Do you care about a realistic world map?

[JFSOCC]

The map of Faerun makes no sense. There's deserts in places where you'd expect jungles, rivers with no credible source, badlands where by rights should be forest.

 

I know, it's a fantasy world. so maybe I shouldn't care. But I do notice these things, surely I'm not the only one?

[Thangorodrim]

For me the regions are there to facilitate game play and different races and encounters ... as long at the inhabitants of the different regions match their region (farmers in plains, deer and bears in forests, monsters in mountains and swamps, etc) I am okay with a little creative license ... Fallout 3 might have had a realistic post apocalyptic landscape but it was pretty boring and repetitive ... since things like magic already violate our accepted rules of reality I am willing to carry over the same suspension of disbelief on magic to the landscape to facilitate the best range of gameplay

[kabaliero]

so, yeah, we're talking, like, magic-filled world

with who knows what kind of vortex might start here and there

flows of magic energy affect the correctness of the usual landscape, i guess

 

but in all honesty, yeah, i'd like it more natural

 

the thing that bothers me the most however:

is that we aren't going see the sky of that world

[UncleBourbon]

I'd prefer a logical arrangement of landscape and biomes and such. This does not mean they would have to be consistant with our understanding of things - there could be magical springs sourced in another plane, or deserts created by a magical cataclysm. That, or an ongoing storm system sustained by some angered deity. I'd also hope for more gradual transitions - none of this panning from a jungle directly to a desert or something. Obsidian hasn't done poorly in this regard, to my knowledge. Faerun was a bit of a mess - in one campaign we spanned an entire river's system, and according to the maps and location books, the river flowed both ways toward a midpoint, and climbed up a hill on one side. It made traversing it in a folding boat tricky, to say the least.

[OldRPG'sAreGood]

I do care about it, but I don't mind naturally illogical enviroments if it's explained why is it so. Afterall, magical disasters and such can have quite an effect on the world but if they aren't taken into account, I prefer a realistic world design with rivers and woods and so on.

[svartelric]

I like consistent world maps.

[Haerski]

I agree with OP. Sometimes maps in games are painfully illogical just to create variety, which IMO is not even nearly as important as consistent logic to help immersion.

 

Of course there can be otherworldly phenomenons to explain some exceptions, but beside those world should follow laws of physics. I'm not asking Obsidian to hire geologist to do world map, but they should give this aspect thought or two.

[kabaliero]

the landscape should be repeatingly boring, but beautiful

[Monte Carlo]

The map of Faerun makes no sense. There's deserts in places where you'd expect jungles, rivers with no credible source, badlands where by rights should be forest.

 

I know, it's a fantasy world. so maybe I shouldn't care. But I do notice these things, surely I'm not the only one?

 

We all have our little peccadilloes. This one doesn't bother me, personally, but I can understand why someone with a bit of physical geography knowledge might get a bit bent out of shape.

 

Personally, I'm pretty happy with the "hey, it's fantasy" kind of explanation.

[Aedelric]

It should be realistic within reason.

 

I would be fine with letting some inconsistency slide for the sake of making a more interesting landscape and if landscape was changed for magical reasons it would also be perfectly acceptable.

 

So long as things do not get too ridiculous, it should be fine.

[Freshock]

I think a realistic world would make the terrain very boring to be honest. In a fantasy world you have the freedom to place winter, summer, desert-terrains closer to eachother than in a realstic world, which means there will be much more variation in the game. Also - placing plain, realsitic trees, flowers and such around the map would also make it look...boring. In my opinion.

[Few]

For me the regions are there to facilitate game play and different races and encounters ... as long at the inhabitants of the different regions match their region (farmers in plains, deer and bears in forests, monsters in mountains and swamps, etc) I am okay with a little creative license ...

 

when I read that i couldn't help thinking that the next time I go to snowdonia I had better keep an eye out for monsters.

 

Im sure you didn't mean it like that but it made me laugh.

[Monte Carlo]

Last time I was in Snowdonia all I saw were herds of terrified sheep.

[Hellfell]

Would be refreshing to see Ice and Snow in the south and deserts in the north.

[Magnum Opus]

I notice that sort of thing too.

 

Then the moment passes and my attention is drawn to more immediate and interesting concerns, like how much money I can get for that interesting but ultimately useless-to-my-party dagger and whether I REALLY need to sell it or not, or whether I've got enough storage space to indulge my inner packrat.

 

Is not a high priority, let's just say. I would rate the aesthetic presentation of the forest/desert/mountainous regions of the world much higher than the mere fact of their existence within the world itself. It's not even such a pressing concern that I would bother trying to justify an incongruous forest by saying "it's a MAGIC forest". No, it's just... there. Accept it as part of the setting and move on. There are so very many other shortcuts that NEED to be taken in translating a fantasy world into a finite medium that I'm not going to worry about something like that at all.

[Metabot]

How do you know what the climates of PE are? Have you studied them? Do you know the makeup of thrir solar system? Maybe It's not even in a solar system as we know it. I mean Jesus.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

Can't say it has ever really bothered me that much, but I always appreciate things that show the writers care about their world and want it to make sense. So on that level, yeah, I'd prefer a world map that is realistic over one with randomly cobbled together deserts and jungles and the like.

[nikolokolus]

Is the planet spherical and does it rotate about an axis? If the answer is no, then throw out the coriolis effect and assumptions about climate.

[UncleBourbon]

Is the planet spherical and does it rotate about an axis? If the answer is no, then throw out the coriolis effect and assumptions about climate.

 

I wouldn't mind a dyson sphere setting... In fact, that would be pretty cool.

[JFSOCC]

Is the planet spherical and does it rotate about an axis? If the answer is no, then throw out the coriolis effect and assumptions about climate.

on one side of a mountain range it will still be drier than on the other side, because that's the effect mountain ranges have.

I'm not saying I want it to be earthlike, I'm saying I'd appreciate some consistency, and indeed that it appears the game developers have put some love into these things. I don't think it would be painfully hard to do.

[C2B]

The map of Faerun makes no sense. There's deserts in places where you'd expect jungles, rivers with no credible source, badlands where by rights should be forest.

 

I know, it's a fantasy world. so maybe I shouldn't care. But I do notice these things, surely I'm not the only one?

 

It's already said it's going to be revised.

 

The current map was something that was thrown together in a short amount of time.

Edited October 28, 2012 by C2B

[Metabot]

Also, proximity to the equator or things like that doesn't necessarily mean you'll have a jungle there. You don't know the history of the planet and you don't know whether there have been some catastrophes or other events that can change the climate. I mean, hell, Arrakis is a desert planet in Dune. Are you saying that's implausible?

[JFSOCC]

habitable worlds with just one climate are implausible, habitable worlds with just one habitable climate might not be.

 

Even if the temperature was the same everywhere, the presence of terrain features like mountains will impact climate.

Shangri-La is a tropical paradise that isn't actually tropical, it's much too northwards and and high for there to be so much life and diversity. so why is there? because warm and moist air is being funnelled into the mountains thanks to their lay-out. the warm and moist-laden air causes the rainfall patterns which in turn lead to one of the most unique and diverse biomes here on earth.

 

but it makes sense. it follows a logic. there is a reason why there is a quasi tropical place outside of the tropics.

Edited October 28, 2012 by JFSOCC

[BasaltineBadger]

As long as river go from mountains to the ocean I don't give a ****.

Edited October 28, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[nikolokolus]

I'm a GIS analyst by trade and I have a MS in geography and I couldn't possibly care less if a fantasy world follows the laws of physics or principles of physical geography. In fact I'm always pleasantly surprised when a fantasy world zigs when I expect it to zag- all part of what makes fantasy fantastical.