I prefer original maps. It's nice to see what the developers can make from scratch as opposed to building off a preexisting canvas. It gets kind of ridiculous when a map appears in most of the following Halo games (eg. Midship, Heretic, Zealot (kind of) and Truth).
No. I'm a ****ing casual. I had more fun on Valhalla then all maps on H4 and H5 combined. That Blood Gulch forgeworld Reach map was also so awful.
Neither of which really add anything positive to the game as far as gameplay. All preferences aside, Nostalgia should never be an excuse to bring something poor back into a game.
I just wanna see GOOD/GREAT remakes either by devs or forgers, and not the rush to put a bunch of blocks in a generally nostalgic configuration and call it a finished map. But for sure, some remakes simply do not work with new games, IE Guardian in H5 w/o classic settings. (and for the love of God, keep the player count reasonable!)
Both are good but remakes need to be done sparingly. Way too much do people lose perspective and live in the past. Though many may argue, a well playing remake is not as commendable as a well playing original.
Tbh I still have yet to see a REALLY good remake. Like, a nailed theme that's neat and even, good scaling, gametype and weapon support, good framerate and spawning. Don't want to sound like an ass to people who have made remakes but that's just my opinion. Closest thing to my high as hell standards is @Mynx's Classic Sanctuary and @TreFull's Hangout. Just a few nitpicks, but they get the job done.
these are not rules, but generalities that seem to be true very often... the worst forgers seem to want to do remakes (many great exceptions, but still) the best forgers can't be bothered so we are left with bad product. seems like we'd need to commission someone great or a group of forgers to work on very good, faithful remakes with great scaling, accuracy, and asthetics. But that would require a contest with mulah... hence the debate about contests
Remakes are a blast from the past sort of deal. They don't showcase one's ingenuity and originality in their ability to imagine something new and exciting. I'm really not trying to turn this into 'Rip on remakes', it's just the facts. :/
Similar to what @Nitro said about how CSGO handles their remakes, I think Halo just needs to take a look at its past. Evolving remakes for Halo aren't technically new, but they have been completely forgotten in the eyes of the devs at 343. Adapting a map to work for the game's sandbox in little ways without drastically changing how it plays occasionally works out really well. Here's an example: Battle Creek > Beaver Creek > Battle Canyon Now even though the Anniversary maps came to negative critical a claim, I personally felt Battle Canyon was a welcome upgrade to Beaver Creek. With each version from CE onwards the layout for the most part barely changed at all, yet changed enough to not be considered carbon copy remakes. The unfortunate part of all this is that this is the only example where a map evolved 3 times while meeting the criteria and worked out really well. There are a few maps that kind of did this but either A only did it once. B, didn't do it very well. Or C, both. Lockout > Blackout > Lockdown Hang 'Em High > Tombstone > High Noon Sanctuary > Shrine Damnation > Pennence Derelict > Desolation Chill Out > Cold Storage Longest > Elongation Prisoner > Solitary (Essentially, we need more maps like the Battle Creek evolution in future titles)
This is the kind of concept I would like to see more developers adopt. Valve literally performs map "upgrades" and they set the newly upgraded map as a standard among their casual and competitive matchmaking and in the pro circuit. All of their upgrades are very well refined and only a small group of people really have anything to say to the contrary. Nuke, Cobblestone, Mirage, Inferno, Train were all, at release, very solid and well refined maps. Let's not talk about Militia.