• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • NLD Points

    1,285 [ Donate ]

Westin last won the day on August 6

Westin had the most liked content!


About Westin

  • Rank
    Comfortable in my forum skin

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Display Name History

  1. If good design is defined by fulfilling a design goal, then it really is all subjective. If it's not subjective, then not all design goals are equal. You can't have both. In any case, it's time to bow out, lest I am tempted list off my own achievements in a battle for who gets listened to more than the other person
  2. I'm not continuing this, because I honestly don't think you mean what you're saying. I think it's easy to talk in abstractions and argue like this, and when the rubber meets the road, the opposite reveals itself to be true. After all, those who think themselves enlightened in this matter, or ascended I should say, seem to have the most predictable and recognizeable design style. More than that, like I hinted at, you all take advantage of integrity, because you literally need it to have a map that players will even consider playing. Then you throw in what you think are spices into the stew, when really your tiny door is just a loogie in the soup. It's not good design, it sucks to play, and no amount of rationalizing or "opening my mind" will make it fun. On the other hand, justice is a broad concept, and can be met in many ways. It's really not restrictive at all, and ensures that any style may work as long as it pays tribute to integrity.
  3. If you design a map without the key in mind, then add a key, does the design magically become restrictive? Nope. Look to the specific pathways to see if the map is restrictive, not your abstract reasoning. The map is not restrictive compared to most good 2v2 experiences, because it offers comparable options with the doors closed. 2-3 entrances, plus the lantern jumps, which can be done in all directions. And no, the bare minimum for good design is not synonymous with restriction. You actually need options for good design, for pinches and the like. BUT, you don't need much more than that, because the more you add, the more the player has to guess, which is, in fact, bad design. We're talking in circles now.
  4. My presumption of value, in regards to skill, is founded in morality, namely justice. If you want to argue a certain skill, fine, but when it comes to human beings interacting with one another, I won't even consider having a conversation as to whether or not that morality is there - because it is - and you implicitly agree every time you try to learn and improve as a designer, or say that it's possible to do so.
  5. Uh, what? No, I didn't say that. All the examples were specifically made without the key in mind, hence why I said as much. As for 2 entrances and exits... that's not a hard rule, but a good place to start, because 2 entrances... 2 players on a team. It's the least amount necessary to provide a chance to pinch as a team, while keeping things predictable to allow for deduction and keep pacing decent. It's not a niche thing, it's just good design.
  6. I'd say the goalie is a great example, actually. While he's not moving, the raw hand-eye coordination required makes it a super respectable position.
  7. Not all skills are equal, and many concepts of "skills" aren't skills at all. Like "tacticality", many of these ideas are nothing more than a poorly defined fandom. We could argue all day long that camping is a skill, but it's really not. If by skill we mean something that takes any amount of effort whatsoever, then anything is a skill. But, man, it's just impractical to define things so broadly. When we say skill, I think what is being implied is something that takes enough effort to warrant victory, or progress, or commendation. Does camping take effort? Yes, you have to decide to do it, you have to move your thumb to get your character in place. You even have to make sure your gamer chair is adjusted!!! Point is, while yes, there exist, how should I say it... efforts from the player, productions, intentions, that does not mean that all of them are worthy of commending with a kill, or a win, or progress, or even worth rewarding at all. I think some of those efforts are even worth outright punishing, and I can say that because in order to reward the right things, the wrong things have to be punished. If being a movement and aiming pro is easily thwarted by a campter, we're doing something wrong, and by that I mean we're literally dishing out the wrong stuff to players. We're violating justice... and for true justice (the allocation of deserved outcome to each according to his deeds) to take place, it can only be dealt in both directions. If I murder someone, then donate a dollar to the Red Cross, what should happen to me? You can say, well charity is a good thing (think skill) but no man, you just killed Dave. Screw that, we're in Florida, it's the electric chair for you. Not trying to start a debate about capital punishment, but you see what I'm saying. If one is to be rewarded or punished proportionally to what he has done, then some things are completely eclipsed, and that's okay. It's just, moral, and good. Not all acts carry the same weight, and the same is true for players in a game. Game worlds, while they don't follow the same physical laws of our world, certainly follow the same moral ones, or they wouldn't work. Next quesion would be, which skills are worth rewarding? Well, that much I think is pretty self explanatory when you play games a lot, and I don't find it necessary to delve into that right now to address this post. There's basically mechanical skill, mental skill, and coordination with teammates. There's a lot of subdivisions in there, and if anyone wants to make claims about certain subdivisions that may be undersold when they should be rewarded, then fine, argue for that. I wouldn't be surprised if I undervalue something out there.
  8. I'm so tired of this. Talk practicalities for once. Does Arcanum lack 2 entrances to every room? No, it's a similar number of pinch points as any other functional 2v2 map even without the key. Does Arcanum restrict movement more than most maps in general? Definitely not, because I can get anywhere with lantern jumps, again without the key. Does repositioning take too long? No, it's actually FASTER than most maps out there thanks to long sightlines, lanterns, the tele, and uh, you guessed it, that's without the key. If you would just stop being vague and actually assess the pathways of the map, you'll find that you're just dead wrong about how "the key forces level design design to be restrictive". Only thing that Arcanum limits more than the average map has to do with how often you're forced to clamber, which 1) has nothing to do with the key and 2) compared to most Halo 5 maps it's not even that much. I've played it more than everyone here combined (except christian) so either I'm super irrational and just really want to defend my lover, or the map isn't what you're saying it is. I know it's hard to give the benefit of the doubt, but I beg you to try. It just doesn't play out like it does in your head.
  9. If they didn't design it? Bruh, we're not the same person. I didn't make Arcanum nor did I help make it. I'm starting to really hate reading this forum.