This is gonna be awkward since we're in a party LOL, but here's my take: 1. Objectively speaking which is better. A map that promotes extreme camping(Lockout) or a map that promotes extreme movement(Warlock). If you choose to answer this question on here then please give a explanation. A map that promotes camping is bad because the goal of the game is to get kills. However, a map that promotes extreme movement is also bad because a map without paced encounters and decision making may as well be an octagon. Without the mental game, Halo isn't anything more than a mosh pit.... 2. Subjectively speaking what do you ENJOY more. A map that promotes camping(Lockout) or a map that promotes extreme movement(Warlock). If you choose to answer this question on here then please give a explanation. My enjoyment isn't really relevant; I don't like Halo 2 period. But I'll say I appreciate Lockout more because I think mental skill is more important than mechanical skill... I don't think the goal of the match is to reach the score limit, nor do I think a match should end at the score limit to be considered a good map. There's no score limit in most sports as far as I know - just time limits- and therefore I look at Halo the same way. Maybe on average, a game should end at the score limit more than it shouldn't...because if it doesn't, that could be indicative of a design flaw. Lockout for exampe is obviously a flawed design because of how slow it can play....but when it comes down to the ideology behind the design, I think Lockout is better level design for Halo than Warlock. Now...Warlock is obviously the better design objectively speaking because it has less problems....but I subjectively think Lockout promotes better gameplay for Halo because I think mental gameplay is more compelling than mechanical gameplay. To me, Lockout's issues are simply a result of bad balancing, not the style of gameplay it promotes. If it was better designed, it would by far be the better map because it would have no problems and have more depth than Warlock. I think we can all agree that a map with more depth beyond "hold forward and shoot" is better level design, and therefore something that is simply true. Or if the word "better" is too much to get stuck on...then how about "smarter" or "more intelligent" or perhaps simply "more thought-provoking" - all of which could be considered qualities of a more interesting and engaging experience. Now, we can debate whether Lockout or Warlock are more thought-provoking subjectively (although these are extreme examples), but I don't think we can say thought provoking level design is not objectively better level design. It's the whole point of the field.
I love this response because this is how people need to think. I only gave one design rule in the camping vs no camping but the truth is there lots of little rules that everyone needs to understand to make a GREAT MAP
I think Halo 2 is boring period, but that's an emotion and it's not really relevant in a theoretical example.
By what metrics is "excellent" measured? What do you mean by "excellent"? The goal for the players in Halo is different from the goal of the designer making maps for those players to play on. The designer does not need to get to max score.
The point of a designer is to design a map for the game your playing. The game in this instance is Halo EDIT: The point of a Designer is to make a map to PLAY Halo on. The point of a Player is to PLAY Halo. SO NO the Goal is the same there just coming from different angle.
Excellence is whatever we define it to be. But first we must weed out the poor questions: Is a fast paced map better than a slow paced map? It's impossible to answer this objectively because it depends entirely on emotions and preferences. So let me reword it: Does a fast paced map promote reaching the score limit more than a slow paced map? The answer is yes. Is reaching the score limit better than not reaching the score limit? The first goal of a Halo map is to promote kills...so technically, it is "better" Should a map reach a score limit more than it should not? Technically, it should, because if it is reaching the score limit less and less, it could have a problem with the design. However, it could also simply be a slower paced map. Is a slower paced map good for Halo? It's impossible to answer this objectively. Is camping good for Halo? No and here's why: Halo gameplay exists on a spectrum. There are fast-paced maps, medium-paced maps, and slow-paced maps. Fast-paced maps promote mechanical skill, slow-paced maps promote mental skill, and in between there is a happy medium of both. I hate to use the word "ideal"....so let's say medium-paced maps are the control group. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with a map that plays faster or slower. They are simply catering to different skillsets. However, there is something wrong with a map that plays too fast... because then you are only rewarding mechanical skill to the point of randomness and unpredictability. Likewise, there is something wrong with a map that plays too slow...because then you are only rewarding mental game to the point of stagnation and waiting ages for the other person to make a move. Both extremes on the opposite ends of the spectrum represent 1-dimensional gameplay, and I think we can all agree that 1-dimensional gameplay is indicative of poor level design. Level design is a multi faceted endeavor, and I think we can all agree that our goal as level designers is to design maps that have depth. Because we know that in the absence of depth, the game loses its integrity as a competitive shooter. This is why we strive to achieve balance. Balance in level design refers to a healthy medium between mechanical skill and mental skill. It does not mean "fair encounters" or "every area of the map has utility" (although those could be considered subgroups), nor does it mean that your map has to be in the exact middle. What Balance really means is that you are rewarding both mechanical skill and mental skill by allowing the player opportunities to succeed individually (weapons, geometry, positioning) and with their team (sightlines, safe spawning, movement opportunities). The only objective quality of level design is that everything exists on a spectrum, and that the further you deviate from the control group, the more you need to account for balance in other ways. Otherwise, you lose depth. When we say things like "Shield doors are objectively bad for Halo"... what we are saying is that they lack any potential for depth. However, if you tell me that "Long hallways are bad for Halo" all you're really telling me is your opinion. It is entirely possible to add depth to a long hallway, or for that hallway to have a purpose within the context of the greater map. As a level designer, your job is to be able to not only recognize that context on other maps, but implement them in your own to diversify your design and enhance your skillset. This is why I think there is nobody at the top of the food chain yet; none of us are at this level yet. If I want a map that plays super fast, I need to make sure there is some thought that goes into those encounters. Likewise, if I want a map that plays methodically, I need to reward mechanical skill in other ways. Again, it is impossible to compare a fast paced map to a slow paced map and say one is inherently better. The ONLY way to determine that is to look at whether the maps are balanced on the spectrum. And that is not the same as "meeting your design goals." Because you can tell me that your design goals were to have a map "that just constantly played fast." And if it wasn't balanced on that spectrum - if I wasn't able to use my brain to outthink you - then the map is bad. Period.
Warlock, Wizard, and arguably Midship, are maps that focus solely on your ability to shoot more than any map in Halo history. The competitive player (we'll refer to them as Sweats) will most likely enjoy this method of play because it can push their fast thinking and aiming to the test. However, the highest level players (we'll refer to them as Tryhards) will do anything to gain victory, which includes slowing down a game, or figuring out how to spawn trap. With this in mind, it is more likely that they would enjoy slower paced maps such as Lockout or Guardian. Sweats will enjoy a task that strips most of the building block's of Halo down to simply firing the utility, because it is the skill they care about the most. They will take the opportunity to get in your face with their aggressive gunfire whenever the chance arises. However, their weakness is the lack of planning ahead of a fight; they want to run & gun and not have to think about it. Tryhards go above and beyond, figuring out the nerdiest spots to throw grenades, capture flags, make nutty jumps, etc. They purposely abuse the foundation of Halo to the point where playing against them is almost unfair. They will easily topple you with strategic, lethal plays that make you shake your head going "The **** just happened?" But their biggest flaw is that they're more brains and less heart; you shoot them down before they make a plan, and they'll struggle to keep up as extra time is put into counter attacks. With such an about face difference between these two personas, there are three ways you can make a play space for them: -Make a literal arena where gunfights never end -Make an attack/defend zone that requires planning -Combine both aspects to ensure some satisfaction We've seen plenty of the first and second style of maps in Halo, but rarely do we see the third. I feel that it is our job to give people the third option of map play, because I feel it is best way to jump into a match of Halo. Fortunately enough, it seems I may just get more maps to play that do just what I want them to.
Dust off your H3 maps people, lets give each other nothing to complain about (this time). HINT ****ING HINT
The cool thing is I am not talking about level design I am clearing up Objective vs Subjective and Had to have some examples ahaha
Those who treat level design as a set of patterns that can be revealed and implemented are the ones who will continue to push boundaries and grow. Especially the more creative among us. Those who act as if level design is primarily subjective will either contradict themselves when they improve, or never improve at all. I think we see the latter at work. I couldn't point out a single difference between the forging style of xzamples' reach maps, and his recent maps. That's an 8 year period of developmental stagnation because of a stubborn, lazy, and all around poorly thought out attitude towards level design. I'm not trying to be hurtful, but rather pointing out the potential effects of falling into the subjective trap. You could spend your time doing something a lot more rewarding and meaningful if you really don't think there's an up to aim at in design.