The idea that there is no such thing as "the best" level designer is borderline xzamples speak. If some maps are better than others, and some map makers are better than others, then there has to be a best. A hierarchy can't exist without someone at the top. It's technically impossible. Now we can quibble about the proper metric for determining the best maps and the best map makers, but I find this all really quite simple. We just have to roughly define the perfect map, then rank order maps and map makers by comparing them to the hypothetical example of perfection. In my estimation, the perfect level would allow for many equally viable strategies, it would remain fun for everyone at all skill levels and at all times, the design would represent the setting in every way imaginable, the map would be mind-blowingly beautiful, it would hold up and even get better over time at the highest level of play, etc. There are many, many other things that I could list that could be attributed to the "perfect" map, but you get the idea. This isn't some rule we could tap into stone. It's something that every individual can and should keep in mind. You can also do the exact same thing for figuring out the best map maker. Okay, assuming everyone's maps are perfect in this scenario, who is better out of these two? One person made a bunch of perfect maps that were ALL based in covenant cruisers, and another person made a bunch of perfect maps that were all different. Are they equal map makers, even though they both make perfect maps? No. Even if you really like covenant maps, you have to concede that the guy making varied maps at least has a broader range of ability than the guy making covenant cruisers all day, which can be used as a metric to determine the best in terms of ability, and this isn't about what you like, it's about who has the most merit. Things like variety, naming conventions, polish, presentation, and more, should all be taken into consideration when trying to figure out who you think is best.
I pretty sure somebody asked and got some stupid reply. Can't be asked to scroll back that far though...
I feel like this question is poised to make me look bad. I do have an opinion, but I'm not going to answer. The point was that the best can and does exist, and you can find him/her if you search for that sort of thing. Of course I haven't seen every designers work or talked to all of them so who knows if there's some prodigy out there, but from what I can tell, it's not that hard to make the distinction.
I was being snarky because it's a pointless discussion without the moderate entertainment that comes from naming names and arguing over it. Like, who really cares? It's obviously impossible to avoid hierarchy and there will always be someone better at something relative to someone else. It's not a cop out to ignore that though because it's a waste of time to entertain hierarchy in a broad sense. Level Design is a multi faceted endeavor, so being "the best" implies more than "being better than everyone else". It implies that no matter what the person builds, it'll be "the best", and there's nobody who can fill that position.
That's a useless definition of "the best" and I don't think anyone else thinks of it that way. If that's really how you think about it, then you might as well remove that entire archetype of expression from your vocabulary, because no human will ever fall into that category. The title of "best" goes to the person who can consistently get closer to hypothetical perfection than anyone else. Nobody is saying he/she will never fail. That's not the same thing at all.
Semantics. And that person doesn't exist if the only metric is "perfection". There are several people who are very good at very specific aspects of level design, but nobody is even close to consistently reaching that hypothetical level of perfection. Hence, my position is that nobody should try to be because it's pointless, especially in a game where nobody even agrees on how to play it. Yes the player should always be able to succeed - that means completely different things to different people, so it's already pointless to try to define it.
You're comparing everyone to your best summation of perfection. Nobody is perfect, but it's not hard to imagine what the perfect person might look like. Compare yourself to that imaginary being, and there you have it. No matter how you define perfection, some get closer than others, and someone gets closest. No matter what. The "hero" archetype in storytelling is maybe the most ancient and famous example of this. It's an extremely useful and practical exercise, and we've been doing it for thousands of years.
It is not possible for imperfect people to define perfection. What is possible is for a person to aspire to an ideal - the "hero archetype" sure. I have an ideal version of my maps that I aspire to reach, and I never set out to make anything below it. Perfection to me is being able to look at a map and have no regrets, and it excites me when I feel like I'm close to accomplishing that. A design flaw, wasted potential, or artistic compromise that devalues the original vision of the map would be a regret that falls short of perfection to me. Someone's definition of perfect might be completely different, that's why it's pointless to entertain "the best level designer" beyond circle jerk posts. Feel free to define the "ideal hero archetype" for another game, or just as a general philosophy, but I still would hesitate to name anyone for that. The person most likely to become "the best" could be on this forum, but it's not going to be proven in Halo ****ing 5. Nobody even agrees what the ideal playstyle is for this game, and beyond this game, that sample size doesn't get much bigger.
We can imagine what perfection might look like. Even if it's not true perfection, it's way better than any of us will ever be, so it can be used as a reference point to separate people into categories of merit. This is technically very simple. Your whole position is confusingly contradictory. You can't say that some map makers are better than others without simultaneously conceding that someone is at the top. I hate to be that guy, but it is logically incoherent to say otherwise. You can't have your cake an eat it too. Either level design is more subjective than objective, and therefore there isn't any such thing as a good map, or level design is less subjective than objective, and there can be good maps. Psychologically, we are more alike than different, so the latter is obviously true. You perceptions are more likely to be similar to other peoples perceptions than different. Barring the mountains of psychological evidence, we all act as if the latter is true, and I'm inclined to believe actions over words. Until you start saying "that map isn't really ****, it's just **** to ME" to every obviously **** map that pops up on the forgehub map feed, your position will be inherently contradictory.