I'm working on a sci-fi multiplayer FPS game, and am currently designing maps with layout influences from the 2015 Star Wars: Battlefront game and from the original Halo CE game, as those games have the maps which I find very enjoyable. When I was building the map layouts for my game, I started to wonder why I was looking at these older games for reference instead of, say, maps from these games's sequels. I know that the enjoyability of certain maps is subjective, but there's a big difference in the amount of fun my friends and I have had playing the maps in these specific games instead of the newer sequels. Something about the maps in these games provides an inherently fun, memorable experience, and some newer games (like Battlefront II or Halo V) lack that experience. Maybe some of these maps aren't really anything special, but I know that certain maps like Blood Gulch have been praised by fans for years.

What makes these maps so memorable and fun to play on multiplayer? Is it a product of the developers' map-making experience and the resources of the large companies (the Battlefront devs went to Iceland for reference), or are there specific layout styles and/or structures that are known to provide interesting close-quarters scenarios? Is there an intangible quality to good maps?

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If the level designers for Halo and Battlefront had figured this out, the sequel maps would have ended up better than the originals. So it's probably either something subtle, or the level designers have different tastes from you. Or what you think is better level design is actually something like changes in weapon design changing how players interact with open and enclosed spaces, and you might actually love Halo 3 maps if you played them in Halo 1. \$\endgroup\$ – Foxwarrior Dec 29 '19 at 8:38