I have noticed a lot of people on Halo Reach complain about "Oh this map needs more aesthetics." So you add aesthetics. Then you get the "Well Gameplay is not good, focus more on that instead." So I thought. "Well what is really important?" I know you need a good balance but still. It's one thing for a map to look good, but its need to play well aswell. A lot of maps i have made ever since Halo 3 have been criticized over this factor. Now, my philosophy is. If a map plays well than play it! Don't complain about not looking absolutely beautiful, just like it for its play-ability and weapon balance, cause shouldn't that be the main focus point for any forger? So what do you guys think? Gameplay more important? Or Aesthetics?
I guess this is more of a poll. I expanded on my answer and I just want to hear what other people think
If you had to choose one or the other, then gameplay is the obvious priority. A map is meant to be played, not stared at. But you don't have to choose. Any great map should excel in both fields. There is a problem with this, though. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What one sees as boring, another sees as clean. Aesthetic feedback should be taken with a grain of salt, because no one person's opinion is more valid than another. Gameplay on the other hand, can be improved. Don't get me wrong, you will find people who's opinion is that it's perfectly fine to have dead end rooms, but in most cases, this is bad design.
I agree completely that gamplay is priority. Although it does make me mad when people make 1v1s or 2v2s and it looks like crap. Really? With a map that size aesthetics shouldnt be hard, even as an after the fact sort of thing. But what I like to see with 4v4 btb and invasion maps is original structure that provides an atmosphere. One example that sticks out in my mind is FlyingShoe's embarcadero. It's grey as ****, but every time I see it I get reminded of the famous San Fran hills. It's stuff like that that I believe can really set a map apart.
Gameplay is priority, but aesthetics make your map stand out. For all of you people that are subscribed to THFE, I have a good example: They featured Zombie Ziggurat a while ago, a Linear Progression Infection map. This map lacks aesthetics and theme, which are very important in Infection forging. However, the map is still fun because the gameplay is solid, balanced and exciting. For that reason, it can considered a good map. It would've been a great map though, if it would've also had some great and fitting aesthetics. So in my opinion, gameplay and aesthetics go hand in hand but if the gameplay doesn't work out, then what's the point of even adding aesthetics? And at the same time, a map will be a lot more original and outstanding if you add decent aesthetics. So I would always try to implement both, and focus for 60% on gameplay, 40% on aesthetics.
I always forge like that: I build my maps out of grey blocks, until the structure is done. After that, I test it. If it plays well, I use the rest budget/objects to create the aesthetics. It's simple as that, gameplay comes first, aesthetics afterwards. Even though I'm the biggest aesthetic ***** on FH
I think that aesthetics should not come after gameplay. In my mind, a great map should have fundamental aesthetics worked into the layout, creating cohesion between aesthetics and gameplay. This is just my opinion though. When I'm forging a map, I think about aesthetics and gameplay at the same time.
Gameplay first, followed by aesthetics... but if the aesthetics compromise framerate performance, axe them to hell and back till the map performs suitably. I'll put it this way, if you want to make a pretty map, go use a real map designer. Something like UDK or CryEngine3. We're just fooling ourselves thinking the different variations of block used on a map really amount to anything significant, outside of player orientation that is. Aesthetics if forge is a joke. Quickest and most effective way to add aesthetic appeal to a map? Knock out your ceiling and as many walls as possible. The more open air and view space of the canvas, the more color and natural aesthetic you have going. And seeing a backdrop of FW is far prettier than some goofy assembly of blocks.
In both Halo 3 and Reach, solid gameplay has been the most important goal, aesthetics however are generally important if your wanting players to recognize a area quickly during the chaos as a call out. Otherwise aesthetics will never trump solid gameplay, leave the pure aesthetic qualities to maps that are built with 1 vs 1-small fast paced 4 vs 4 matches in mind. Reach simply lacks the texturing and piece count to provide most larger maps with gorgeous aesthetics, however Halo 4 looks to refresh our views on both and the texturing of the pieces are gorgeous and consistent with eachother this is a game changer. I believe its best to worry about your lay out and your plan when it concerns the gameplay, then if you do indeed have the budget and inspiration left for the aesthetics you had in mind then go for it. Since Reach has released I've played many maps that have been capable of blending both gameplay and aesthetics together for a unique atmosphere and great gameplay fundamentals, but I've seen alot of arguments on both sides concerning those same maps. In all honesty go for the theme you had in mind, see if it works out as you want, and never go overboard on the aesthetics try to be subtle and add aesthetics overtime to your map as long as its not gamebreaking i.e. framerate, lag, or obstruction of gameplay.
Eveyone will tell you that gameplay should come way before aesthetics. It is definitely more important. HOWEVER If you want to get a map into MM, then you don't not need either. There are maps that get into MM that play terribly, lag in significantly in split screen, and are just plain ugly.