If you have read the BWU today, then you've seen the before/after pics of the Noble Map Pack maps. (If you haven't read it, you can read it at this link: Bungie.net : Bungie Weekly Update: 11/19/2010 : 11/19/2010 2:33 PM PST) Is it just me or do all the before pics look like they would be way more fun then the after pics? The before pics remind of classic halo maps and gameplay with their simple designs and textures. I was pumped to play on these maps... until I saw the new pictures, and all my excitement went out the window. The after pics look like works of art, not maps. I should not be focusing on the visuals on a map as I'm playing it, I want to focus on gameplay. Maps should minimize in details and artwork. There should be just enough visual to understand where you are. And if that's an issue, then simply make unique structures. Hang 'Em High is a great example of this. With it's bridge, trench, bases, tombstones and bunkers, it has tons of different physical features that make it easy to know where you are. Countdown, although a decent map (at least for Reach), really doesn't have any unique physical features that let you know where you are. Visual details ruin maps. When I throw a grenade, I don't want it bouncing off some random piece jutting out and then getting stuck in a vent. I want it to bounce off a flat wall in a predictable way and land where i want it to. In addition to this, stairs are another thing I have an issue with. I know this doesn't really apply to the NMP, but since I'm on a roll, I'll keep going. Where was I? Oh yeah: stairs. Do you know how hard it is to effectively throw a grenade up or down stairs? Damn near impossible. There's no reason for stairs, use ramps. They're much simpler structures, and when talking about gameplay, simpler=better=more fun. Anyway, what's your opinion on aesthetics vs. gameplay?
What can I say other than I totally disagree? The only reason games should minimize on details is to improve performance. If the hardware and game engine can cope with the details and run the game smoothly then why cut them out? And the old grenades getting caught in the textures argument? I think Bungie has done a lot to combat that. On Boardwalk for example, there are areas of the walls with huge plasma burns. In other Halo games you'd probably expect that to be part of the map, something players can interact with. In Reach its just a 3D texture, the wall is still flat to the player. Hang Em High is a good map. Tombstone is also a good map but with a lot more detail than Hang Em High.
we haven't set foot on these maps. Trying to form an opinion about them already is absurd. not enough data
He's talking straight up aesthetic appeal, sure this can't be fully judged from pics and you have to get a feel for being in a game on the map, but if there's one thing that judging from pics can do for you, it's telling what the map looks like, kinda obviously. I disagree with the OP, though. I really love the whole aesthetic in Reach, it's that chunky and satisfying look and feel that Halo CE had, but upscaled with graphic and detail to match what can be done now. It's one of those rare instances where I think the updating process doesn't lose the original charm of an aesthetic theme, instead serving to enhance it. I always felt that H2 looked kinda round and bland, and H3 looked a little fiddly and brittle in terms of general look and feel of objects and environments. As far as I'm concerned, Reach is a return to form in that department, and from the pics these maps look to live up to that for me.
Re: stairs: Bungie has made it so grenades bounce up stairs like they're ramps in this game. Likewise for all other surfaces that you'd want to be flat for gameplay but look detailed for aesthetic appeal.
Hmmm... I don't think I'm getting the right point across. I think I shouldn't have said details, but rather, general aesthetics? Atmosphere? Theme? One of those. What I was trying to get across was how the maps' visuals made me feel. When I think of an old CE/H2, maybe even a few H3 maps, I think of the visually unique ones; the ones that feel alien. There are plenty of other games that have human based maps, but very few games have alien themed maps and I feel that this has always been a big part of Halo. Right now, there are no maps in Reach that feel alien. Even Zealot doesn't do it because Covenant ships have been done before (Midship, Heretic). When I say alien, I mean both the obvious connotation of martians and ray guns and very un-human, but I also mean maps that don't remind me of previous maps. On the other hand, in Boardwalk there are random sections of wall that are not flush with the wall and laying down in the area where you walk. Why? What purpose does that serve by being there? In my mind, it really does seem like some designer arbitrarily decided to place it there for visual appeal and there is no gameplay design behind it. Yes. And yes. Really? Damn my foot tastes bad.
Yeah, pre-Beta the MLG forum was super pissed about the random stairs and crap on the walls on the Powerhouse and Sword Base screenshots, and Shishka showed up to calm us down by telling us that. No more decorative wall crap interfering with gameplay Halo 3 style.
I much prefer playing the game to philosophising over random pieces of wall. It gets me more points. Also, I'm thinking the reason they put that there was as a little aesthetic touch to show off how this area (in Campaign) had been invaded and therefore damaged by Covonent forces. Kind of a little detail that adds up to a beutiful final picture, like how the damaged areas of Sword Base blend and reflect the otherwise perfect architectural design of the building.
I have to disagree here. Also this may be one of the first time I have ever heard of better graphics being a bad thing.
I actually dislike the changes to Sword Base since the Beta. I still feel that the damaged areas and bits of aesthetic feel tacked on to an otherwise smooth and clean looking map. I wish they'd just kept it as it was personally. That's not a complaint with the overall aesthetic, though, but with a mismatched choice to thrust an (imo) unnecessary level of immersive aesthetic on to a map which looked and felt fine as it was.
what's your opinion on aesthetics vs. gameplay? -Gameplay Gameplay Gameplay Gameplay Gameplay unless being an aesthetic map, which these are not. I don't think it matter, TBH. This is a Bungie map, they can add extra stuff if they want after it plays good. They don't really have very many limitations a la Forge World.
I suppose it's just a matter of opinion. Also, to anyone using "Gameplay v. Aesthetics" as an argument for why these little details are bad, realize that both gameplay and aesthetics can coexist peacefully. One doesn't neccesarily kill the other.
What is wrong in good aesthetics and gameplay. They didn't change design, they just added aesthetics.
This is what I was trying to get at. The maps look amazing when they are clean, and concise. They don't need these aesthetic touches to get me "immersed" in the map. I'm not trying to date the map; I'm trying to kill people.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I'm not saying that I dislike aesthetic touches on top of the bare necessities for a playable map in terms of how it looks, I'm just saying that in the particular example of Sword Base, the two aesthetics they employed (clean, smooth geometry with a damaged and beaten up overlay) don't match up imo. As I said in my previous post, I love the aesthetic style of Reach as a whole, and I think the maps look great in general. Would I enjoy playing the maps significantly less if they weren't as aesthetically detailed? Not really, I'm very much about the gameplay experience in Halo. But do I dislike that they've taken the time to add a nice, solid, chunky feeling aesthetic on top of this? Not at all, if anything it only makes me like the maps that I do like even more. Even with those that I don't, and in gameplay terms this is sadly most of them, I still think they look great and that it doesn't detract from anything.
It is not just you! I was looking at them and thinking, "Ah, Bungie finally got it right! This looks just like Halo 2!" I was happily looking at the screen shots, and then I see 'scroll over to see the final versions'. I scroll over the first picture of Tempest and then insta-sadfaced. [br][/br]Edited by merge: Agreed. The only reason they changed it is because people complained that it was too pretty for a warzone. I was saddened when it was changed, because mulitplayer shouldn't have to be canon, and it was nice to play on an untarnished battle field. I mean it's an office building, come on. Also, think about machinima makers that were going to use it as a 'HQ' environment. Not a very good HQ if walls are falling off, eh?
FYI, Bungie confirmed in one of their Weekly updates at some point (like July or something, I can't remember exactly when) that decorations have little impact on the way grenades bounce off surfaces, etc. Surfaces that don't necessarily look flat probably are. Like the back of a "strut" forge piece. There's a hole, but you walk right over it like its nothing. You can actually use them to make stairs in forge that you can walk up. Also, Sword Base now makes no sense canonically. The multiplayer map is set before the Covies show up, yet there's massive bullet holes and collapsed panelling on a lot of walls. WTF? Mad office party was mad.
Actually I agree. The old Tempest looked kinda like death Island, which would've been awesome. Also, the old (snowy one) looked really good as well.
It seems that most of the argument claiming less aesthetics pieces placed throughout maps is accompanied by some sort of comment comparing it to Halo CE and Halo 2. You have to keep in mind that while some of the aesthetics put forth literally don't add anything, Bungie has to compete with other titles, even if they don't compare in genres. It's marketing. Having technology capable of handling upscale graphics without distracting from gameplay is one of the things that keeps game developers competing. Think of it this way, if Bungie had quit trying to push the envelope graphically back in the end of Halo 2, do you think they would have the following they do now? No way. Sure, Halo's gameplay is enough to support itself, but people who had never touched a Halo title in their life would be less inclined to buy a sixty dollar game with bad graphics compared to one with good graphics. Aesthetics are the first impression. Better aesthetics = better sales. It's life, that's the way the human mind works. The terrible actress with the pretty face is more likely to get a call back. The better looking house with terrible (and dangerous) problems will attract more potential buyers. The amazing looking guitar with god awful acoustics will turn more heads. Sure, once looking into any subject, other factors are more important, but you NEED to have a great first impression to really sell your product, and classic graphics are not the answer. On a MUCH smaller scale, think about ForgeHub and how we work here. A brilliant design with terrible aesthetics WILL be overlooked, sure, it may grab a decent number of download and comments, but the overly aesthetic piece of trash will ultimately get more attention. I do agree about Swordbase, though. Awful clashing aesthetics.