Li Syaoran wrote:

with uc, their maps break common aesthetic guidelines as they focus on representing the music more

i'd suggest mapping generically first, to know the rules of mapping before breaking the law

Li Syaoran wrote:

with uc, their maps break common aesthetic guidelines as they focus on representing the music more

i'd suggest mapping generically first, to know the rules of mapping before breaking the law

yahiro kira wrote:

how it feels

lewski wrote:

@Aiq: that's a really embarrassing thing to post I hope the chuckle you got out of it was worth it

lewski wrote:

Your perspective on this topic seems quite skewed; purely aesthetic mapping is a really small niche. The direction your thoughts are going sounds good, though:

yahiro kira wrote:

how it feels

For most people, what the map feels like is actually an important part of how they both map and evaluate maps. I also want to note that feeling and aesthetics aren't mutually exclusive things to focus on at all. After all, the aesthetic identity of a map is a part of the playing experience and can for example set the mood quite effectively.

However, most of what a map feels like to play comes from the actual gameplay. You already mentioned rhythm, but I don't think you gave enough credit to how much it affects the playing experience. You said "standard rhythm choices are fine," and that's completely true: they aren't offensive to anyone, but they're also not very interesting.

If you want to create a "fresh experience," you need to go beyond "fine" and make something cool.

There's more depth to rhythm than just choosing an instrument and putting circles on sounds. Sometimes you'll want your rhythm to be denser or sparser than what the song offers. Sometimes a sliderend can emphasise a sound better than a clickable object. Sometimes, maybe even fairly often, you'll want to get rid of some of the filler rhythm that's everywhere in modern standard rhythm.

Movement, i.e. how the map makes the player move their cursor, is another big part of gameplay. This is where we get to the heart of what I find odd about your perspective. The description of your idea sounds like movement would be a big part of it, but you don't mention the concept explicitly. The beginning of your post even makes it sound like movement isn't something people usually consider at all.

In reality, though, movement is at the core of the vast majority of maps. For example, maps that are supposed to be easy/comfortable to aim use a lot of simple and comfortable movement, maps that are supposed to be hard/straining to aim use a lot of awkward movement, and mappers who value detailed song representation tend to choose movement that matches what the song feels like to them. (No, these "categories" aren't mutually exclusive or an exhaustive list of everything that exists in the game.)



All that was basically just me trying to figure out why this post bothers me so much, but I hope it still helps you or someone else.

Finally, about the mapping style you want to pursue: I like interesting maps, so I'll support anyone who wants to make stuff that's cool/fresh/interesting to play. Try not to forget that ambition even when you learn new things about mapping. As for the part about breaking the rules, though, I agree with Li Syaoran. There's no meaning in doing that if you haven't mastered the rules first. The better you know the rules, the more effectively you can break them.