Is anyone planning on making/recommending maps for the MCC playlist (aside from @Zombievillan)? I think it would be cool if the more experienced forgers could at least compile a list of their favorites from back in the day.
The thing is, you guys are correct that there are attributes that can be use to objectively determine whether one map is better than another in most cases. The problem is, it's really, really hard to take that understanding and flesh it out in a way that's easily digestible to someone who hasn't already come to that conclusion. There obviously needs to be a framework underlying that determination of better or worse, but I believe it is possible to develop a framework that nearly everyone would agree to. There's just an ingrained mindset in most people that unconsciously (or consciously) objects to the concept of objectivity on any level. I can see this perspective too, because in order to objectively determine something, there needs to be an agreed upon framework within which that can be determined. For example, on a very basic level we need to have some agreement about what a 'map' is. The fact that agreement is required means that there is inherently subjectivity involved. And here is where I feel like the ball has been dropped a little bit... In appearing to deny completely the subjective aspects that are in play, you make it really easy for people to completely dismiss your premise. Now I'm not saying that you actually deny these aspects, I'm saying that it appears as if you are. I haven't tried to jump in and attempt to clarify this up to this point, because I don't feel like I necessarily have the skill to do it, but here goes... Objectively, the sky is not blue. The color blue is a personal interpretation of a vibration that's picked up by our eyes and relayed to our brain. The vibration of each 'color' is distinct enough for our brains to sense a difference. That difference is interpreted in a similar enough way to be agreed upon by everyone. Some people can't distinguish colors in the same way as others, but they still agree that the sky is blue because it's generally accepted that it is. Objectively, we have no way of saying with certainty what the color of the sky is, because each persons experience of it is subjective. Similarly, if we break down the aspects of a FPS level, each specific aspect is unavoidably interpreted subjectively. However, just like we can agree that the sky is blue, we can agree on many aspects of level design. Within the framework of those agreements, we can objectively compare levels.
Just because all experience is inherently subjective, doesn't mean that our observations are inherently flawed. Existence exists. Is this objectively true? Yes, because in order to observe that oneself exists, something has to exist. I think, therefore I am. That's an example of objective truth derived from subjective observation. And even if we couldn't possibly decipher objective truths, we can still treat our psychological similarities objectively in application. Most of our brain activity is subconscious, and what we truly crave from level design can be interpreted and implemented by understanding the unconscious. That's all level design really is.
I think the discussion was enlightening. The goal shouldn't be to convince everyone of a right or a wrong...the goal should be to discover and define things that were without form , and I believe the discussion articulated that. I personally learn a lot just by typing things that I previously only understood ambiguously, so incoming wall. I believe we can make these statements: Statement 1: There are hard coded standards that must be defined as a baseline in order to understand design, assess relative quality, and further the inovation of the field. Statement 2: These standards are not (and should not be) based on preference, but rather on psychology, observation, and the way people play the game. They are defined as simply the Truth. Statement 3: Everyone has different preferences (and this is where we always get lost in this topic), but everybody seeks Integrity. A map with Integrity fairly rewards the player's mental and mechanical skill, and is balanced within itself among its design goals. There are many ways to preserve the Integrity of a design, and many ways to detract from it; however, at its foundation is the desire for fairness and a result proportionate to the effort put in to acquire it. (e.g. the difference between sniping in Halo 3 and sniping in Halo 5; the former feels fair and requires a good sniper, while the latter does not, thereby devaluing the role of the weapon and making it too deadly to have in most designs.) Statement 4: A bad map fails to meet its design goals and/or lacks Integrity by failing to balance the ratio between a player's mental skill and/or mechanical skill Statement 5: It is absolutely possible for a map to meet its design goals, be completely balanced unto itself, and be considered "good" by all other metrics, but still be found "boring" to play or otherwise uninteresting and unimpressive in its ambitions (most commonly the result of repetitive or monotonous encounters). Statement 6: People may enjoy or appreciate maps that have these issues or otherwise skew left or right on the parabola of design. In many cases, these designs appeal to and exploit temporary emotions and urges, or offer an experience that cannot be found elsewhere. Therefore, an understanding of why is necessary to create designs with integrity that appeal to these emotions. (e.g. creating a bridgework map that doesn't slow to a crawl). Statement 7: Maps should be compared to similar maps with similar goals; and when being compared, maps should be assessed based on the Integrity of their own qualities, and not the preferences of the individual. Statement 8: Level Design is a multi-faceted endeavor and it should be observed through a wide lens. It is therefore not a matter of better or worse, but what is simply the observable truth. Furthermore, I believe these elements compose a great map: Integrity: The map fairly rewards the player's mental skill and mechanical skill. A player's instinct is to move forward, look for other players, and reach safety. By presenting them with interesting geometry and challenging situations, you stimulate their mind to think creatively to solve gameplay problems (i.e. responding to players), thereby rewarding the player and/or team with the better thought process. Rewarding the player's mechanical skill means giving them a variety of sightlines, elevations, and other geometric features to manipulate in order to 1up the other player. This should be done in such a way that the player with the better mechanical skill feels like their effort matters more often than not. To further define Integrity, I'll say it is less so "fairness" as it is "nobody likes to feel cheated." Therefore, the Integrity of a map - or really any design - are the qualities that allow things to unfold in a logical manner absent of randomness, chaos, deus ex machina, etc. The best way to achieve that in level design is to ensure that the player's inputs - their thumbskill and mentalskill - are both influencing the outcome of the situation as much as possible. Progression and Pacing: The map has an ebb and flow that is predictable and leads to a satisfying climax. Progression rewards the player for exploring and gives them a goal to strive to aside from killing other players. It's not a "destination" like a power position so much as it is a sense of escalation and tension within an area and throughout a match. You might tease the player with something that they can do, see, or pick up - and you tell them to go figure out how to get there - but it's more than that. Progression and pacing directly tie into the overall meta-game of a map. At its simplest form, the two relate to the way the combat on the map "unfolds" and the amount of layers its presents. Throughout the course of the game, there are things that will draw players into combat beyond the actual hunt for players. The match therefore is paced around the progressive geometry and the way players maneuver around the map outhinking and outgunning one another. Pacing through geometry can mean convoluting a path such that the travel time is extended beyond what is expected, or upscaling an area/adding sightline blockers to force players to close distances. Distance is one of the best ways to adjust the pacing of a map (which is why hitscan is detrimental to level design), and it's arguably the most misunderstood component. Poor scaling absolutely exists, but I hear people say all the time that you "have to scale for Halo 5" and that doesn't really mean anything. Your map just has to be scaled to 1. Reward mechanical and mental skill, and 2. keep the matches at a comfortable pace - all relative to the type of design you are creating of course. A map with great progression and pacing will have moments of action and lulls in between as players refocus and anticipate their enemies. I believe pacing is necessary to give value to the encounters that occur and to allow players to move around the map; thus, poor pacing and absence of progression would be considered uncontrollable, awkward, and inconsistent. Thematic division: The map features at least 2 unique areas that are not only visually different, but also functionally different in terms of the style of gameplay they promote. This is a relatively new field of design that I would say is in its infancy, especially in Forge; however, we're all subconsciously aware of and appreciative of it. I would define a Theme as the combination of art and the artistic elements that would logically arise from that art. It it less to do with "aesthetics" and more to do with "geometry". A slanted surface implies that you can strafe up and down, but if it is contextualized as a rooftop, now the player is inherently drawn to this location for its perceived power and uniqueness. Thematic division has many benefits beyond artistic composition. For example, it allows you to instantly identify landmarks and orient yourself on a map. When there is a separation between areas on your map, you are able to facilitate different gameplay experiences and add more lasting value. It's not a bad thing for a map to lack this. Poor visual cues are not a symptom of 1-dimensional themes, but they absolutely can be. More precisely, I would suggest that creating distinct areas on a map - either through color, light, shapes, elevations, or pathing - only adds interest and intrigue to the environment. (And no, this does not mean having one side be "a UNSC research base" and the other being "a fOReRUnnER inStaLlaTiON". It doesn't work if there is no difference in gameplay.) Atmosphere: The map uses lighting, composition and framing, sound design, and other ambient effects to enhance its theme and add weight to its gameplay This is related to themeatic division, but it's more specific. Atmosphere is the component that grounds the player in your map. Done correctly, an atmosphere plays on the player's emotions and guides them to learn the design and its behavioral traits, thereby augmenting the experience for the individual. Of course, there are players who are able to navigate or otherwise enjoy a map without these elements. While there is something endearing about maps that are clean and otherwise simplistic in their approach, the atmospheric element of level design (specifically environment design) is an essential component of creating a level with lasting value. I could talk about this forever because it's my favorite aspect, but I'll leave that for another time. Anyway, that's my takeaway from this discussion. I personally think we, as a level design community, should not only continue this discussion, but also encourage the overall progression of design as a whole. You have to think about it like this - NO OTHER DESIGN COMMUNITY is pushing the genre to such a degree. Even while we are limited by the tools we have and the game we are playing, we are still able to come up with things that either work, or conceptually should. Therefore, I believe we should seek to define what is true such that we can use it as a launchpad for reaching greater heights. The pinnacle of level design insofar as we know it at this time is: -A map that changes the way the player thinks -A map that ebbs and flows -A map that is thematically diverse -A map that is artistically composed between its lighting and atmosphere Other people may look for other things and everyone has a right to their own eclectic tastes. Nevertheless, I believe these traits are truly at the basis of not only every excellent map, but the best designs as a whole. If it's not stimulating the mind, sustaining tension and displaying variety, and appealing to the senses, is your creation really going to have a life of its own? I'd argue a lot of us are used to playing husks and we don't even know they're dead until we see something that is alive.
You talk how you type eh? "hey man what's up I was ju..." "WRONG" "okay well thi..." "WRONG AGAIN" Lmao I kid. Anyways, that sentence does seem to contradict your stance that objective truth can be implemented, unless that's not what you've said? Your posts are hard to decipher, and I'll be honest enough to say that I literally just skip them at this point because they are so incredibly wordy If all implementation of experience is subjective, then all level design is subjective. I think that's silly.
@qrrby I can recommend old school halo 3 maps but they are from the original H3. There’s no way to transfer them right? We’d have to re-forge them.