how to critique maps

Timmy is a noob and Sally can eat a ****.

 

Player orientation isn't a map problem?

 

KK just making sure. Usually, people use orientation to describe this.

Although emotional responses don't always relay information that is needed the best it often can give you insight on how to approach making these things clearer so the first play through for the next player like them is less likely to dog on the map. I know I used to get angry about it and yell "ignorance" etc. but as I have gotten older and heard feedback from everyone under the sun, these people have often given me information that is crucial for making maps for contests and matchmaking. They don't help that map but they help future maps.

Since a lot of what a level designer does is more psychological aesthetics become very important and when dealing with both a casual and competitive player base you are going to either (streamline maps for competitive but what competitive players often want is something with predictability and a high skill gap when it comes to snowballing an advantage. Presentation can hold this back by either the authors weapon choice/concept, visuals, and readability. You can still find some success with those who win early when exposed to the map. Then they convince their friend who might not like it why it is "good".

I think a lot this is misunderstood though. Because I see maps with ridiculously easy snowballs being promoted in this community. Yet I see what was stated in the previous paragraph being preached though. I am honestly confused by this and don't confuse a strong snowball with an easy snowball they are entirely different things. Easy snowballs allow players who are less skilled in either teamskill or gunskill to challenge a better team. This leads to rng in game results because a lesser team can execute it just as good as a better team because the skill ceiling and skill floor are both low on the map. I have played many maps that were somewhat confusing that plenty of forgers like and the competitive community hated. I however, just found the maps to have this easy snowball that was just making not like a map that plenty of others liked. Turns out besides just being a forge map if you pry enough at the salt you will get actual information on why they don't like the map and it is usually because of everything talked about in the previous paragraphs not meeting their criteria. Unfortunately, both communities have stereotyped each other. Players will give you a chance if you give them something they want to play they won't be nice but you can get feedback you just have to let go of your pride. Whether that be a map casuals get crushed on or not doesn't really matter. I prefer casuals getting crushed because I find the complaints hilarious.

Rant is rant with typos. Sorry for the little derail. This thread got me thinking.

 

In my experience, it is always best to do the research before you go forming an opinion. I would agree that it’s best to ask what kind of feedback the Forger is most interested in. Also, make sure they understand your strengths and weaknesses are, as a player. It also might be a good idea to discuss what kind of experience you tend to expect while playing Halo, and what kind of experience the Forger is trying to capture.

 

I don't give feedback anymore. Problem solved.

 

Player opinion is just as important as logical feedback. In the end, you are making a map for players to enjoy. The most illogical map can still be a player-favourite.

To correctly critique someone's map, you need to evaluate it yourself first, and present your own feedback from your own personal experiences. If you ignore the personal element of testing, you all end up saying exactly the same thing that the author will likely already know about the map in the first place.

 

Potentially... after three-to-five games on a map, you should have the basic understanding of the maps principles and designs which should lead you to be able to present a clear and precise critique.

In the first game, you find out only your own personal preferences to the maps. The locations where you die a lot, the locations where you kill from, and how the team moves around the map as well as familiarising yourself with weapon and power-up locations.

By the fifth game, it is solely your personal opinion of this map. You already know the locations, the gameplay it creates, how the map flows, and what player movement is like. Granted, you won't be an expert on the map - being able to predict everything and where enemy players are moving - but you've got a general idea. You know the pace of the map, what weapons work better, and by this point you should have formed your own criticisms and founded some potential solutions or recommendations to further improve the map.

If players in your groups aren't staying for that duration, or you're not testing that map regularly enough for players to reach that point, then the feedback you receive won't be worth taking. I used to run the old FHTG, and often found that players would tire after playing the same map three times in a row, so spreading the testing out over a few days would really help. Likely case is, the old FHTG testing feedback threads have been deleted, but you probably could have read a few of mine to get the general idea of what some structured feedback looks like

 

If you don't understand what the creator intends for the map to be, then your criticism will be biased. Opinions are the lowest form of human intellect and rarely benefit a creator. Share with them your observation and experience on their map, and let them figure out whether they want that out of the design or not.