To clarify a bit, "lazy cover" doesn't refer to crates and scenery objects directly [as an overall concept]. Halo forgers and players specifically associate the term "lazy cover" with those types of objects due to what we have at our disposal in Forge and how it works. Crates and scenery pieces are used often in "lazy cover" circumstances quite frequently due to them working with the environment aesthetic/theme a bit better and looking more "organic" and more subtle than say a block of concrete in the center of a room.
Q: What's the difference between jam and jelly? A: Dezert Fuze can't jelly another forger's **** down his throat
But you will still like it. That's the beauty of it. No matter how much it isn't what you want, it is really what you will enjoy. You can't deny yourself the pleasures of life, my friend. Believe me. Believe me.
If you want crates, place them against walls. If you don't do that, you get a battle that devolves into running in circles around a crate, avoiding each other that eventually ends with one player climbing on top and ground pounding the other. That is not competitive, that is idiotic. The same thing applies with columns and cylinders. Except here, you can't even jump on top and end it. You just chase each other like a dog chasing it's tail. So when its a crate, you're basically placing a band-aid fix that doesn't actually fix anything. It just helps make it slightly less bad.
From a broad perspective, which I think is where you're coming from with this inquiry, it doesn't matter what the specific shape or appearance is of any individual thing within a play-space. There's no single object that should be absolutely avoided. What matters is the holistic experience that those individual pieces produce. If someone disagrees with your use of a particular object in a particular location, feel free to ignore them (I know I ignore 95% of what people say). Forgers have this obsession with needing extremely specific feedback about why their map either works or doesn't work. One of the side effects of this is a tendency to over analyze every little detail. This can sometimes be useful, but very often it's counterproductive. I remember back in my days on the MLG forums, the general consensus was that pro players didn't understand level design, and weren't able to give 'good feedback' on maps. Personally, I feel like they were actually focusing on the correct thing (whether or not a map played well according to their standards on a holistic level). As people that sometimes spend hours scrutinizing the smallest details of our maps, it becomes hard to step away from small details and actually see a map for what it truly is. There's a natural tendency to take that extreme attention to detail and then apply it to everything we encounter in the level design world. To me, this thread is a good reminder to keep the details in perspective. It's not that they're not important. It's just that their importance is generally greatly overstated within this community. A shift in the balance towards a more holistic view of things would be good I think.
Anyone can do what they want. We all have are pet peeves. My pet peeves being teleporter direction/placement and people being perfectionists. If you let yourself get hung up to much on things. You will never improve. If you hold yourself in to high of a regard. You will never improve. If you quit designing because you ****ing can't stand a game. You will never improve. If you take the time to argue over something that truly doesn't matter because everything is on a per map basis. You will never improve. If you spend all your time sucking ****. You improve. Now what is actually improving? Who the **** can objectively say outside of the art side of design someone improves? Glad to see you haven't changed Green or improved.
And if you never think that art is important to a map.... You never improve. Honestly can't figure out where you are coming from with that post. What's up with you anyway?
He must be on a diet. I know first hand how grouchy I get when I'm on a diet. How did you read his post and come to the conclusion that he doesn't think art is important? He just stated that art is the one area where you can objectively say that someone has improved.
His position in the past had been that game play is everything, implying that art is irrelevant. But wtf was up with his comment at me? Looking closer at his comment you should look again. He excluded art as an area of improvement. His view I don't think has changed.
I think after years of interacting with each other, it's inevitable that people will get annoyed by other people. You two obviously have very different ideas about what's important in the context of game/level design. I don't think it's anything other than him expressing some frustration about that. I know I type up smartass replies to people all the time when they say things I don't like or agree with. I just usually don't hit that little button that says "Post Reply", so nobody sees it, lol. (I hate you all) ~end of armchair psychologist interlude~
Ya, I can understand. It surprises me though, I guess because I am not the kind of guy to just throw **** at someone I haven't interacted with for quite some time like he did (unless it is schnitzel, that ***** *** ****** ******).
If you keep a simple yet admirable aesthetic, you can focus much more on the most important factor of MP level design... gameplay. The balance may not be even, but it is more than satisfactory in my book. Look at maps like Heads Up, Cobalt, Frank, and CE Box, they do this amazingly. And the best part is there are little to no cracks, bumps, or seems to be found -- it's perfect. Kind of off-topic but you get my point.