If anything they can be used as a standard to compare to. I'm just trying to make sure experienced voices that we as a community trust have an extra say in this matter. And who knows? Maybe someone will reforge them?
All I ever wanted was to make something that makes another forger go "oh **** now I have to make something" ahaha that's the good stuff
The sky only appears blue at a distance though. When you're in it, the space around you isn't blue at all, it's colorless, just like the space you're standing or sitting in right now if you're looking at the sky. If I can move from the earth into the sky and have the space around me not look any different, how can I say that the sky is objectively blue? At sunset the sky appears various shades of pink/orange. At night the sky is black. Since the sky is only blue in certain scenarios, how can we say that it's objectively blue? If a thing is viewed subjectively (and we have no other way of viewing a thing), that we can't rightly state any objective truth about that thing. We can say what we observe. We can come to a mutual agreement about what the thing is or isn't, and agree to recognize it as objectively true. This doesn't make it objectively true, but it's as close as we can get. This is what we can do when it comes to determining the quality of an FPS level. I never stated that observations are flawed, only that they're subjective. Also, I know that 'I think therefore I am' is a generally accepted phrase, but it's not something I agree with. 'I am, therefore I can think' is a much more accurate statement. Beingness is a prerequisite for thinking, not the other way around. I could go further into the discussion on existence, but I honestly just don't have the time at this very moment. Suffice to say, I don't completely agree with the first paragraph. That's beside the point though, because the second paragraph is precisely what I was attempting to get across in my previous post. It's just the language being used to explain it that I don't care for. Telling other people that you know what they really want more than they do is a surefire way to get them to stop listening to what you have to say. Even if it's true, it's counterproductive to say. I'll drop this now, because I'm now getting too focused on the word 'objective'. It's a trigger word that sucks people in, and I'm falling prey to it. What's really being talked about is that we can come to a mutual agreement (in general) about what works and what doesn't work in level design. We can then use those mutual agreements to judge the quality of maps relative to each other. We should just leave out the words 'objective' and 'subjective', lol.
Correct - with my irl friends Wrong - I said that experience (sensory) is objective - integration of this is subjective, based on the ideas/concepts one already holds, good or otherwise. The product of this can then be experienced objectively, judged against objective standards and/or against subjective standards.
Another community favorites vote? Aren't we still waiting for the last 3 months of these to be announced?
I’d believe you. Also I’d argue that level design was much more difficult under the constraints of halo 3, at least in the Foundry days. You really had to commit to a layout before going on with merging and interlocking for hours to make a single structure. Now a days you can slip together an entire layout in an hour and it already looks decent. What’s ironic is now that we have it “easy” (but not so easy really) I can’t make a decent layout anymore. Plus now that I’m not limited to the ugly pieces we had back then I crumble at the process of “arting” up my maps now. I haven’t finished a map since the beginning of H5 in the 2v2 contest and ifs depressing. I was so motivated and pumping out quality maps in H3 and still some in reach. H4 & H2A killed me and now I can’t do it in H5 no matter how much I want it. Edit: maybe not much more difficult but it was a different process anyway.
Everything was much more impressive in H3 because everything was made with such attention to detail, because it had to be just right. In reach, the tools got better, but quality went down imo. most things became 45 degree angles and uninspired shapes. H3 felt more... organic. Still the most impressive UGC I've ever seen came out of H3
Maybe give H3 another go then I feel you though. Imagine my maps that had 0 interlocking. I might as well have played with Legos instead haha. What about a tag team forge recreation with all the active and capable members? The only reason I'm pushing so much is I see plenty of passion when it comes to deciding influential (albeit small) parts of Halo that we as fans actually have access to. Just flood for thought
the whole "tHeReS No sKiLL gAp tO FoRge AnYmOrE" mindset is so stupid that I refuse to talk about it. Just know that I hate you if you think that.