Indeed. The reason why maps that are well-designed get more attention than maps that aren't is really quite simple. A TARDIS map might be "fun" to some people, but The Ark will be fun for anyone who enjoys playing standard Halo because it's actually a well-designed map. When someone spends months understanding important concepts like line of sight (which are absolutely not buzz words), they are able to design better maps. The key word here is "design", on these maps everything is there for a reason. Once every detail of the design is agonized over, months are spent testing these maps. That is the difference between a good competitive map and a mediocre casual map. The short answer is that these maps are simply better than maps that are "just fun". It's also worth noting that the idea of fun is purely subjective, whereas game balance can ensure the best possible experience for everyone. Well designed maps also incorporate meta aspects, require map knowledge, and generally just encourage players to use their brains rather than to blindly run and gun.
Because many people do not understand these underlying design concepts, competitive maps get, if anything, decidedly less attention than they deserve. As Shoe pointed out, this becomes immediately clear if you browse the view count on THFE features. Mini games and Flood features receive significantly more views than their competitive counterparts. It's true that there are some people who recycle proven competitive designs without any real creativity involved, and these maps certainly shouldn't be given too much attention. However, a well designed but generic map should still get more attention than a poorly designed generic one. Unfortunately, this often isn't the case in practice.
