Any map by vyctoriouz was gorgeous. Most conquest maps focused on art for obvious reasons. Zombie actually had some really cool looking Foundry maps as well.
https://www.forgehub.com/threads/sentinel.101317/ Oh yea this is dope https://www.forgehub.com/threads/aerocrest.98754/ Like this too
Doing this without rotation or phasing objects is making my brain hurt. --- Double Post Merged, Dec 31, 2016 --- Notice me senpai~
That was lyfe. You had to stack flat double walls to press objects against to get unusual angles and then the same for rotations.
I love how people complain about details, such as plants, props, and lighting, when they are important in creating the character for a map or level. The right amount of detail can make certain areas on a map, macro and micro, recognizable to players, not force artificial call outs, and make a lasting image for that map in players' heads so that they will likely come back to that map to experience it again. I'd say that Terminal from Modern Warfare 2 is a good example of using both micro and macro levels of detail. The macro detail of the architecture throughout told the players what type of place they are in (sort of like how Halo has distinct Human, Covenant, Sangheili, and Forerunner architectures) and time of day. On the other hand, the micro details showed where that location is with the language most of the signs were in, the state of distress with the scattered luggage, papers, and even the dropped breathing devices in the plane, and the distinctions of a back interrogation room, jewelry store, and Burger Town. Yes, old school games tend to lack the detail seen in the recent decades of gaming and still have memorable maps, but those maps still had recognizable landmarks (especially in the macro) that's detail was in the general architecture of a type of location and it's textures. The careful detail put into creating these macro details for this level design had lent a hand in making easier call outs such as sniper towers and floors. The main reason that micro detail was less common was hardware/software limitations. Everyone can recognize the original Lockout, and, without much micro detail, areas had distinct architecture to allow for call outs, not to mention that weapon spawns are use for call outs as well. tl:dr It's important to have both micro and macro detail to whatever extent you like, but it's important to have both. Would you rather have a map that plays perfectly without distractions but is impossible to remember the name and look of it, or have a map that plays quite well but is recognized in more than just that game's circle? Edit: I also love how 'Most Hated Map Elements' is more popular than 'Most Loved Map Elements.' I blame Schnitzel and Xandrith.
If you can't remember a map without its aesthetics then you've forgotten the core aspect of making and playing maps. Sorry but just being real. I want people advertising their layouts like it used to be... I'm so tired of this clickbait bandwagon everyone is stuck on. I don't care if your maps look like amy schumer as long as they play like riley reid.... If all we had were primitives, waywo
I guess that I didn't communicate what I was trying to say. I'm damn sure I remember maps that are only blockouts and dev texture maps because of their gameplay, but I'm talking form a final product perspective. A lot of Sgt Slaphead's maps are recognizable because of the unique pathing and simple aesthetic, and people who've only played on those maps once will recognize it for it's geometry, aesthetic, and, what I forgot to give recognition to in my original post, gameplay. I'd say uniqueness in a map's gameplay is more important than a refined established design. Also, a lot of maps get too much recognition due to the nostalgia factor. Edit: I haven't played Dweeb's map yet, so I can't say anything towards that other than I can recognize it from a mile away.