Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Map Design
  • Subject: Map Design
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Map Design


Posted by: Arbiter 739
Posted by: ABotelho
lol, NOPE. I still remember people hating Isolation, Epitaph, Construct, Blackout, Foundry, Narrows and Snowbound.

Dat nostalgia.


But they were good maps! I also don't recall much hate on those maps, but that might have been because I was mostly playing Halo 3 durring the Halo era rather than complaining about it.


Yes, once a good map is a good map. Even if they get nagged on, theyre still a good map.

Plus Id rather play those maps than playing

Lolace
Lolplex
Lolbandon
Loldown
Lolbow
Loltex

Haven and Ragnarok were really the few good maps... Maybe even exile or Solace, maybe.

  • 11.27.2012 8:50 PM PDT

A competitive players main goal is to win.
A casuals main goal is to have fun regardless of whether that results in a win or loss.
It has nothing to do with individual skill or knowledge, it has to do with the reason you play.

Halo 2 had great maps.
Halo 3 had great maps, aside epitaph and snowbound.
CoD4 had great maps.

I think gameplay affects the maps, for example, Scrapyard in MW2 could've been a fine map, if chopper gunner wouldn't have completely wrecked everyone due lack of safe spawns.
Skidrow could've been a good map, if there wouldn't have been everyone using dual shotguns inside the apartment in the middle of the map.

  • 11.27.2012 8:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

For all questions with answers unknown to you, the proper procedure is to assume the answer is peanut butter.

While that may be true, I'm just going to pretend otherwise.

MW2 had fun maps, but they weren't the least bit balanced. Too asymmetrical with overpowered vantage points. CoD4 and WaW had amazing maps. I miss Pipeline, Downpour, Crossfire, etc... :(

  • 11.27.2012 8:54 PM PDT


Posted by: SpecOps0
Yes, once a good map is a good map. Even if they get nagged on, theyre still a good map.

Plus Id rather play those maps than playing

Lolace
Lolplex
Lolbandon
Loldown
Lolbow
Loltex

Haven and Ragnarok were really the few good maps... Maybe even exile or Solace, maybe.

But that's your opinion. What I'm talking about is the opinion of the masses. People complained all the time about them. You can't really back your argument by stating they were good in your opinion, the majority says otherwise.

I clearly remember people saying Halo 3's maps were garbage compared to Halo 2. Then during matches and on the forums, the maps I enumerated in my original post were always brought up as being the worst.

This is a perfect example of nostalgia-glasses.

[Edited on 11.27.2012 9:11 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 9:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I don't need no stinking signature!

The biggest difference between Halo 3's maps and following games' maps is clutter and sightlines.

Halo 3 had simplistic designs, with very controlled and easy to predict lines of sight, unless you were out in the open you could tell which directions you were exposed from.

Skip to halo 4, and the maps are very cluttered. There are way too many pathways which interfere with smoothe gameplay, and the lines of sight are poorly accounted for. Most of the time it is difficult to move around without being exposed to fire from almost 360 degrees around. The exceptions to this style in Halo 4 are Adrift and Haven, but they both suffer from being almost mostly corrodor fighting with no real interesting open fighting grounds.

[Edited on 11.27.2012 9:12 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 9:10 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Mythic Member
  • gamertag: P3P5I
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
It isn't our shiznit anymore.

Posted by: Black Eagle X99
What exactly happened between the era of MW2... the era of good maps, to now.
wat

I would also like to make one addition, the battlefield games seem to be spared from this trend, so they must be doing something right.wat

T-the smaller maps, clustered flag placement, stupid out of bounds, laser locks, all spawn. I-I just don't know what's real anymore.

  • 11.27.2012 9:12 PM PDT


Posted by: Cpt Nicholson

Posted by: boomdeyadah
MW2 had bad maps..

I object!


I concour.

  • 11.27.2012 9:13 PM PDT

For some reason, everyone seems to have strayed far away from two things; aesthetic/art design, and compact maps. Seriously, most all of the maps in MW2 and Halo 3 were remotely compact and had great visual design. Ever since then, many maps in each of the games you listed lack any real visual draw to them, and none of them come close to being the arenas that once existed in FPS games. The reason BF3 manages to get around the compact size requirement is because the game is actually designed for maps that size.

  • 11.27.2012 9:17 PM PDT

Yay yuh!!!!!

I think Lockout is the best map ever made for 4v4 or free for all.

  • 11.27.2012 9:17 PM PDT

Call me Ares

"Learning is never wrong. Even learning how to kill isn't wrong. Or right. It's just a thing to learn, a thing I can teach you." -Chade
Nothing is true but perception. Everything is permitted but a lie.

The Spartan 1 Project

There are a few explanations for the phenomenon you are describing.

Older maps weren't better, you're just nostalgic.
Possible. Unlikely.

Maps nowadays try to have gimmicks.
If every map is designed around some feature that wasn't present, then if that thing is bad (halo space) the entire map become sub-par. Some maps make their gimmicks work, but not enough to leave an impression, I see.

Maps try to be places now.
Maps used to just be rooms and hallways and boxes. The location was determined by the background and the aesthetics. Nowadays maps try to be places and are designed around that fact. Instead of a hallway that makes sense in terms of gameplay, it is added to fit this location. That's bad map-making.

I thought I had more but that's all I've got. I love game design so I like talking about this kind of stuff. I hope I answered your question too.

  • 11.27.2012 9:24 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2