles. There isnt a spectrum of what an eaten hotdog could be. It passes a point, then its eaten. There is no point to pass when determining the parameter of what a ‘good’ map should have.
I don't know what that acronym means and I'm ok with that. I was just scurrying quake forums and I came across that gem
If you take a bite out of a hotdog, then it has been eaten. There are only 3 stages of the hotdog: not eaten eaten completely eaten this is how we determine good maps from bad maps. there are: maps with no major flaws maps with some flaws maps with obvious, unplayable flaws problem is nobody wants to define flaws because nobody wants to agree on how to play halo 5...because there have historically been 101ou41io^4 ways to play Halo and nobody agrees on which way is "the best" if this was a brand new franchise and there was only one title, i guarantee you'd know what a good map is... as far as halo is concerned, that definition has changed, and in halo 5 i'd argue it's widened. it wasn't long ago that a good map was just a bunch of ramps and tubes with teleporters on the end.
I didn't recognize them by name. I havent personally played enough of Unreal Tournament and Quake to give an opinion on them that I am comfortable with but that doesn't mean that there isn't a more worthy contender and if they are close enough to each other we could probably just call it a tie. They may be too different to be comparable too. I just don't know enough about those two maps. However we could put say Molten, and Chill Out next to each other and there is a clear obvious winner there within both games sandbox's (chill out has an h5 remake). One is much more successful than the other and there is a reason for it. My point still remains that we could make a contest that separates the chillout's from the molten's.
@SgtSlaphead I understand your point, but i think ‘complexity’ is a better word. Advanced implies progression. At a certain point, complexity becomes a bad thing. Who is to determine what that point is? The player. @Mags Chill Out is one of my favorite maps, but im sure there are people out there that like Molten better. @MultiLockOn Again. The fundamental difference. You think we are “relatively” (intentionally vague) alike that so you could tell people that you feel the same way they do, you just understand better why that is. Like theres some evolutionary process of understanding why you enjoy an experience, and Multilockon is right at the top. Lucidity at its peak. Its some Soldat ****, and its hard to read. @SaltyKoala I agree. There are objective qualities as well. But, the idea that there can be some purely objective way of determining one map over another, absent of personal preferences, is nonsense. Do you agree?
I could bring up twenty other maps, and the problem would still exist. At a certain point, preference becomes the only factor. I agree with you on Chilly vs Molten, and i would also call it a better map. But im not going to tell people that like Molten better that theyre wrong. Thats my point.
You are misunderstanding everything I say to such an asinine degree I don't know why anyone bothers talking to you. And the notion that a belief in objectivity is somehow arrogant is so, completely ass backwards it reinforces that. I'm making the argument that I don't define the terms of greatness, I never have. NO ONE has, we all just understand and subscribe to them. You're the one telling me that some dipshits donut is just as good as any other design someone has pumped months into because tHeY eNjOy iT. That is arrogance, and complete negligence for any sort of truth in favor of appealing to your feelings. Not only is it untrue but actually detrimental, harmful to anyone actually seeking to improve.
@MartianMallCop @xzamplez Chillout and Molten have basically nothing in common. It's like comparing Jazz to EDM. Which is better? We can say Molten is bad because it has problems. We can even say that people like the map despite its problems. But we can't say it is bad because Chill Out is better, nor can we say it is good - or that those problems don't exist - because some people like it. Here's another example: I can say The Last Word in Destiny was bad because it had problems. I could also say that many people - myself included - liked the weapon despite its problems. But I can't say that it was bad because the Mida Multi Tool was better designed, nor can I say it is good - or that its problems didn't exist - because many people liked it. (I could however argue that it was the best weapon in the game and the only one that really mattered...) The only thing that can really be debated is how serious the problems are. But that's when I think it's best to compare it to something that cannot change - human nature. Our inclination towards fairness and desire for control. If the goal of the map is to achieve those things, we can assess it based on its goals. I think The Last Word was great for Destiny and just needed a few tweaks. But if you polled the Destiny community at large, a lot of people would tell you it was unfair or too easy to use or get killed by. Who is right or wrong? I'm obviously biased, but my position is based on the notion that the game needed a fast killing weapon that you could be agile with, and that was the only weapon you could play that way with in the game. I'd argue that people gravitated to it for that reason, and not because it was "easy to use" or broken. Its utility was a symptom of an underlying problem with the game, not a symptom of its own problems, if that makes sense. Therefore, I believe the weapon is only bad because it had problems, not because it existed. The flipside of that is somehing like Armor Lock. No matter what problems Armor Lock has, and regardless of whether or not it meets its design goals, I don't think it's good for the game at all because of what it does to the game. Whereas The Last Word was healthy for the game despite its problems, Armor Lock would be bad for the game even if it was well designed. And I'm sure there are people who like Armor Lock, but that doesn't make it good. That's where I am with Sprint in Halo 5. I like sprinting in Halo 5 and I think it's as well designed as Sprint is going to get in Halo. But it's still bad for the game because the problems with Sprint - easily running away, breaking predictable pacing, not being able to shoot while moving quickly - have only been diminished to a tolerable level. The universal truth is that we all seek power, authority, and control, but we also want an equal shot at getting it because we don't like unfairness. The people who do like unfairness were probably already born with power, were treated so unfairly that they don't want their enemies to have power, or are ignorant to the fact that fairness exists. Again, that is a symptom and not the underlying cause.
in other news i finished a design but i don't like it and i'm not sure if that means it's **** or i'm just impossible to please. i would post screenshots but the lighting is coming from the wrong direction
I compartmentalize objective analysis and subjective analysis. We can all like things that are lower quality and things that are higher quality. It's a separate scale. Say someone tells me Molten is a better map than Chill Out. We can go through the debate of X, Y, Z of why Chillout's is a higher quality map, but thats not me saying they can't "like" it. That's two different things. I admit that I like things that are objectively bad too. For example: I love playing Chiron TL-34, but it absolutely is a BS map that is lower quality than most of CE 's maps. See the distinction there?