World map

[Malekith]

Lephys, on 26 Nov 2014 - 12:43 AM, said:

 

Sheikh, on 25 Nov 2014 - 2:11 PM, said:

Okay I get it, this map has garbage artsyle. You know yeah it does. But MAY BE that is because clearly the map is pre-alpha?

It really isn't a garbage artstyle. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it intrinsically garbage. It's just a more sketchy/gestury style. How much detail are you going to get in a map, anyway? "Oh look! That little market stall that takes up 4 pixels on the screen ACTUALLY has lots of super detailed cloth folds and stuff in it! WOOOOH!"

 

That's how you do a paintly/scetchy style map:

Just instead of the crappy area icons have a blue outlining in the part of the map representing an area like the BG2 areas did

[Quetzalcoatl]

That's not really a map though, it's just a pretty backdrop with some icons scattered around. You could move those icons around and it wouldn't make a difference, since they have no relation to the backdrop. The PoE map actually has a sense of physicality and geography. 

 

Just instead of the crappy area icons have a blue outlining in the part of the map representing an area like the BG2 areas did

I'm sure this game will be ruined if it doesn't copy every minute detail of the old games, right down to the blue outline around world map icons you will be staring at for a few seconds at most throughout the entire game. Ruined, I tell you.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[Malekith]

Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 6:14 PM, said:Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 6:14 PM, said:

I'm sure this game will be ruined if it doesn't copy every minute detail of the old games, right down to the blue outline around world map icons you will be staring at for a few seconds at most throughout the entire game. Ruined, I tell you.

No need to tell me, i know

Edited December 7, 2014 by Malekith

[ISC]

You could move those icons around and it wouldn't make a difference, since they have no relation to the backdrop. 

 

 

What? They are represented on the backdrop. Its a shame the icons obscures that though. 

[Quetzalcoatl]

 

You could move those icons around and it wouldn't make a difference, since they have no relation to the backdrop. 

 

 

What? They are represented on the backdrop. Its a shame the icons obscures that though. 

 

That's only evident with the Dragon's Eye, which is obviously placed near the dragon's skeleton. My point was that the icons don't have any representation or connection to the backdrop, which is why it doesn't feel like a map at all. It's a beautiful backdrop though.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[ISC]

 

 

You could move those icons around and it wouldn't make a difference, since they have no relation to the backdrop. 

 

 

What? They are represented on the backdrop. Its a shame the icons obscures that though. 

 

That's only evident with the Dragon's Eye, which is obviously placed near the dragon's skeleton. My point was that the icons don't have any representation or connection to the backdrop, which is why it doesn't feel like a map at all. It's a beautiful backdrop though.

 

Oh but there are some more, Kuldahars tree is obvious, and so are the severed hand. Then there's the pass and wyrms tomb which are less obvious... I can imagine that some detailed representations are entirely obscured by the icons as well, such as Easthaven and maybe the vale.. 

 

Anyway, I think we agree then in that the superimposed icons mess up the feel of the map and kind of reduce it to a backdrop. In that regard I think that PoE's map does a better job than the IE games did of integrating the icons with the map.

[Malekith]

ISC, on 07 Dec 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:ISC, on 07 Dec 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

 

Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 9:53 PM, said:Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 9:53 PM, said:

 

ISC, on 07 Dec 2014 - 9:13 PM, said:ISC, on 07 Dec 2014 - 9:13 PM, said:

 

Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 6:14 PM, said:Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 6:14 PM, said:

You could move those icons around and it wouldn't make a difference, since they have no relation to the backdrop. 

 

 

What? They are represented on the backdrop. Its a shame the icons obscures that though. 

 

That's only evident with the Dragon's Eye, which is obviously placed near the dragon's skeleton. My point was that the icons don't have any representation or connection to the backdrop, which is why it doesn't feel like a map at all. It's a beautiful backdrop though.

 

Oh but there are some more, Kuldahars tree is obvious, and so are the severed hand. Then there's the pass and wyrms tomb which are less obvious... I can imagine that some detailed representations are entirely obscured by the icons as well, such as Easthaven and maybe the vale.. 

 

Anyway, I think we agree then in that the superimposed icons mess up the feel of the map and kind of reduce it to a backdrop. In that regard I think that PoE's map does a better job than the IE games did of integrating the icons with the map.

 

Not BG2 though, i find it superior to PoE's map, and that's why i asked for BG2 way of depicting areas instead of the IWD one. BG2 had the best area representation. NWN2 map always seemed to me like the worst of both cases without the benefits of either, subpar backround with badly looking areas on top.

I would aslo be ok with having an actual map-like map, like PST had.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Malekith

[Quetzalcoatl]

I don't see what's so great about the BG2 map. It was a major step back from the BG1 map, which was superior in terms of depicting a cohesive world.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[Malekith]

Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

I don't see what's so great about the BG2 map. It was a pretty big step back from the BG1 map, which was superior in terms of depicting a cohesive world.

How so?

i always liked the BG2 one more( in appearence and on design/functionality,), but as i was talking about how the areas were depicted both games are about the same. I just find the BG2 colored icons pretier

Edited December 7, 2014 by Malekith

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

I don't see what's so great about the BG2 map. It was a pretty big step back from the BG1 map, which was superior in terms of depicting a cohesive world.

How so?

i always liked the BG2 one more( in appearence and on design/functionality,), but as i was talking about how the areas were depicted both games are about the same. I just find the BG2 colored icons pretier

 

 

The BG map was superior to the BG2 map in that it had greater character. It fleshed out the lay of the land better, because the areas populated and covered the map in a semi-contiguous manner. To be fair though, if BG2 had the same style map, it would have felt empty and devoid because the areas were designed much differently. I imagine that's why they decided to add color and a more vivid background.

[Malekith]

Mr. Magniloquent, on 08 Dec 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:Mr. Magniloquent, on 08 Dec 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:Mr. Magniloquent, on 08 Dec 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

 

Malekith, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:14 PM, said:Malekith, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:14 PM, said:Malekith, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:14 PM, said:

 

Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:Quetzalcoatl, on 07 Dec 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

I don't see what's so great about the BG2 map. It was a pretty big step back from the BG1 map, which was superior in terms of depicting a cohesive world.

How so?

i always liked the BG2 one more( in appearence and on design/functionality,), but as i was talking about how the areas were depicted both games are about the same. I just find the BG2 colored icons pretier

 

 

because the areas populated and covered the map in a semi-contiguous manner.

That was what i didn't liked in BG1, though it wasn't exactly the maps fault. BG would be a better game with half the "wilderness" areas removed. They were just empty spaces.

In a game like the IE games,the world is an abstruction. Of course there is more than what you can visit, but it's boring and your character doesn't have a reason to visit it. Areas in the map are supposed to be the points of interest, preferably devoid of filler content, or there isn't a reason to have them at the game. "Takes 8 hours to travel in that area" means that your character travels in the wilderness killing wildlife, but the game bypasses the filler and presents you straight with the interesting content.

In the other end of the spectrum you have games like Daggerfall and Oblivion where the continuous world is the whole point, where you are supposed to slog through the boring filler in order to find the hidden interesting content, and roaming around aimlessly is 3/4 of the game.

 

BG sits uncomfortably in the middle, having the worst of both worlds. It hasn't a continious world, it's "exploration" requires zero investment from the player and consists of clearing the black fog to see the prety picture below, while it also has the boring filler areas were you go hiking in semi-empty maps killing wildlife for no reason.

There is a reason Bioware changed it for the second game, and there is no other game that follows the BG1 world design outside the very first Geneforge.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Malekith

[LadyCrimson]

^^

I personally had great fun clearing out that black fog in BG1, one stripe at a time. And if I hadn't done it, I would have missed finding Drizzt and getting a laff. Among other things. BG2 left me rather bored, map design wise, at the time.

 

That said, I do think I wouldn't have as much patience or curiosity with such a design today (BG1), in terms of the amount of black stripes I'd have to march the party back and forth to clear it out. And Skyrim did have way too much wandering of literally nothing. Still, I prefer feeling as if every single atom in the game doesn't  have to have a "point" to it. That's what makes a world feel more immersive, to me. Otherwise it's just about going from A to B and back again for quests, which results in a linear feeling even if the points aren't going in a literal straight line. If there's not much wandering or exploration for exploration's sake (freedom), sure the design is tight and concise, but it also feels much more confined and scripted.

 

Something in the middle, these days, for me.

[Sheikh]

^^

I personally had great fun clearing out that black fog in BG1, one stripe at a time. And if I hadn't done it, I would have missed finding Drizzt and getting a laff. Among other things. BG2 left me rather bored, map design wise, at the time.

 

That said, I do think I wouldn't have as much patience or curiosity with such a design today (BG1), in terms of the amount of black stripes I'd have to march the party back and forth to clear it out. And Skyrim did have way too much wandering of literally nothing. Still, I prefer feeling as if every single atom in the game doesn't  have to have a "point" to it. That's what makes a world feel more immersive, to me. Otherwise it's just about going from A to B and back again for quests, which results in a linear feeling even if the points aren't going in a literal straight line. If there's not much wandering or exploration for exploration's sake (freedom), sure the design is tight and concise, but it also feels much more confined and scripted.

 

Something in the middle, these days, for me.

Perhaps youd at least need to have one small, auxiliary exciting thing every now and again though and a sign to be able to find it. But youd need to keep your eyes open to to find it so you would be more tense and have more fun exploring the nothingness as well if you cant find anything at the time.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Sheikh