First off, none of what I mentioned, except the intel sitting out in the open, are even related to gameplay.
Second, by that reasoning, the cliffs in watchtower prevent you from getting out, so they're also gameplay related, and we accept those oddities for the sake of gameplay mechanics.
Obviously that reasoning is wrong though, just because something is gameplay related, does not mean it's acceptable in the art style, and I don't see why you used that to respond to my post, when it's hardly even related.
1) The inclusion of cliffs is
one method used to keep players in a map, this is obviously seen in maps like dustbowl. However, Dustbowl's objective/theme does not dictate a stricter attention to the environment regarding things like cliff height. If the cliffs
were huge, and we were to reason whether this is consistant to the rest of the environment, we see that it
is. Because the tall cliffs do not conflict with the narrative of the map, particularly the objective. Tall cliffs do not conflict with the rocket launch pad's operation.
Watchtower's theme requires the same consideration, but we have a different result. Tall cliffs clearly conflict with the operation of a watchtower. Having a watchtower completely surrounded by cliffs makes such a structure redundant, so we would not expect to see it exist in reality, and thus not in a TF2 map. The resource themes still abide by rules related to reality. They are important places that are the focus of mercenary battles, such facilities are designed to look like they 'work', so that we are able to immerse ourselves in these environments and justify our presence here. Because watchtower does not 'work', because its presence is not realisticly justified, we are unable to justify our own presence at this location. We question our presence and our immersion is broken.
Goldrush, Stage 1, CP 1. Cliffs? No. 4ft fence with detail area? Yes.
The cliffs do not specifically serve to keep players in the map, this is not the
role of a cliff face in TF2, there are plenty of alternative methods for cordoning the play area; which also happen to
compliment the maps theme. Given the maps theme the use of cliffs surrounding the objective is completely inappropriate. Cliffs are not a gameplay function, things like arrow signs are, so we can better stretch our acceptance of what we are presented with for the sakes of allowing us to experience the world with better flow. Cliffs do not not serve the same sort of function.
2) Spytech is part of our suspended disbelief in relation to the narrative that we are being presented with. The same concept that keeps the Star Trek narrative consistant applies here. Just because we have faster than light travel, something that clearly goes against well established laws of theoritical physics, does not give the writers the artistic lisence to have
disc turtles floating through space. Then justify it by saying because we are already breaking the fundemental law's of physics, we can pretty much do what ever we want.
Since spytech did not exist in our reality, and is a function of the narrative, it is therefor open to further art abstraction than other areas of TF2. In the same way warp travel is open to other theoretical concepts (co-axial warp, trans-warp, etc). Anything else tends to abide with our understanding of reality. The use of cliffs as a gameplay function, when they conflict with our understanding of how watchtowers operate, does not conform with this rule. Oddities in the presentation of "spytech" are not an excuse to do what ever scenarios you feel like, and expect to have them widely accepted. That's just a lack of comprehension regarding what spytech is to the narrative.
Abstract design concepts of a fictional form are not motif's of incompetence, nor are they excuses to be blazay about your maps theme and its level of dissonance.
