So someone showed me that on some canvases if you remove the health pack then the bracket will disappear when you reenter the map again. I tried this on High Noon and it did not work, but he showed it to me on Solitary. So it may be hit and miss. As for restrictions and creativity, I think there is an element of truth to that. On High Noon, for example, there is a hologram that people say is in the way. They need to incorporate it into their map - thus the creativity. But I also agree that there can be more creativity if there is more flexibility. As for map editor and costly data transfers, it seems that a terrain editor could incorporate a deformation editor that allows one to grab a point on the terrain and raise or lower it. The elevation change is a single number. The point grabbed are just thee numbers. If deformation can be managed by the canvas, say two units max, then the costs is very economical for data.
Not in the middle of the air, there aren't. They are only on the "non anniversary" version, and they are attached to deletable objects. It's actually really stupid. And dude, don't get me started on the ****ing tree object. Just... wow. Dyb, creators. Worst piece ever.
Well, it's not exactly up to tempest standards, yet I wasn't really expecting them to improve on too mch, because it's essentially a glorified map pack. At least we have some new peices in Timbarlands, but from what I hear, i'm not going to be depending on trees anytime soon. Still, Since it proves that you can put in new pieces, there's no reson as to why forge world, or rather Tempest 2.0 can't be created. A freem map like Cold storage would be good to forge on, even if it was one relatively blank map with a bunch of forge pieces available, sort of like Asylum.
So does that mean I could go on the anniversary version and they wouldn't be there? That'd be nice... except for the making the canvas again part.
I do agree that flexibility isn't a hindrance; anyone arguing that is silly. :3 My statement was simply saying to successfully create and integrate features that we don't necessarily want, such as the hologram you speak of, takes creativity. This is very possible. (I think) It was Tony Hawk's Underground that had a skate park creator, it employed this type of editor. While it was very primitive, it could work if implemented correctly.
Not really. Restrictions have been proven to foster creativity in the right hands - finding workarounds for your limitations can often result in some amazing creative output. And on the flip side of that coin, being unrestricted can sometimes lead to creative stagnation. Restriction And Creativity | Rough, Stark, Quick & Now. | behyped Presentation Zen: Can limitations and restrictions be liberating? I think we are often not aware of what kind of work has been done under previously existing restrictions. Some of the most groundbreaking popular music of the recorded sound era was recorded on 8 or even 4-track tape with finite editing capability - nothing like the infinite channels and endless redoing and micro-editing available to anyone with a computer today. The studio experimentations of The Beatles, Brian Wilson, the dub reggae artists of the 60s and 70s, and many others were created by musicians finding ways to be creative within hard restrictions. In film, some rather amazing things have been accomplished by directors with no budget and no studio backing; Sam Raimi invented his own camera techniques (e.g. shoving a camera on a two-by-four right through a window to create a point-of-view shot) because he had to, to make his movie (Evil Dead) interesting. On a related note, I don't think we even realize sometimes the restrictions we impose on ourselves to make the kind of map we want to play. Your latest map is probably entirely enclosed (to prevent map-breaking); has multiple entrances to each area (to prevent camping); has symmetry and a modest circle or square shape (because this is easiest to balance); is far less than 30 units in height; has a limited set of power weapons, with long respawn times; etc. etc. Most of these are restrictions you place on yourself - they aren't mandated by forge. But within them, we make creative maps, don't we? And when we follow most of them but decide to break just one or two, sometimes we make even more interesting maps than if we just put a bunch of random **** in the quarry. Same thing is true in art: many writers and directors and musicians choose to work within a genre because they like the restrictions and rules inherent in it. It triggers their creativity to test the boundaries of these rules, to subtly reshape them, to experiment within them, and to occasionally break just one boundary on purpose. Sorry for length, but this is something I've thought quite a lot about. I think restrictions can actually be very good for creativity. In the current era we are far less restricted on almost all creative fronts than ever before - I think it actually helps sometimes to invent our own restrictions now, to see what we are capable of when working from something other than a pure blank canvas. And as much as I hope the next forge is an amazing, open map editor, I know I'll be setting some different limits for myself with each project I start. I still feel one of my best maps was the one I made for the 5000 budget contest - another example of a limitation inspiring creativity.
I haven't suggested against the statement that limitations cause creativity. I just find it silly to see that as a reason to not improve upon Forge. We've talked about it before: You start building a map and you're done building the first part of it the way you want only to find out you don't have enough (or not the right) blocks to continue on building the map the way you want. This even happens on relatively simple maps. The 5000$ budget contest entries consisted of mostly small 2v2 maps which require less objects and thus have -in a way- less restrictions. I just think for 8+ player maps the current form of Forge is too limited to create decent maps. Why do you think most BTB/Invasion maps use the Forge World geometry itself as a base for the map? This is because creating your own floor is too expensive both in terms of budget and performance. Someone can be very creative with only 2 blocks, but that doesn't mean it will be any good. Give someone a wide range of features and I will assure you more creativity will come from it. I'm all for being able to give yourself limitations (i.e. MLG, contests etc.), but that doesn't mean the overall picture has to be as restricted.
Limitations don't foster creativity. I'd be much more creative if Forge was a full map editor because I could really create something. I suppose you think the sistene chapel would have turned out better if michelangelo was just coloring in a connect the dots game. On topic. Removing the limitation on trees by making them forgeable would have mad thugs much more creative. There is no way you can argue that being able to make treehouses reduces creativity.
There has been entire debates around this very subject. I like to think of it as a balance. Give just enough guidelines and restrictions to give someone an idea of what can be done and what can't be done as well as a push toward what they should be doing. If there are no guidelines/restrictions/limitations whatsoever then there is no focus of concept. Michelangelo was limited to the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel, to painting something religious, a rough time frame for which to paint, and to the painting tools that were available at the time. Without those limitations he might have never finished a product or even known what to paint. With literally infinite possibilities without restrictions you can't expect people to come up with infinite creative solutions because there are no problems to overcome. But at the opposite end of the spectrum, yes if you impose to many limitations on a system then that tunnels focus to stay within the limitations and doesn't give many options for creative expansion outside of the limits. Obviously not being able to create something reduces creativity but from a developer's point of view messing with nature objects is a costly resource. I mean they put one tree that you could place in forge and even that causes lag and is lit strangely. Could you imagine if all the trees did that? I mean grey blocks with little lights cause lag trees with intricate leaves/brances/etc would just be asking too much of the system. Then the question I suppose would be, "Well couldn't they just rework the forge system so lag doesn't happen". Ah, and here's the big answer that should be pretty apparent by now. 343i had made almost no actual changes to Bungie's code. If they have it has been unperceivable to the public. All the mechanics that existed in the Reach engine still exist. The only thing 343i did with Reach is change some design elements. Meaning they added things. They added forge pieces, they added playlists, they added settings that were previously hidden to us (Bungie had the settings obviously, they've tweaked them in playlists for years). Basically nothing 343i did was to change the core mechanics of Reach. All of the coding that was done by their team was to make the new graphic overlay for the anniversary campaign. Everything else was just using the built in development tools Bungie had already created. Another question could possibly be, "Well why didn't 343i change the mechanics to make it better, Microsoft owns the IP not Bungie, so they had the code to change it". Yes but changing someone else's code is really not an easy thing, especially something as large as a complete game. That kind of thing takes months of checking and making sure if one thing is fixed another thing doesn't break. 343i is spending most of its development time on Halo 4 so "fixing" Reach was never a priority nor probably ever considered. ...pac out
That's why it's helpful to use more than one sentence in your posts. I agree with your clarified position pretty much across the board. But... that stuff I just said. Did you read it? By the way, Michelangelo had plenty of limitations in painting the Sistine Chapel. The most obvious one is the shape and form of the ceiling he was painting on. He also was limited by his medium - paint of any kind is tricky to work with (far trickier than digital "painting," which allows for endless editing and color correction; your only option if you screw up with real paint is to strip it and start over, or fudge it as best you can. This is especially true of fresco painting, in which the pigment is mixed with plaster and corrections are extremely difficult). He was also limited by the available pigments of his day - paint coloration has come a long way since Michelangelo (this link illustrates the point beautifully). He had a deadline and a fixed subject matter. Besides that, he had to paint the entire thing lying flat on his back on a rickety scaffold. Now please tell me how none of that qualifies as a limitation. edit - Pacmonster beat me to several of these points. Eh.
I hate to be an ass but this is kid of off-topic please try to talk abou the actual topic atleast in one of your sentences. Have any of you wondered why they only gave us a dead tree?