If by 'huge', you mean the same size as SG1 and SG3, then yes, you're correct. I feel that size should be the average size of a map tbh, because any smaller and it doesn't feel like survival anymore. Small maps tend to turn MCSG into a luck based death-match. I don't see how you can view it as ugly at all. In both appearance and looks we achieved our target with Hungry Hills. It became everything we wanted it to be. There was one downside to it which I am planning to fix with an update, and that is the lake bed. It's fairly ugly. To fix it would have taken us a lot of work back then but due to recent updates in plugins and whatnot, we can fix it easily now. Before you go on raising the argument about how there 'aren't a lot of chests', I would just like to let you know that there are. There are plenty of WELL HIDDEN chests. Well hidden because we didn't want them to be out in blind-sight. In Hungry Hills 2.0, we added chests to which we put out in the open for those who were complaining about it. We also added a few more landscapes and changed others.
Long story short, my point is that rather than just saying that it's huge and ugly, you could give a more... valid reason? or maybe using constructive criticism would have been nice.
If you actually read this, then thanks for reading it. I hope you've gained some knowledge from what I have typed down in words for you. Have a nice day.
