Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Do you think the over-abundance of unnecessarily complex words helps illustrate his point? I think if anything, they can only tangle up what he is trying to get across. That's all I was getting at.

 

 

 

Were these necessary?

 

"Is English your second language by any chance?"

 

"Your pretentiously authoritative garb really cannot hide your total ignorance. Stop making a fool of yourself."

 

Pretentious is not a complex word by any means. I think my English class had it as a vocab word in like 7th grade. 

 

Authoritative isn't either. It is just a sub word of authority, which is something most kindergartners know the definition of.

 

 

Now if he had typed

 

"Your pretentiously authoritative shanghai flounders to dissimulate your unexpurgated sciolism. Discontinue making a schlemiel of yourself"

 

then yeah. 

 

 

Your response only perpetuated and egged on the argument. As a VIP you should hold yourself to a higher standard than him.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I brought the conversation to the level of semantics because you blew your top off going on about maps when I was talking designs. You interchanging them on a whim is like others interchanging bullet magnetism, auto-aim, aim assist, and aim acceleration. Of course I'm going to correct you.

 

When talking about design and its movement options, why would we be talking about geometrical linearity? Of course it'd be sequential linearity. That definition of linearity is and has always been the linearity being used when talking about map design.

 

Also, I already mentioned in multiple posts that designs are independent of mechanics. You can't count unintended jump routes as intended geometrical routes of the design.

 

Design: a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made.

 

I can play this game too. What you mean by design, I've been referring to as map geometry. Which is a much less nebulous term than design. I have been specific and selective with my terminology in order to put my points forward.

 

I specifically addressed map geometry, which is not linear. But it seems you intend to ignore what I talked about in my post and will persist in your roundabout method of argumentation without even presenting any substance on your end, an important indicator of the inexperience underlying your factually incorrect opinion.

 

So, let's go over this again. If you'll recall some of the threads I produced back in the mlg forum days, you should remember that I would constantly bring up Prisoner as the exemplar for my arguments. Most importantly, I advanced the argument that predictability of gameplay correlates with the ability of players to control the gameplay and determine the outcome - a signature of competitive gameplay - the more predictable, the more competitive.

 

One of the most important elements of good map design is restricting map routes to power position. Midship, which is a universally lauded map, has 3 routes to pink 2. Every other section of the map inadvertently has 2-3 effective routes. That combined with the 2 (3 if you want to get technical) vertical planes is what makes the map so successful (of course there's the question of scale of the geometry). Similarly, Prisoner does this expertly. You keep bringing up how Prisoner only has 2 routes from bottom to mid and 2 routes from mid to top as if this is a weakness, but this only exposes your lack of understanding of Halo map design. That, in fact, is one of the fundamental STRENGTHS of Prisoner. The restriction on the movement of the offensive player allows the defensive player to theoretically have total control and awareness of his opponent's movements. This forces the offensive player to rely on creativity in order to achieve a successful map take back. By means of analogy, the greatest strength of Pit, Onslaught, Sanctuary was the ability for the defensive team to totally control their opponent's spawning and the resulting difficulty needed for the offensive team to break the spawn trap and gain map control. This is what Prisoner allows to do unlike any other map in Halo ever. And this is directly the result of its map geometry, this particular emphasis on restricting map routes.

 

Now that I've addressed this particular, but fundamental character of the map geometry (restriction of movement), and demonstrated how this is one of the map's greatest strengths rather than a weakness, let us turn our attention to the claim on linearity. Your use of the term is variable and nebulous; see your initial use of it, a Chunk's "linear design", and your subsequent irrelevant definition. The map's geometry is not linear. Examples of linear maps are Narrows, Pit, Longest, etc. In other words, the map's design is "straight". The particular design in conjunction with particular game mechanics produces linear aggressiveness for example. Prisoner, on the other hand, features 3 (4 even) vertical planes. The geometry progresses LATERALLY and VERTICALLY. Evidently, this is the complete opposite of linear geometry. Furthermore, the geometric routes are antipodal. Which as we shall see produce various combinations/permutations that could not possibly concord with linearity. 

 

If, however, as you claim "linear" refers to "design and movement options" as you, you are still incorrect. Ignoring jumps (which makes no sense to do since this translates into actual design (intended or not does not matter), but we shall for now anyway), we get a variety of movement permutations:

 

1. Red 1 - Red 2 ladder => OS ramp.

2+3. Red 1 - Red 2 ladder => PR ladder=>Top HP OR Window room (providing 3rd attack option)

 

These two options are antipodal, on opposites sides of the map and provide OPPOSITE attack options on OS.

To continue:

 1. Blue Ramp => OS Ramp

 2+3. Blue Ramp => (Ignoring that there are many ways to reach Red2 as goes for many other movement options, but let's keep it simple) Red2 => PR ladder => Top HP or Window Room.

 

Without jumps, we already have 6 basic attack options which are ANTIPODAL. I will stress that as it is very important. Narrows for example has a number of attack options to the opposite base (top, low, mancannons, etc. with a number of permutations). But all of these attack options are parallel/symmetric. In stark contrast, every route from one level to the next on Prisoner provides completely opposite attack options (so now imagine a model with 2 players per team - ie opposite flanking).

 

There are 2 Zyos jumps with the one closest to Red2/backwall providing 3 further permutations (Red3, Bridge, Top HP). I don't even want to present all the potential permutations after that. I hope I've also driven the point that the myriad of attack options are opposite from one another - because that's very important as it directly conflicts with the nonsense claim that Prisoner has linear design (lmfao).

 

 

From now on, if you want to debate me (@@aPK, not a Chunk) I will ask you to please substantiate your claims with both arguments and concrete arguments. It is evident otherwise to all posters that you're just blowing air and your posts are not at all credible in light of mine.

 

 

Edit:

 

@Moa: edited, sorry.

 

 

Closing:

 

 

BTW, design connotative speaks of how things will look and function. That is what design is about. That is why a building design has to be feasible to build without falling down. Because of this, a building design needs supports. 

 

Mechanics are the support in a map. They are the real world test. 

 

Therefore, talking about the mechanics of the game when talking about design is completely correct and valid. 

 

 

Your (aPK's) insistense on map geometry (design in his words - though his terminology is not correct) is misplaced. Geometry can only be understood in light of game mechanics. Think jetpack. Think jump height, speed. The scale of the geometry for example is relative according to movement speed and effective range of the primary gun for example. It cannot be analyzed in a vacuum no matter how much you insist on it to stubbornly hold on to the first hipster-like avant-garde statement: "prisoner has terrible linear design".

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Pretentious is not a complex word by any means. I think my English class had it as a vocab word in like 7th grade. 

 

Authoritative isn't either. It is just a sub word of authority, which is something most kindergartners know the definition of.

 

 

Now if he had typed

 

"Your pretentiously authoritative shanghai flounders to dissimulate your unexpurgated sciolism. Discontinue making a schlemiel of yourself"

 

then yeah. 

 

 

Your response only perpetuated and egged on the argument. As a VIP you should hold yourself to a higher standard than him.

 

I wasn't talking about the complexity of the parts I quoted.

 

The parts I quoted were just parts where he chose to assert some kind of superiority over me or attempted to demean me.

Share this post


Link to post

BTW, design connotative speaks of how things will look and function. That is what design is about. That is why a building design has to be feasible to build without falling down. Because of this, a building design needs supports. 

 

Mechanics are the support in a map. They are the real world test. 

 

Therefore, talking about the mechanics of the game when talking about design is completely correct and valid. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Design: a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made.

 

I can play this game too. What you mean by design, I've been referring to as map geometry. Which is a much less nebulous term than design. I have been specific and selective with my terminology in order to put my points forward.

 

How many times do I have to say the linearity comment is in regards to the sequence of player movement.

 

I specifically addressed map geometry, which is not linear. But it seems you intend to ignore what I talked about in my post and will persist in your roundabout method of argumentation without even presenting any substance on your end, an important indicator of the inexperience underlying your factually incorrect opinion.

 

Again, the geometry is not linear. I never said it was geometrically linear. Look at your initial response. You clearly had no handling of what I was getting at. Especially considering how you somehow deduced that I called "the GOAT map shit".

 

So, let's go over this again. If you'll recall some of the threads I produced back in the mlg forum days, you should remember that I would constantly bring up Prisoner as the exemplar for my arguments. Most importantly, I advanced the argument that predictability of gameplay correlates with the ability of players to control the gameplay and determine the outcome - a signature of competitive gameplay - the more predictable, the more competitive.

 

I want to clarify before I begin this point: I am entertaining your entire alternate (and irrelevant to my original points) talk about linear aggression gameplay. Linear aggression gameplay is predictable, yet you say it is what plagues the later Halo games. You also said the more predictable, the more competitive. You stand on two sides of a line.

 

One of the most important elements of good map design is restricting map routes to power position. Midship, which is a universally lauded map, has 3 routes to pink 2. Every other section of the map inadvertently has 2-3 effective routes. That combined with the 2 (3 if you want to get technical) vertical planes is what makes the map so successful (of course there's the question of scale of the geometry). Similarly, Prisoner does this expertly. You keep bringing up how Prisoner only has 2 routes from bottom to mid and 2 routes from mid to top as if this is a weakness, but this only exposes your lack of understanding of Halo map design. That, in fact, is one of the fundamental STRENGTHS of Prisoner. The restriction on the movement of the offensive player allows the defensive player to theoretically have total control and awareness of his opponent's movements. This forces the offensive player to rely on creativity in order to achieve a successful map take back. By means of analogy, the greatest strength of Pit, Onslaught, Sanctuary was the ability for the defensive team to totally control their opponent's spawning and the resulting difficulty needed for the offensive team to break the spawn trap and gain map control. This is what Prisoner allows to do unlike any other map in Halo ever. And this is directly the result of its map geometry, this particular emphasis on restricting map routes.

 

Don't know why you insist on going on and on about gameplay. I never said anything but good things about Prisoner's gameplay.

 

Now that I've addressed this particular, but fundamental character of the map geometry (restriction of movement), and demonstrated how this is one of the map's greatest strengths rather than a weakness, let us turn our attention to the claim on linearity. Your use of the term is variable and nebulous; see your initial use of it, a Chunk's "linear design", and your subsequent irrelevant definition. The map's geometry is not linear. Examples of linear maps are Narrows, Pit, Longest, etc. In other words, the map's design is "straight". The particular design in conjunction with particular game mechanics produces linear aggressiveness for example. Prisoner, on the other hand, features 3 (4 even) vertical planes. The geometry progresses LATERALLY and VERTICALLY. Evidently, this is the complete opposite of linear geometry. Furthermore, the geometric routes are antipodal. Which as we shall see produce various combinations/permutations that could not possibly concord with linearity. 

 

You are so obsessed with citing verticality as a counterargument to a design's linearity, when it has nothing to do with it. I could make the most vertical map ever known to man, and at the same time make it a very linear map.

 

If, however, as you claim "linear" refers to "design and movement options" as you, you are still incorrect. Ignoring jumps (which makes no sense to do since this translates into actual design (intended or not does not matter), but we shall for now anyway), we get a variety of movement permutations:

 

1. Red 1 - Red 2 ladder => OS ramp.

2+3. Red 1 - Red 2 ladder => PR ladder=>Top HP OR Window room (providing 3rd attack option)

 

These two options are antipodal, on opposites sides of the map and provide OPPOSITE attack options on OS.

To continue:

 1. Blue Ramp => OS Ramp

 2+3. Blue Ramp => (Ignoring that there are many ways to reach Red2 as goes for many other movement options, but let's keep it simple) Red2 => PR ladder => Top HP or Window Room.

 

Without jumps, we already have 6 basic attack options which are ANTIPODAL. I will stress that as it is very important. Narrows for example has a number of attack options to the opposite base (top, low, mancannons, etc. with a number of permutations). But all of these attack options are parallel/symmetric. In stark contrast, every route from one level to the next on Prisoner provides completely opposite attack options (so now imagine a model with 2 players per team - ie opposite flanking).

 

There are 2 Zyos jumps with the one closest to Red2/backwall providing 3 further permutations (Red3, Bridge, Top HP). I don't even want to present all the potential permutations after that. I hope I've also driven the point that the myriad of attack options are opposite from one another - because that's very important as it directly conflicts with the nonsense claim that Prisoner has linear design (lmfao).

 

 

From now on, if you want to debate me (@@aPK, not a Chunk) I will ask you to please substantiate your claims with both arguments and concrete arguments. It is evident otherwise to all posters that you're just blowing air and your posts are not at all credible in light of mine.

 

 

Edit:

 

@Moa: edited, sorry.

 

 

Closing:

 

 

 

 

Your (aPK's) insistense on map geometry (design in his words - though his terminology is not correct) is misplaced. Geometry can only be understood in light of game mechanics. Think jetpack. Think jump height, speed. The scale of the geometry for example is relative according to movement speed and effective range of the primary gun for example. It cannot be analyzed in a vacuum no matter how much you insist on it to stubbornly hold on to the first hipster-like avant-garde statement: "prisoner has terrible linear design".

 

I'll end my contribution to this discussion with this:

 

You endlessly cite and discuss gameplay as if I said the gameplay wasn't anything but favorable. From the start, with my original post, I said Prisoner played well as a map in CE. You are wasting both of our time by continuously posting about the gameplay as if we're disagreeing, when we aren't.

 

All I said was that the design is a poor one, one of the reasons being that the movement is very linear. I would then later expand upon that point and say it is linear because of the scarcity of routes from each level to the next. Chunk even came in here, a fellow designer and Forger, and reassure you that my use of "linear" is the common form when talking about design.

 

If your only counterpoint to the scarcity of routes is the location of them, then you would also have to apply the merit you are applying to Prisoner's design to those of Sword Base or Boarding Action. You cannot pick and choose.

 

Again, I made it very clear in many posts that I am talking about the design in a vacuum. I even provided the example of me making my own designs with no games or multiple games in mind. I've created some designs that I would actually go on to recreate in multiple games. One of those designs went on to be rather excellent maps in several games. One of them was good in one and not another. It is 100% possible for a map and its design to differ vastly in quality.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of this post. I was trying to demonstrate that we shouldn't be blaming one mechanic for why a game is better or worse. Like you stated above, there are a myriad of reasons as to why Halo 3 is the lesser of the two, especially in terms of mechanics. It just baffles me that every "Halo 3 hater" on this forum points a finger at the Battle Rifle's bullet-spread when referencing its faults. Yes, it is certainly a problem. However, it isn't game-breaking, as we had seen with its success.

 

Lastly, you are not the minority, my friend. You are just one of the few left who have given Halo:CE the proper "time of day." There are multiple reasons as to why this franchise flourished, but it all started due to the release of one of the best first-person shooters of all-time -- Halo:CE.

 

Anyways, I'd love to take the time to discuss the franchise's mechanics further at some point. I'll be sending you a PM shortly with my Skype information. For now, keep on being cT. We need you.

 

-Ghost

Thank, dude. Hopefully we can chat soon.

Share this post


Link to post

@@menotyou135

 

Also, you should probably take BriteeyeZ's criticisms more seriously. Go back and read that post of yours to me.

 

You just tried to spell out to me that I'm a moron, whether that was your conscious intent or not.

 

"Pretentious is not a complex word by any means. I think my English class had it as a vocab word in like 7th grade. 

 

Authoritative isn't either. It is just a sub word of authority, which is something most kindergartners know the definition of."

 

She kind of nailed it right on the head. That part of your post is definitely (or at the very least comes of as) pretentious, condescending, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

You are 100% lost on the fact that I am talking about the design, not the map. Spawns, weapons, mechanics, etc. are all parts of a map. They are NOT parts of a design.

 

I make designs with no game or multiple and very different games in mind. However, when I make a map, I am making it for a particular game in consideration with everything that comes with that game.

 

An example of this being an actual differentiation is the judging guidelines for past Forge contests. There is often a grade for Map/Gameplay and a separate grade for Design. They are not the same.

 

With that being said: Yes, the design is very linear. Yes, it is a poor design. But also, it is a good map in CE.

 

On a side note, using a thesaurus as a crutch to paint your reply as an intelligent one doesn't help your cause.

 

@Blue: I have not played CE extensively (none competitively), but I'm still very iffy on that.

 

Yes, the game's mechanics, spawns, and weapons make Prisoner play well. But are you trying to say the map's design had no influence at all?

 

The design's restrictive flow allowed camo a welcoming spot on the bottom because it is a good fighting chance for top control, while not not allowing you to be in any position you want to be in an instant (such as construct and lolcountdown).

 

While the camo acts as the attacker's main source for regaining control, the team controlling the top has the OS at their disposal. It is the defender's source for maintaining control. It's not like Mario Kart, which the one in last place gets the Godmode item and automatically wins. The team in control gets their goodies too. Prisoner puts that scenario into practice.

 

As for rockets, I believe they are in an ideal place which controlling the 3rd floor makes your team much more likely to obtain them, while at the same time, forcing you to move from your position to obtain them (aside from nading the weapon over, I don't have extensive knowledge on popular nading locations). In light of the strongest power weapon, the map's design promotes map control and promotes movement, simultaneously.

 

I won't argue much about the sniper areas. Having not played this map so often, it has always came off as weird to me.

 

@Purple: I am befuddled. This doesn't prove shit about Prisoner being a terrible design. It really doesn't. I'll explain in just a bit.

 

As for saying you make a map for the game, the term "map" can't become a label without it first becoming a completed design. From a map creation standpoint, you could either design the map to your likings (decide the map's flow, verticality, LoS, etc. thinking about weapons/spawns) or set personal goals regarding requirements for spawning or deciding what weapons you want to be on the map, then make the map. Whichever direction is taken, a map is a design put into practice.

 

@Red: You're right. They are not the same. However, using design as a criterion for map judging has always been flawed. If, by your words, make a "design" and not a "map" (in other words, don't intend for your creation to be other than art) then it's more than obvious whether a design is good or bad is completely subjective. "I'll give the design a 4/5, but the gameplay sucked, so 2/5 for gameplay." The judges thought the map's design was intriguing or interesting. A bad map shouldn't get bonus credit because the design was cool or just "looked good," and vice-versa regarding good maps.

 

@Green: What you said about prisoner's design ... I think that word in size 18 font, bolded, underlined, and in red text sums it up.

 

Prisoner is said by many to be a good map in CE. In fact, even you said it. Do you know why? Because the spawns, weapons, and mechanics performed well. But do you know why the spawns, weapons, and mechanics perform well on that map?? Because the map's design caters to the spawn system, the key weapons in the sandbox, and Halo CE's core mechanics near-perfectly. The design dictates how the sources within the map work, be it spawn points, available weapons, and the core mechanics set within the game (which matches are played on a map).

 

Yeah, a good map in CE, but what about the more modern halos (basically everything after CE)? Sure, it's plausible that Prisoner, unchanged, doesn't perform well because the weapons are too easy to use for the restrictive flow, and other factors deriving from CE and CE only. But that doesn't mean it is a terrible design. It just needs accommodation for modern Halo. Some possibilities include adjusting the timers on weapons, adding/removing power items, adding new connections to make climbing to the top easier (could include making jump-ups easier), etc.

 

Maps like Prisoner shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.

 

Prisoner is a damn good map that plays like a dream in CE.  However, the limited number of routes, and perhaps more importantly the limited number of hard routes, DO make the map linear.  Saying a map is linear should not be confused with the oft used term 'linear aggression'.  Linear aggression refers to the tactic of charging straight at your enemy.  On the other hand, a linear design is one that has heavily directed/restricted flow (not a lot of ways to get from one location to another).  Prisoner has a very linear design.  If you disagree, it's simply because the context/definition of the term 'linear' used in this case is being misunderstood.

 

Yes, in that sense, maps become more linear when you restrict the upward flow of a map. But this linearity you and aPK speak of is what results in verticality; they have positive correlation in this respect.

 

@@aPK as well: If you really want to change Prisoner so it's not linear, then you would add connections from 1->2 and from 2->3 to the point which you wouldn't have to expose yourself on the catwalks or open floor, or take so long to make it up another floor. This would stupefy the map. Verticality is about, holding the top and raining gunfire down low. With this change, the game would basically be played on the 3rd floor, which players could come from the left, the right, in front, or behind. You don't know where because your opponents can transition upward without being exposed. It makes the game unpredictable.

 

Sure, you could predict their spawn and go after them, but warrants the risk of not having reliable map control for rockets. The 3rd floor should be a vantage point for rockets and other sources of power. It is, in my opinion, one of the intentions of the map's design.

 

This is why I don't think Countdown is a great map. There are multiple floors with existing top-to-bottom combat, but it is easily outweighed by single-level combat because of the numerous engagements on the top floor. Think about all the ways up top: (1) The main hard-route (2) The Tri-lift, which has 2 ports to top middle and 1 to balcony (which grants a quick entrance to top middle) (3) 2 bubble lifts and (4) 2 jetpacks because KC didn't think the routes were reliable enough! There is a balance between restrictive and free flow, and Countdown missed the broad side of a barn.

 

We could make the design less linear, but that would make it play more linear.

 

Good day gentlemen.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Also... I'm not trying to jump in on this heated debate, but Prisoner does have confined options -- just like Narrows and The Pit. The main reason as to why Prisoner doesn't facilitate "linear aggressive gameplay" is due to the power and radius of Halo:CE's Frag Grenades. Otherwise, we'd be experiencing some very "Halo 3-esque gameplay" on a variety of Halo:CE maps.

 

-Ghost

Share this post


Link to post

tl;dr to this whole page.

Can we just remove the L out of your name? 

 

WDWoIir.png

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'll end my contribution to this discussion with this:

 

You endlessly cite and discuss gameplay as if I said the gameplay wasn't anything but favorable. From the start, with my original post, I said Prisoner played well as a map in CE. You are wasting both of our time by continuously posting about the gameplay as if we're disagreeing, when we aren't.

 

All I said was that the design is a poor one, one of the reasons being that the movement is very linear. I would then later expand upon that point and say it is linear because of the scarcity of routes from each level to the next. Chunk even came in here, a fellow designer and Forger, and reassure you that my use of "linear" is the common form when talking about design.

 

If your only counterpoint to the scarcity of routes is the location of them, then you would also have to apply the merit you are applying to Prisoner's design to those of Sword Base or Boarding Action. You cannot pick and choose.

 

Again, I made it very clear in many posts that I am talking about the design in a vacuum. I even provided the example of me making my own designs with no games or multiple games in mind. I've created some designs that I would actually go on to recreate in multiple games. One of those designs went on to be rather excellent maps in several games. One of them was good in one and not another. It is 100% possible for a map and its design to differ vastly in quality.

 

 

Incredible. You completely ignored the half of my post that addressed your use of "linearity". Your argumentative methods are disingenuous. You literally fail to address a single one of my points. Moreover, you post claims that are neither backed up with argument and evidence.

 

Your use of design is nonsensical and variable. Design refers to planning the entirety of the components of a map within the context of the game mechanics. 

 

You characterized half my post with the term "gameplay". No, I'm not talking about gameplay. You forced the conversation into a corner: map geometry and I worked within those confines. Disingenuous and empty.

 

 

Your last addendum about your "forging" is relevant. It seems that you insist on characterizing being a forger as authoritative. Don't kid yourself into thinking you're a map designer.

 

 

Edit: 

 

Korlash killed it. Exactly.

 

 

 

 

Edit 2:

 

Linear aggression gameplay is predictable, yet you say it is what plagues the later Halo games. You also said the more predictable, the more competitive. You stand on two sides of a line.

 

As the person who coined the expression, it's what makes Halo 3/Reach 4v4 so good. The gameplay is very predictable/controllable (whereas typically CE's 4v4 is not so much due to the spawn system. This is why 2v2CE is the most skillful mode, moreso than 1v1 and 4v4). The problem with linear aggression is the relative lack of "smarts" compared to the gameplay styles of CE 2v2 and H2 4v4 and "smarts" is the biggest determinant of the skillgap. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

TOO MANY FUCKING COLORS IN THIS THREAD

 

You should visit Waypoint more often. Rainbow text all the way

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Incredible. You completely ignored the half of my post that addressed your use of "linearity". Your argumentative methods are disingenuous. You literally fail to address a single one of my points. Moreover, you post claims that are neither backed up with argument and evidence.

 

Your use of design is nonsensical and variable. Design refers to planning the entirety of the components of a map within the context of the game mechanics. 

 

You characterized half my post with the term "gameplay". No, I'm not talking about gameplay. You forced the conversation into a corner: map geometry and I worked within those confines. Disingenuous and empty.

 

 

Your last addendum about your "forging" is relevant. It seems that you insist on characterizing being a forger as authoritative. Don't kid yourself into thinking you're a map designer.

 

 

Edit: 

 

Korlash killed it. Exactly.

 

That last bit is in no way, shape, or form an attempt to characterize myself as authoritative. I don't know how you've gotten that deduction.

 

I was merely saying that there are instances when I've designed maps (on PC programs, with pen and paper, etc. - NOT in a game) with no game in mind, and some designs with multiple games in mind. This is my counterpoint to you saying: "Design refers to planning the entirety of the components of a map within the context of the game mechanics". That is all.

 

Also, why would I adjust the meaning of "design" and "linear" to yours when I made the original statement? You responded, but with your definitions, which were definitions that didn't apply to what I was saying. That's awfully self-centered of you to just expect others to conform to your ways.

 

I never expected you to take on those definitions - I merely insisted that you understand the context I was using them in, in order for you to understand what I was saying and why I was saying it.

Share this post


Link to post

That last bit is in no way, shape, or form an attempt to characterize myself as authoritative. I don't know how you've gotten that deduction.

 

I was merely saying that there are instances when I've designed maps (on PC programs, with pen and paper, etc. - NOT in a game) with no game in mind, and some designs with multiple games in mind. This is my counterpoint to you saying: "Design refers to planning the entirety of the components of a map within the context of the game mechanics". That is all.

 

Also, why would I adjust the meaning of "design" and "linear" to yours when I made the original statement? You responded, but with your definitions, which were definitions that didn't apply to what I was saying. That's awfully self-centered of you to just expect others to conform to your ways.

 

I never expected you to take on those definitions - I merely insisted that you understand the context I was using them in, in order for you to understand what I was saying and why I was saying it.

 

Are you purposely trying to ignore the latter half of my post or are you obtuse? I specifically address you on the basis of your own terms there.

 

 

 

 

Design (ie planning how you make a map) demands knowing what game you're making it for. Or are you telling me that you could plop "your designs" in Super Mario Bros or Gran Turismo?

Who are you kidding...

 

 

You're smart and certainly not stupid, you're just stubbornly trying to stick to your first incorrect statement.

Share this post


Link to post

@@menotyou135

 

Also, you should probably take BriteeyeZ's criticisms more seriously. Go back and read that post of yours to me.

 

You just tried to spell out to me that I'm a moron, whether that was your conscious intent or not.

 

"Pretentious is not a complex word by any means. I think my English class had it as a vocab word in like 7th grade. 

 

Authoritative isn't either. It is just a sub word of authority, which is something most kindergartners know the definition of."

 

She kind of nailed it right on the head. That part of your post is definitely (or at the very least comes of as) pretentious, condescending, etc.

EDIT: please read the whole thing before responding if you plan on responding

 

lol

 

You know for a fact that I don't think you are a moron. You have known me long enough to know that. I have praised you and your ideas in uncountable occasions.

 

I type very bluntly. I always have. I use a lot of hyperbole. That is just the way I talk. If people think that means I am condescending, then so be it. I can't just change the way that I have been communicating for the last 4-5 years on a dime. 

 

Basically, don't take anything I say to heart. I don't like dealing with politically correct bullshit, and trying to water down what I am saying to avoid hurting someone's feelings. 

 

You are on the internet. It is stupidly simple to avoid someone you don't like. It isn't like I am going  to come to your house and continue arguing about Halo if you close out of the window or ignore me. 

 

Also, didn't realize she was a she. Should I have treated her better or nicer because of it? Should I have made an exception to how I speak to people and treated her differently from how I treat everybody? TBH, I don't think I should have because I believe in treating people equally, both good and bad. I don't believe in special treatment which is why I debate with Mods and Halo vets the same way I debate with people I have never met. 

 

I type like this to people I respect and those I disrespect equally. I am very objective in how I post. I have typed like this to cT before and I respect the shit out of him and think he is far more intelligent than me. I have used the same undertones with him. 

 

Actually, that isn't entirely right. I generally don't type like this to people I disrespect. I completely ignore them. Go and look for any post by someone who just joined and posted a stupid wall of text and see if I responded. I rarely do and when I do, it is in response to someone else's response. 

 

If I take the time to debate with you that means I respect what you said enough to critically think about it and provide a rebuttal. I wouldn't spend my time creating a wall of text analyzing someone's post if I didn't think they were smart enough to understand what I was saying. I post because I hope to actually have an intelligent conversation with someone. That is what I do. If I am talking to you, then I feel you are smart enough to have a conversation with. 

 

That is why I told her to add me to her ignore list. Because she stopped debating and started posting things like stop being a jerk gifs and things like this that add nothing to a conversation: 

I'm still trying to figure out why this became a big discussion, like people actually thought Halo 3 took more skill than Halo 1.

 

At that point, I lost my interest in discussing things with her, because she didn't want to discuss anything. 

 

If THC was still a thing, then you could go back and look at the very same things I typed back then to the people I agreed and disagreed with. 

 

If I have to be wishy washy about what I say to avoid rustling jimmies, then I would rather not type at all. 

 

I talk bluntly. That's what I do. 

 

I don't mean anything by what people "perceive" as insults, and the tone they "perceive" when reading my posts. If I am talking to you, then I respect you on at least some level. I don't waste my time with people I don't feel are worth my time.

 

Period. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.