Oh, I don't mean to say that the aesthetic of the map is unimportant. I think designing both at once is a good strategy so long as you give both equal attention. And a map that plays well but looks horrible is not going to go anywhere. The only thing I believe is false is the argument that the aesthetics are more important, as if they are more important to you than gameplay you are really thinking more like an environment artist than a level designer. Besides that, a lot of times the structure of a map is designed to both look good and serve a purpose, so when designing it's not like you pick one over the other, you often are designing an area to look a certain way and play a certain way at once, and if either is off it's a problem. PS - I hate the word "aesthetics." I feel like it doesn't properly convey all the things we use it for.
Penny Arcade's Extra Credit Season 2 episode 16 talks about graphics v aesthetics and in the process helps define aesthetics in the context of video games. Here are some things that they state to help clarify what aesthetics are and are not. While graphics helps render the game video better as technology improves, aesthetics defines how well the game looks. Graphics is used to serve the needs of aesthetics. The same is said of sound, music, tactile (vibration), etc. (Another definition I have always held to is that aesthetics is the aggregate of all forms of sensation - visual, audible, tactile.) Aesthetics = STYLE, the emotional context of the experience, encompassing every aspect of the game - from sounds, to mechanics, to music... They go on to show how high quality rendering (graphics) fails to make unified visuals and thus poor aesthetics; and then point to examples where 1980s graphics have succeeded due to their color palette being chosen very carefully to demonstrate unity- cohesiveness; character proportions are stylized; etc... Aesthetics immerse players into the game essentially, and help the mechanics come alive. This is one of the best tutorials on not only what aesthetics are and are not, but why aesthetics are so critical to any level design. But it also goes to show how little control we have over aesthetics, how over 90% of the aesthetics of all our maps are defined strictly by Halo itself. For example, the time of day, the fog or clouds, the grassy knoll on Ravine, the forerunner structure on Ravine, the vehicular speeds and behaviors (flipping), these all contribute to aesthetics. This is why Ravine fails - the forerunner structure is completely out of place with the Ravine palette of spartan structures. The only portion of aesthetics that we can control are what color of blocks do we use, what patterns are on those blocks, how they are arranged (in a cohesive pattern or randomly). We can aide in bringing healthy aesthetics out by quality forging using illusion and playing on perception. Or we can hinder aesthetics by just forging a pile of blocks in a seemingly random pattern. Here is an example of how we have control over aesthetics for our maps. In the first picture I built three structures that look dramatically different from each other. Each of these structures look very well built, but together in the same map they look awkward or out of place. Think of a structure from Boardwalk on the same canvas as Reflection - okay, that is extreme, but you get the point. They don't look like they came from the same PLACE. They don't look like they belong together at all. While this map served a purpose of exploring concepts in level design for me to learn from, I knew it reached its end of usefulness only because the structures lacked cohesive architecture. The overall aesthetics suffered as a result. In the second picture, I rebuilt the entire map using only two architectural designs for all the buildings and only one unifying architectural design for the ramps and tops of the walls (2x2 flat). All the patterns were very similar to each other, from the walls of the circular buildings to the walkways on top the walls - they featured the unifying soft gray stripe. Essentially, I unified the aesthetics of all the structures, both the wall and the buildings. This is why I say that aesthetics is not more important than play, and yet it isn't any less important than play, for it contributes to the immersion into the play. This is also why I say the two are equally possible and there is never an excuse to have less of either.
I don't think an argument for people to improve aesthetics of purely "functional" maps as I am terming them, needs to also be an argument for not caring about or should make gameplay quality secondary. what I'd like to express is a desire to see those amazingly functional and gameplay-focused maps also contain more of a theme or aestheticly pleasing nature to them. it would be nice to see a little more decor on some maps considered to be great.
I hate when maps don't have pieces properly aligned. It's one thing to freehand particular piece or few pieces, but I go into Edit Coordinates on 99% of all my pieces so everything looks nice.
All excellent points Mr. Green. My question for you would be this, since the author of this thread didn't respond and I'd still like to get my question answered by someone. You consider both aesthetics and gameplay to be highly important, neither more important than the other, so this question would likely depend on the situation, but what do you do in cases where you have to cut back on aesthetics to improve gameplay?
Again, I don't think that question is valid. I don't believe it is either one or the other. In my first example, I developed the elements to the point where I knew what I wanted to do. But I also knew that the aesthetics were really bad due to the lack of cohesion between the structural architectures. My solution was to start over, maintain all the elements that produced the play I wanted, and at the same time build the map from the ground up using a unified architecture to bring out a much better overall aesthetics. I guess that in order to answer your question better perhaps I should ask you for a specific example that demonstrates your question.
well can't we say that this all depends on what the forger desires to be the main focus on the particular map? Sure, one can make a beautiful map that plays badly. One can also make a map that plays great but looks bland and generic. One can also perfectly blend the two, but that requires compromises on both ends. One thing is clear though, that if a map is intended to be competetive and possibly used for matchmaking someday, then Gameplay should be primary and Aesthetics probably secondary but STILL THERE. Even if a map is 90% devoted to gameplay I believe a little extra effort can also make it look nice which will really make people want to DL because they can see that it will be a nice locale for a battle.
I believe there are a number of examples if your map is sufficiently complex or elaborate, or if you're trying to build a structure you know would offer good gameplay but is shaped in such a way that it basically is required for it to either be ugly, or use a performance-hindering number of objects. It probably depends how you approach map design. If you are able to rebuild something from scratch with architectural and object-level unity, and don't mind changing (and perhaps compromising) your original conception of the map in some ways, then you probably don't often have to sacrifice aesthetics. However, I often find myself in situations where I've built a map I'm 95% happy with, that I think offers interesting and good gameplay in some particular ways, that would be less interesting/good if I had to change its layout in any substantial way. That puts me in a serious bind if I've run out of two object categories and have to use inclines or walls in place on blocks to finish that last structure. It probably is very beneficial to be more flexible (I know I could stand to be more flexible - I fall in love with my sketches and layouts in all their details, which binds my hands as far as rebuilding the map too much), and also less ambitious in some ways. One map I had an issue getting releasable was a BTB map I made for Reach. It had a layout I thought was going to work very well, and ultimately it did, but it was so object-intensive that I was forced to used the largest, cheapest pieces whenever possible. Ultimately the aesthetics of it weren't BAD (it had a basically unified look), but they could have been a lot better if I'd been able to keep some of the things I did in the original build, before I realized I simply didn't have enough objects or budget, or good enough framerate, to keep them. The finished version of that map was, I believe, as economically made as any map in Reach, and ultimately built of mostly about a dozen specific objects for maximum visual cohesion, but I definitely sacrificed the prettier version of the map I intended to make for the extremely plain one I ended up with. And mostly that was caused by the sheer hugeness of the thing, not the complexity of the layout or any wastefulness on my part as a builder. Short version: I think if object limits in all categories were about twice as high as they are now, if framerate and lighting glitches were never an issue, then it would be possible to never have to sacrifice aesthetics for gameplay. But sometimes the limits of forge as it exists now make it necessary. Or at the very least, it becomes necessary to sacrifice your original concept for something else - maybe something more streamlined, smaller, less complicated, or just plain different in certain key ways. You have to choose which of those you want to sacrifice. Some people choose one and some people choose the other.
Isn't this just one of those what do you like better topics? Both Gameplay and Aesthetics are important factors in just having a good time playing. People have all kinds of tastes. I bet there is someone out there who would prefer to have the simple minimalist single block shown in the video rather than the larger structure that is supposed to be the improve version. Gameplay is going to also be individual and hard to rate too. There's all kinds of Halo players... jump-n-shoot, run-n-gun, slow-n-steady, hide-n-ambush to new a few. Gameplay is different to them all. Personally I'm not a fan of open arenas. I like corridors and single paths to have gun fights with teams holding each end. The best maps will appeal to the broadest range of Gameplay types and also cover a big range of Aesthetic tastes. You gotta have a blend, you can't really pick one.
there is a third category to consider as well, and I suppose it's a hybrid of gameplay and aesthetics... Mechanics. If you have some sort of cool idea for a mechanism ofsome sort that you'd like to build a map a round, it behooves you to first nail-down that mechanism and get it to work flawlessly, that way you know how many pieces you have left for everything else... If you have a cool idea for a new type of lift system, get it working really good then decide what you can connect to it given what's left. if that end result doesn't offer stellar gameplay by competetive standards, but the mechanism and associated gameplay are "fun" and unique and give your map something that stands out, I'd say you've accomplished your personal goal for it. But all in all I agree w/ Mr. Green that if one sits down and focusses on recreating things with the idea of blending aesthetics and gameplay that within a few builds you can definitely get there. honestly sometims it's more like what NutDuster said that when you have something that's dear to your heart you just don't want to tear it down and start over, even though if you were selling a product you'd be forced to. That's what makes forge an artistic canvas IMO. Each "artist" gets to decide when their painting is "finished". Some are never finished.
Here is a very interesting Extra Credits episode that talks about aesthetics, and in it they define aesthetics more as an emotive driver - what emotion does a game give you that drives you to play the game. In this definition, they point to a paper that talks on the subject. The paper defines 8 classes of emotions, and the EC episode defines a ninth emotion to add to the list. But after reading that paper, I think the paper covered the subject rather thinly... was not impressed at all. I like the Extra Credits' video better, much more substance to the topic.
A good map has both aesthetics and gameplay. Check out the trailer I did for Ciela. Beautiful looking map, but also plays superbly.
agree that the ideal situation is to blend both perfectly. in order for a map to be a 10/10 for me, it needs to be really fun to play, reliable experience match to match, and look nice enough for me to want to actually look at it.
I think nutduster hit the nail on the head when he said it is a false dichotomy. The only time the two are in conflict is when the budget runs out. Then you have a choice, but gameplay and aesthetics are not the only options. Reducing the size of the map, creatively using built map walls or simply changing the type of game to be played on that map are all options.
Gameplay > Aesthetics It seems that now-a-days, people are judging maps too harsh based off of aesthetics. Yeah they are what makes a map appealing to the eye, but not what makes them good maps. Truely geat maps are the ones that have a gret design, flow, and overall good experience. I can't believe I'm saying this, (because I used to be 100% aesthetics based.) but GAMEPLAY > AESTHETICS. Forge isn't meant to be a mode to create the next iconic Halo map, it was originally intended for swapping weapons and spawns. Maybe throwing down a crate here and there. Then we got Foundry and were able to design our own maps. Some of the best custom maps I've ever played did not look amazing, or even good for that matter. Take a look back to the past... Temple Nights Kentucky Tango Ramparts Amazing and fun maps, that aren't drop dead sexy. They were "straight to the point" so to say. I've been forging ever since Halo 3 shipped, and if there is anything I've learned over the years, it's that gameplay stomps out aesthetics. Afterall, what good is a map that's pretty if it doesn't play as well as it could? Personally, I still work a lot with looks of a map, but my overall goal is a fun and smooth map. I've definately had to sacrifice aesthetics for gameplay, and it made me wonder why I wasted all my time making one small good-looking area when I can have the same play-style for a more plain look. Lastly, I made this thread because I'm sick of seeing maps that have a good concept, or design be tossed aside because they aren't visually breathtaking... So I'll say to you, try to keep an open mind 4chub. Afterall, the forge pieces are ugly themselves, why put makeup on a pig?
Aesthetics give a good first impression. Gameplay give a good lasting impression. Aesthetics can enhance gameplay. THERE. DONE.
Both are ideal. No one wants to play on a map that looks like garbage and no one wants to play on a map that plays like garbage.