So, I'm reading these forums and those on Bungie.net and it's becoming increasingly obvious that there is bias around whether or not a map is good based solely on the usage of interlocking. A lot of people are suggesting that non-interlocked maps are crap simply because they lack interlocking. Thus, I wanted to voice my opinion. I use interlocking in my maps, but I don't interlock just for the sake of interlocking. Interlocking is a tool. Nothing less. Nothing more. I interlock where appropriate for number of reasons..., including aesthetics, space usage, shape manipulation, etc. Bungie didn't use interlocking on the original Foundry, but I don't see a lot of people calling their designers unskilled. Now, I'm a research chemist by profession and a hobby artist on the side. In my profession, I use chemicals when and where they make sense. I do not include chemicals simply for the sake of inclusion. Likewise, and of more value to the discussion, in my art I use only that which is required to accomplish my vision. There comes a point in any piece of art when the artist needs to put his paintbrush (so to speak) down and just walk away. Inclusion for the sake of inclusion does not make a map professional or increase it's playability. Some maps may use interlocking excessively, but with great success while other will simply fail. Ultimately, it's about the entire package. Layout, design, usage, etc. I have one map that I used no interlocking on and I've had nothing but good comments. I have another map where I interlocked over half the objects because it made sense. I think we need to discourage this kind of bias and judge each map individually for it's playability, originality and complexity. I liken an understanding of this idea to the difference between two types of poetry. On the one hand, we have Homer's epic poems (Iliad & Odyssey) which are awesome pieces of writing. On the other hand we have Japanese Haiku's which, in just three lines, can be as amazing and brilliantly crafted as anything Homer wrote. Please, use some judgement in criticizing the usage of interlocking... and when criticizing the usage of any forge tool for that matter. I'd like to see someone contact Bungie and tell them they didn't plan their Foundry design well simply because they failed to interlock. That's all I have. Happy forging. -- Rev
Thank you. I have seen people flame good maps because they didn't interlock many things. (One of them was on Standoff. There was barely anything to interlock!)
I remember Zero saying that to me the other day. He gave my map 0/5 because it wasnt interlocked, when it was. But the fact that the interlocking was the first thing he looked for, on a Standoff map. Jeeaz thats retarded.
I enjoyed reading that, you sir are getting a rep point. Anyways your argument was well presented and very compelling. I completely agree as well, interlocking is a tool and it doesn't have to be used all of the time. I think the main reason people interlock and merge is so that they can expand the limits of forging it self in order to be innovative. Also many people can't drop their bias, it seems that interlocking is expected. Although, as a map maker I want to go the extra distance to interlock once I have implemented a succesful design. I never make a map around it's "features". I make the map first and then implement those tools to make the map stand out and potentially increase gameplay and replay value. Also it really isn't all that difficult to interlock when you have practiced it. I do agree that there is a bias, but as far as making maps go, I want to interlock to make the best map I possibly can. I want to implement unique design.
i agree with the points you made but only to a certain extent interlocking does not only look good/keep grenades from getting stuck in between the boxes etc... but it also shows that you spent time on the map. time that many others would not take while making a map.
You cannot judge a map if it is interlocked or not in my opinion. Though, if interlocking is needed, then it should be done. You cant have a wall jutting out for no reason... So I only agree with you to a certain point.
I've heard people call Lockout horrible. I've heard people call Mid-Ships horrible. I've heard people call every map Bungie has ever made horrible... but they still play them all and they still have loads of fun.
I would call interlocking a technique more than a tool. Tool implies that it helps the map, and that everyone can do it. Sure it's easy to do but it requires a bit of skill and to place it correctly and efficiently. Obviously you can't see it, but there has been some discussion in Premium about foundry's default map, and how it because of it's lack of the said technique. If you've looked through bungie's maps they have some odd choices for spawns and weapons among other things. They make the maps very casually oriented, snipers are always in high ledge type locations. However interlocking is really only a foundry technique because of it's use, judging other maps on interlocking is ridiculous. That being said, foundry maps should be judged on their use of interlocking, not their inclusion of interlocking. I agree that in some maps it's not necessary, or require just a little for aesthetical purposes. Heh, I wish I could comment about this at this time =p TL;DR version: Interlocking is still a good technique and should be judge on usage not inclusion. /agree I'd have to say this is one of the best topics at FH since Lance still debated here.
First, interlocking IS a tool, and DOES help maps in every single scenario. If you have map A and map B, both with the same design, weapons, spawns and one is interlocked and the other isn't, the choice is simple. And everyone can interlock. Just because they haven't done it yet, doesn't mean they can't do it. Some might be better than others, but everyone can do it. It really is that easy. If you ask the top forgers why they interlock, aesthetics probably isn't their #1 reason. Interlocking's first and primary focus is to keep the focus on the action, and making sure your creation doesn't get in the way of your creation, so to speak. One of my all-time favorite maps, Pitfall, isn't interlocked one bit by the way. I think that the most common misconception is that interlocking is an aesthetic technique first. Which it shouldn't be... if it is, your map is more than likely going to lack gameplay-wise.
The only thing I have to complain about, is that Homers "Odyssey" and most likely (I haven't read it yet) was the dryest book (poem really, but you get what i'm saying) i've ever read. But on the subject, interlocking is simply used because it's easier to walk on. No one wants to be walking and suddenly there movement of strafe or running with the flag is hindered because of a box not interlocked. But content, layout, and playability should come before of course.
I agree with you 100%. I made the same thread like last week about the unessecary importance of interlocking in maps. Peolpe always stress that a map "should" have interlocking in it, and if they don't, then the map is bad...
"Tool implies that it helps the map, and that everyone can do it." Semantics really and arguable either way, but that's neither here nor there. It's not that I think maps should or shouldn't be interlocked. It's that I don't think maps should be judged solely on the usage of interlocking. As Lightout225 said, one of his favorite maps used absolutely no interlocking. Perhaps the most downloaded map around uses no interlocking... uses virtually no structure at all actually. (That would be Grifball) Interlocking does not equate to fun and the lack of interlocking does not equate to suck. Somebody said that interlocking requires more planning and thought, but I would argue that trying to make a map fun and acceptable without interlocking requires even more thought and planning considering the current bias. By the way... thank you for the Rep point. I have no idea what the means but thank you.
=p Yeah I agree, as I said, it should be on the quality of the map whether interlocking is in it or not. If interlocking works in favour then thats good for it, but it shouldn't be a base judging for the map. NO INTERLOCK 0/5 LOLZ Grifball is the epitome of bad examples imo. Way to take others ideas, and use your popularity to showcase a terribly made map. I seriously have like 3-4 grifball-like maps (one being FH's attempt at Rugby) made well before RT used their fanbase to get some downloads >.> But your right my rant has nothing to do with what your saying, those maps on Sandtrap and Epitaph were still fun without interlocking. And trying to make the map fun and acceptable with interlocking? Taking grifball as an example, I doubt they knew what interlocking was at the time, (or even now) they just had an idea and made it. If you look at the many unnoticed maps with new Grifball arenas, they look much better because of interlocking (and planning) they just aren't downloaded because of popularity. Meh Look in your User CP for your rep amount. I +rep'd you as well
One of my first posted maps had almost no interlocking, because of the maps vehicular warfare on it, I wasn't going to fill the map with a bunch of interlocked items and make it so the vehicles have to room to maneuver. I know it wasn't my best, but it still was a lot of fun to play. Due to my lack of interlocking, I got 2 DL's I believe. Oh wells, I must interlock more if I want some peeps to DL.
Not everyone is good at interlocking, so even if they was to interlock, it wouldn't look as good as someone who is a professional at doing it. So not only maps with no interlocking gets rejected, but maps that are poorly interlocked due to lack of skills get rejected as well.
You know, I posted a thread about the same thing a few weeks back (Interlocking: Required?) and I do agree on one thing: People place too much importance on interlocking. The first reply in almost every thread is "innovative interlocking!" or "needs more interlocking." If something truly innovative rolls along, then yea, they get noticed for it, but most of the first replies on otherwise solid maps is "interlocking interlocking interlocking."
Honestly, this is the greatest forum currently running. anyway, i agree with you 100%. Its the use of interlocking, not inclusion, that counts. Thx man this topic is awesome
*...agreed* To be honest, without the use of interlocking, you're limited in what you create by the fundamental dimensions and shape of the items you place. Creating a good-looking, smooth-playing, well-designed map becomes a whole heap easier with interlocking. I'm not disagreeing with you, quite the opposite ... people shouldn't immediately be judgemental of a map because of the lack of a certain technique. Generally speaking, you can tell straight away from the first couple of pictures wether or not the map is going to be worth a download, or even marginally good. Sloppy walls and gaps between boxes etc aren't really acceptable in a fast-paced gamespace (i'm sure many people will agree), or in general. If you're gonna post a map, you do so because you're proud of your creation and (ultimately) you are wanting praise for your hours of work and vision (as well as all that creating stuff for the community nonsense ). So you're obviously going to put to use all of the tools at your disposal to make something unique, giving a new experience to people (to an extent). Granted, when you're a true n00b, you aren't gonna be posting majorly complex uber-interlocked play-spaces, but that just brings forth the argument for having a separate area for those who are truly just starting out, as opposed to those who are far and above the rest of us. I think i deviated from my point ...