Okey dokey, I thought I'd make a topic after being so disliked upon for my critiquing style (another website), which is understandable even from my point of view. This is a look into my head to see what I see as a quality, interesting map. The following three things are going to be talked upon in depth about in my opinion, meaning these are things that I think to myself before both planning and forging a map. Please don't look at me as an ignorant punk who only appreciates the best things, but as someone willing to help by giving an honest opinion. Please note that I do not have any biased opinions about any maps listed below nor their creators, they are merely used for example purposes. Now, on to the guide. Interlocking Interlocking, the heart and soul of most maps nowadays. "You don't interlock, you don't try hard enough" is most people's opinion on the subject. There are times where interlocking objects is required, yes, but there is such a thing where interlocking becomes unnecessary. Interlocking should be used to fill in those tiny gaps in between boxes to make a flat surface, to make that one piece just right with the others, to make a perfect level of cover. Good example of Interlocking: The Boxes are interlocked just slightly enough to create a smooth floor, the bridge is at a perfect level with the boxes it's interlocked into, and the creator didn't go crazy and interlock those A and B signs at the top. Bad example of Interlocking: Bad use of boxes, the map could have saved supplies if he had interlocked his floor like the last map. The fence wall bridge peeking out at the corner of the picture could have been interlocked down to make a smooth floor, but he chose to focus more on the double boxes looking nice than the game play of the map itself. No one enjoys that silly bump, now do they? Unnecessary Interlocking: I'm referring to the giant double box structures hovering atop the map, these do not affect game play as they are practically above the height limit. They are there purely for aesthetic value, which at most times is not a bad thing, but many other points on the map could have been affected for the better if these double boxes were used for cover structures, and such. The platform the picture is centered around, though, makes good use of the skill to make it's own geometry. Merging immovable objects with Geometry This technique is much more difficult than interlocking, but when used (correctly) can really make your map's game play skyrocket. But, alike Interlocking, there become times that merging with geometry becomes laughable when seeing some of the pointless ways it's used. Good example of Geometry Merging: The map creator used merging to a very fine degree, making things merged only so that they would be level with other objects, a very nice job. Bad example of Geometry Merging: There is no point to these double boxes being merged into the ground other than to prove that the creator could do it, really, and they hurt the map's overall game play. Unnecessary Geometry Merging: Focus on the merged double box near the left of the screen shot, is there any reason at all that must be merged that low? Take that out and you could still have a merged fence wall, that is most certainly an unnecessary merge. Aesthetics Breaking away from my last two guides, this one is purely for what I believe makes your map truly original. Too many maps these days abuse the "Tele-node lights" first implemented in Furious D 18's "Exacted" (see below), or focus their maps on a single aesthetic design, such as Draw the Line's "End of the Line (see below), which isn't necessarily a "bad" thing when done, but it isn't the original flair that these maps brought to the community! What makes a map spectacular most of the time is one one centered around interesting geometry with fantastic game play included! Furious D 18's "Exacted; Flower Node" Draw the Line's "End of the Line" One map that comes to mind that involves both interesting geometry and fantastic game play is IVLatty's "Reflex" (see below). It involves a tunnel system that isn't the only focal point on the map, as there are many more interesting additions besides this, such as an aesthetic "criss-cross" roof, a rounded wall, a merged dumpster cover (an unnecessary merge, yet still aesthetic), and many other tiny things that could be added to one's map to make it original. Another fantastic example of this would be Tom D Harding's "Paragon" (see below), which centers around very competitive one sided objective games. IVLatty's "Reflex" Tom D Harding's "Paragon" In closing, instead of adding tele nodes and aesthetic merges to an ordinary map you've made, create a map centered around many interesting things, things other people haven't created themselves! I can't give you any ideas for some, as these maps must be your own, but I hope this helps affect the way you plan your map, next time. This is still entirely my opinion, of course, but this is, again, what I see as a great map. If you can't get the point I'm trying to get across, here are the things I was trying to get through to you all by making this guide; - Do not sacrifice game play to make an aesthetic detail. - Use supplies wisely and take the time to make every area of your map as clean as another. - Try to only geomerge or interlock when completely necessary, and don't abuse to two. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
well my friend great reveiw you may be criticized so be prepared but i think it was a good reveiw of your beleifs
Domi I agree with everything you said here. I would never get mad at you for rating tough, as long as it wasn't flaming. When I post a map, I'm not seeking approval as a main objective. I'm seeking constructive criticism of how many things I can improve in my next map. It's nice to have people say how much they love the map, but the commments that acually help the most are the ones that say things about how to improve the map in specific and general ways. And also many great maps I see and people say "could use more interlocking/geomerging because the players like to see it." But really to me the functionality of the map outweighs the map in my judgement. I think a lot of how the maps are judged are unneccessary aesthetics and not how well the gameplays. And people will overlook problems (like the fence bridge from your example) because something else looks attractive. Thank you for saying everything I've been thinking but didn't have the courage, attention span, or words to say. I have a new found respect and love for you.
You're entitled to your opinion, though some of your map choices for discussion there seem..hmm iuno. Basically your right on what you said, except truthfully..there really isn't any "unnecessary" interlocking. The example you gave there with the boxes on the ceiling are as you said ascetic, but if he didn't need them there they were put in the perfectly place. Maps need ascetics, even if they are competitive, otherwise they don't look or feel professional. I mean, yeah if someone did a crap load of boggled down interlocking in one spot that is unnecessary, but other than that..ascetics are full of win. When it comes to the geo merging, yeah almost all of it is ugly, unnecessary and gameplay hindering..but occasionally it looks good. Anyway..all in all good stuff. But maybe you wanna change the title? I has kinda thought you were looking for suggestion because you were writing a guide. Anyway +rep.
I think this 'Guide' (more like brilliant opinions) may open peoples eyes to the possibilities of Forge. Whenever I used to go into Forge, I would think,"Time to make a map." Now, I think,"Time to put forth my creativity...into everything." Whoever dislikes you on that other forum, which is related to Forge I am guessing, is truly lying. Btw, I tried to +rep you, but it seems I've recently gave you +rep.
I kind of believe most of the things you discussed were un-important ,or you just got a little to paranoid. Like the unnecessary interlocking.I think that it makes the map actually better.I eman if it wasn't interlocked it would be a beam with tiny little gaps in between which wouldn't feel or look right.I mean as you said it actually doesn't affect game play so why bother.It didn;t waster our time it wasted the map creators time so thats his problem. The bad merging isn't bad.Its actually quite alligned and if they were standing up or not there the map would not be the same.Yes he could of put somethign else there but I belive it makes the map feel more realistic.And maybe that could even be aesthetic-ish. The unnecessarymerging makes the map feel much more better.Double boxes merged into the ground = ****ing awsome.I mean it basically does just act as the floor which is actually a waste of time but it shows the creator put time into his work which subsequently got it featured.As I said before why even bother. But with everythign else I do totally agree.Most amatuer map makers interlock the important things but not the ones that really matter.And really who the **** likes stupid bumps in a map? Please don't take what I said personally and this was actually a bit helpful to me =). Good work dom.
I have to agree with the majority of what was said, but not all of it. In most cases I agree: a lot of creators simply add interlocking, geo-glitching, etc to the maps basically to prove they can do it. However, this is not always the case. In your example for the unnecessary geomerging, perhaps the creator had a point to his/her merge. Maybe they wanted to make it so the boxes could be seen over. Maybe they wanted your head to be slightly exposed as you ran along the wall. Maybe they just didn't want you to feel safe using that area as cover, to keep the action moving around. The point I'm trying to make is, I think it's at least fairly uncommon for people to put things in their map that is in their mind unnecessary. Especially without budget glitching, every dollar counts. If the creator spent that extra $4 to stick a double box in the ground, or the extra time to interlock a bunch of boxes floating in the air, there was probably a reason. Except for all you aesthetic map making people. You basically just do everything to look cool XD
whoa, glad to see this pinned. i saw this posted at lgnation first tho which usually doesnt happen. anyway, i'll say the same i said there. the guide is wonderful and i really love the aesthetics section you wrote. If people follow that guideline... I think we would see a lot more unique and original maps here at forge hub.
I dislike your repeated bashing of Jedwali and I especially dislike you using a map by a less experienced forger in the second image as an example of "what not to do". You describe how merging boxes in Jedwali is unnecessary. You describe how elaborate overhead interlocking in Jedwali is bad. You then present images of paragon and reflex which both have these same features, and tell us these are lovely aesthetic features. Contradicting yourself much. I suggest you edit it and remove the negative examples. Tell us what we should do, not what we should not. I agree with your final conclusion, but much of the body of text I do not. Just like any technique in forge, interlocking and merging will sometimes be done badly and sometimes be done well. The techniques themselves aren't to blame, don't tell people not to use them.
I gave a few examples from maps where that I saw could use improvement, I would've included pictures from any map that, again, I saw could have used (in my opinion) improvement. I'm not bashing anyone nor any map as some (not only you) have claimed, but anyone would indeed get angry from me using their maps in a negative fashion. I'm going to substitute the second picture of 'Jedwali' with another map seeing as how many think I'm bashing it, but I'm not removing what, again, in my opinion could be improvement in a map. Oh, and just wanted to add this right here: The little overhead features on Jedwali, those aren't needed to help escape-proof the map on Paragon. On Reflex, meh, that is a bit contradicting I admit, but I doubt these bridges could have been placed somewhere else to improve game play, unlike the boxes on Jedwali. Don't be hatin' on my tryin' to halp, Sir.
Typing "in my opinion" doesn't make you unsusceptible to negative feedback. You have raised points and given suggestions and I have given feedback. I told you what I disliked in what you wrote, I told you how it appears you have contradicted yourself in places and I gave you suggestions for improvement. Having your map used as an example of poor use of techniques isn't nice no matter how you phrase it. I'm sure the creators of the maps shown as bad examples will agree, especially the author of second image. Criticising maps outside their own threads isn't something I approve of.
I'm not denouncing what you're saying, I'm giving you my viewpoints on why I wrote the guide, as it was written in my opinion. I'm not saying what you're telling me is wrong, I'm saying that it shouldn't affect my argument (the guide). Er... thank you? You sounded awful rude while giving it, apparently it went over my head. It's not a nice thing, no, but it's my opinion of something that could have used improvement. Most of the pictures I chose were from the featured maps forum, seeing how since those maps were featured they wouldn't mind my negative criticism; they still are feature worthy in my opinion, but they included areas that I think could have been improved. The second image was just the first picture I saw that included what I was talking about, but you're right, I could have posted this in his thread when I published the guide, though I doubt you knew that I hadn't. Anything else you would like to add, Sir?
Your example for good interlocking was great. Aeron has some of the best interlocking around. I'm a bit confused with what you were trying to say with bad interlocking, so I'll leave that alone. As for the 'useless interlocking', not so much. You aren't commenting on the interlocking, you are just commenting on the structure as a whole. Its fine that you think they those boxes could have been used elsewhere to make the map better. The author of the map obviously didn't think so. You have every right to disagree, but that doesn't that structure is useless interlocking. If the map was perfect (in YOUR opinion), and had a few extra boxes so he made that aesthetic structure, you would be fine with it, and put it with Paragon and Reflex for good aesthetics. But just cause you think it was a waste of objects, doesn't make it useless interlocking. P.S., I have never played Jedwali, so I have no opinion either way. Again, completely agree with good geo-merging. Same with the useless interlocking, your example of bad geomerging was not the best. Those boxes have a purpose in gameplay, and the author wanted those to be there. Just cause you don't agree with the placement doesn't mean it is 'bad'. Unnecessary Geomerging is where you start getting contradictory. You compliment Reflex and Paragon for features similar to this. They serve little to no purpose, but the make the map look better. That box was merged to serve no purpose in gameplay, but give the map a different and better feel. So you may not like the aesthetics it gives, that doesn't make it unnecessary. It was made for aesthetics, and thats what it does.
Urgh. No one gets what I'm saying, at all. Instead of taking the time to counter every point you just made like the last thread, I'm just going to leave you with a few bullets that I was trying to get through with this guide, Soccer. - Do not sacrifice game play to make an aesthetic detail. - Use supplies wisely and take the time to make every area of your map as clean as another. - Try to only geomerge or interlock when completely necessary, and don't abuse to two. I'm going to edit this into the OP, so y'all can quit bugging me about it.
I have no problem with your points, its just I don't think you worded them right. You were giving constructive criticism to those maps (or compliments), but they didn't really fit with what you were saying with interlocking and geomerging. In your opinion, you thought he sacrificed gameplay to make that struture, and thats fine. I agree with those points, but saying that its 'bad interlocking' or 'bad geomerging' just isn't true. Its bad placement. At least in your opinion. I would just change the examples you use. Although I don't believe in useless interlocking, there are better examples out there. The only 'bad' interlocking is something that shouldn't even be there in the first place, so its not even about the interlocking. I understood what you were saying, you just didn't say it right. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, I respect you. Just arguing over your points, thats all. I can have an opinion too!
Basically Mallet, what he is trying to get across here, is that you don't haaaaaaaave to do merging / interlocking to an extreme extent. He may have pictures of the maps, which are kind of obvious to those of us who know what they are. Though, this guide is here to help those who are relatively new to the world of forge, maybe even those that are experience. I agree that he shouldn't have bashed Jedwali twice, but that is irrelevant, he had to get this point out there, it is something that everyone needs to hear, as in today's world of forge, "needz moar intarloking" is kind of an old, tiring phrase(Another reason why I created The Lazy Mapmaker's Contest). I'm waiting for the day when we see some great median where both interlocking / merging meet not interlocking / merging. We all know of the great maps, such as Cat n Mouse, Tremors, Boss Battle, etc etc etc...swings...hobo heights...Gah, you get the maps I am talking about...They are all without interlocking, yet they are the best maps to date, even today's maps of epic win, still don't compare to the classics. I think you've brought up something that should have been long discussed dommie-boy. Though, you missed one thing, "Originality," You really should have gone over it, as it is probably one of the most important things in map-making. If people can create something new, then they have hit a gold-mine. Oh, and btw... *Added to the Forge Tutorial Master Index* lulz
i agree with most of this. What some people arent getting, I think, is the difference between things that you say should almost never be done and things that can be done, but that can easily be done wrong. For example, merging boxes inefficently(wasting half the box) or using insanely over-done unoriginal things like those little teleporter stars should never be done unless there is a very good reason. Aesthetic things in the ceiling like on reflex, paragon and jedwali can be done well and poorly. If you do it well it looks good, wouldnt be better somewhere else, and/or serves a purpose in addition to being aesthetic(like preventing escapes). In reflex it looks good and there isnt really anywhere on the map that is lacking extra objects. On paragon is looks good and stops escapes. On Jedwali it looks nice, but there are some areas in the corners where he just kind of threw some junk to make it look complete that i guess could have been replaced with some structure. This gets into a lot of opinion tho ^^
Dom, you shouldn't tear apart Mallet's post that is soo gamefaqsy What you are saying in your guide makes sense, and it's great that you included pictures, but somethings are not your opinion necessary. One: I don't care that you are being contradictory in some of the statements made, and Two: Your maps choices could have been called many things. The only real issue here and the only thing people are disagreeing with (in the form of you "hatin" on jedwali, whether you are or you aren't) is that you said that his interlocked high structure and some geo-merging is unnecessary and hinders gameplay. The point you are trying to make here makes sense, is very true and should be talked about: The only issue here is: Maybe he didn't sacrifice gameplay? Maybe the ascetics were last? Maybe the geomerging was his idea of increasing gameplay? Maybe his map was well planned out and his materials accounted for? Maybe the gameplay just sucks in general and even though he thought he was done and thought he could build in the ascetics his overall map wasn't great? The only thing that matters here is that the map maker thought he was done and happy with his map. Whether its good or bad is a different story. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is: He released a map he was happy with and whether or not the map was built right or the boxes shouldn't have been in the air doesn't matter. His base structure was what it wanted to be extra boxes or not. Maybe the gameplay sucks, but adding those boxes in would have changed the map. All in all, maybe a different example would be better? On a side note: I haven't played Jedwali, and I'm not critiquing it nor am I say whether or not I think it's "good" or "bad". I think the problem is Dom, that some of the people reading this are thinking "Well I always build my gameplay first and my ascetics last if I have the materials." With the caliber of forger Mallet is, I think he has this ingrained and didn't see that point (in honestly I didn't either until you came out and said it, because I as well build ascetics last). All in all Dom, like Tex said, you make some good points Dom and overall this is a good read and very informative. Despite the controversy of pictures I still will say great guide and +rep Edit: Lol I gave you rep for this already..I'm very forgetful
I gave you feedback and criticism and the reply I got was that it was your opinion. You are still arguing this point. What the ****. I know its your god damn opinion. What I said is mine. Is that not the point of a forum? Exchanging ideas, views and suggests? Debating and questioning each others ideas? You publicly point out flaws and errors in maps outside their threads and I tell you I dislike it. I did not tell you it is against the rules, I did not demand you change it, I told you I disliked it. Why are you telling me that me it should not affect your argument? I am not saying it should. It sounded awfully rude on purpose. See above for my comment: "Criticising maps outside their own threads isn't something I approve of". Why do you keep repeating what your points are. I agree with your final conclusion. You can find evidence of this on the first page where I said "I agree with your final conclusion". I do disagree however, with your criticism of jedwali, and the use of rather insulting "what not to do" examples. I also disagree that elaborate aesthetic features using interlocking or geo merging are unnecessary, but the OP is so confused and contrary on this point I don't know what to think. It's acceptable on reflex because the bridges couldn't have been put to better use, but it is bad in jedwali because the boxes could have? Advanced techniques should be used to fill small gaps that hurt gameplay, but should also be used to make big fancy structures to improve aestetics? Ugh. Tex find an example that isn't a mini game. Competitive maps are better with interlocking and geo merging, it is undeniable. Yellow won your no advanced technique contest and that sure as hell would be better if it were interlocked. It is a good example of how maps do not need interlocking, it is also a good example of how not using it does nothing but worsen the map. chrstphrbrnnn my maps are all about originality and aestetics and not gameplay. Definitely not gameplay. You couldn't be more wrong about my "ingrained" view. Concluding thought: what a giant ****ing waste of time typing that was.
My intent was not to insult you, and I apologize that I didn't realize you focused on ascetics, but the two maps I've played of yours (lunar chronicle and yellow) both have better gameplay than some competitive maps. My point was: most people at all experienced in forge would not build a map based on gameplay, than waste materials they need to build in ascetics. Not to say ascetics aren't important..because they not all make a map have more heart, they add a professional aspect. My point was is that the author of jedwali obviously felt that the gameplay aspect would not have been hindered by the use of boxes for ascetics, and therefore chose to "spice up" his map. Besides, technically..they do have a use. You can't throw a grenade up in the air really far with certain positioning of the boxes.