PDA

View Full Version : Beautiful or Playable Maps?


Conan Edogawa
July 31st, 2009, 03:52 PM
This is something I've seen coming up a lot so I thought I would get opinions. What is more important to you? A beautiful map or a playable. No in betweens here. I vote for Playable. Just because a map looks good by itself doesn't mean it will be fun to play. If you look at the original Nintendo maps most are "poor" as far as looks go but they're fun to play. Also since they're hacks that are meant to be played I think playability comes first. What do you think?

Pokepal17
August 1st, 2009, 05:01 AM
Id say playable maps since the look of a map will not always tell us it's playability.

Chibi Robo
August 1st, 2009, 06:52 AM
Well a map always has to be practical like an entrance and a end
But In my opinion I like beautiful maps who doesn't like strolling by a city when it looks gorgeous

Vrai
August 1st, 2009, 06:59 AM
Playability is the most important aspect of mapping. Who cares if it looks beautiful if you can't get through the map?

sasquatchd00d
August 1st, 2009, 08:16 AM
I'm not going to vote because it's both. A beautiful map without playability is still awful and vice versa. Aesthetics and playability go hand in hand really. A map that's beautiful, but only gives me one tile of walking space? No thanks. A map that gives me a wide variety of things to do as well as giving me space to move, but looks terrible? I'll pass. But people tend to lean towards beauty for some reason. Take Pokémon Crono for example. The routes give the player little room to move, yet they look aesthetically pleasing. And this is a very well made hack and quite popular.

sab
August 1st, 2009, 08:27 AM
I think that a map that looks ugly but has great playability stinks, and a map that looks great but you can only get to one or two parts is also worth-less. It is essencial to make a nice map that has lots of side passages to explore while still keeping shape and good placement.

Yoshimi
August 1st, 2009, 09:33 AM
It's a mix of both. They are connected, because you cannot have a truly great map without both of them. Of course, they matter differently in their respective areas. Whenever someone just makes a map they don't plan on using in a game, I lean more on the aesthetics side, as long as the path gives the player space to move. The rating is reversed when someone plans to use the map in a hack, as long as the map doesn't look awful.

Griin.
August 1st, 2009, 02:41 PM
I'd say playability. Sure that map has to be beautiful but you won't see its full beauty in game. So this is why i vote for playabillity.

lucas_irineu
August 1st, 2009, 02:43 PM
There is no reason that you cant have a map that is both playable and beautiful. Someone skilled enough to make a beautiful map can easily make it good to play in.

Disturbed
August 1st, 2009, 02:55 PM
Finally, this is my kind of thread.

Alright, first of all... I originally thought (like, 6 months ago) that a beautiful map was the most important thing to make, and the aspect of playability had never occurred to me. Alright, (sorry Neti) but playing Legend of Fenju, which was a hack entirely based around beauty, with limited sense of playability, I thought to myself, 'is this really what I want to strive for?' Sure, looking at a map on a thread like the MRT, what we really enjoy seeing is a beautiful map... but people need to imagine how much it would really suck to be a person who is playing the hack. Now, if the map has a mixture, it may go nicely... but it is near impossible to have a nice map, with a good sense of playability, unless your mapping style is exactly like Rijon Adventures', and Liquid Ocean's. Those two hacks are the only ones I can name off the top of my head, that truely combine playability, and beauty.

(I know people will hate me for this) Nintendo had it right, we had it wrong. I'll say it right now, EVERY SINGLE MAP I MADE THAT I POSTED ON MRT IS BAD. Nintendo's style is really what we should strive for.

Honestly, I can say... Nintendo has made very beautiful maps, and very playable maps.

hunterzhorizon
August 2nd, 2009, 02:49 AM
it can be pretty as hell, but not work.
id rather it be playable as hella, and ugly.
though, looks are somthing that will catch the eye.
this is sort of a tricky question.
but i voted playable.:)

Pokepal17
August 2nd, 2009, 05:57 AM
Finally, this is my kind of thread.

Alright, first of all... I originally thought (like, 6 months ago) that a beautiful map was the most important thing to make, and the aspect of playability had never occurred to me. Alright, (sorry Neti) but playing Legend of Fenju, which was a hack entirely based around beauty, with limited sense of playability, I thought to myself, 'is this really what I want to strive for?' Sure, looking at a map on a thread like the MRT, what we really enjoy seeing is a beautiful map... but people need to imagine how much it would really suck to be a person who is playing the hack. Now, if the map has a mixture, it may go nicely... but it is near impossible to have a nice map, with a good sense of playability, unless your mapping style is exactly like Rijon Adventures', and Liquid Ocean's. Those two hacks are the only ones I can name off the top of my head, that truely combine playability, and beauty.

(I know people will hate me for this) Nintendo had it right, we had it wrong. I'll say it right now, EVERY SINGLE MAP I MADE THAT I POSTED ON MRT IS BAD. Nintendo's style is really what we should strive for.

Honestly, I can say... Nintendo has made very beautiful maps, and very playable maps.

This is probably one of the best posts iregarding mapping ever. You're totally right, even I've played hacks with beautiful maps which aren't very playable. However, we shouldn't all just copy Nintendo's style, we should tweak it a bit so it would suit us.

Conan Edogawa
August 2nd, 2009, 02:41 PM
This is probably one of the best posts iregarding mapping ever. You're totally right, even I've played hacks with beautiful maps which aren't very playable. However, we shouldn't all just copy Nintendo's style, we should tweak it a bit so it would suit us.

That's exactly how I feel. People should try and map with a balance similar to the one Nintendo has.

Pokepal17
August 2nd, 2009, 03:29 PM
That's exactly how I feel. People should try and map with a balance similar to the one Nintendo has.
Yep, but since a lot of us have been told to do more beautiful looking maps, we're all used to it. Nintendo make a lot of good maps and we (including myself) all say they are rubbish, even though we may not be able to do better.

.Seth
August 2nd, 2009, 04:11 PM
I agree with Disturbed entirely. I prefer simple, playable maps, with a few touches. Like a fence, or something subtle.

burakcem
August 2nd, 2009, 04:23 PM
i'd say playable because a map doesn't always have to look good to be fun and i think you play a game for fun !

The beauty is just something extra

PiplupGHacker
August 3rd, 2009, 01:51 PM
Beautiful - Exactly why Hoenn is my favorite region

Chimchar 9
August 3rd, 2009, 06:21 PM
Well, i prefer beautiful maps.
I can see what Disturbed is saying, but i think playable maps should be maps with quite alot of scripts in, otherwise well it'll be pretty boring with hardly anything around.

In a hack you should make afew beautiful maps & afew Playable maps, just to equal it all out.

Yoshimi
August 3rd, 2009, 11:49 PM
Finally, this is my kind of thread.

Alright, first of all... I originally thought (like, 6 months ago) that a beautiful map was the most important thing to make, and the aspect of playability had never occurred to me. Alright, (sorry Neti) but playing Legend of Fenju, which was a hack entirely based around beauty, with limited sense of playability, I thought to myself, 'is this really what I want to strive for?' Sure, looking at a map on a thread like the MRT, what we really enjoy seeing is a beautiful map... but people need to imagine how much it would really suck to be a person who is playing the hack. Now, if the map has a mixture, it may go nicely... but it is near impossible to have a nice map, with a good sense of playability, unless your mapping style is exactly like Rijon Adventures', and Liquid Ocean's. Those two hacks are the only ones I can name off the top of my head, that truely combine playability, and beauty.

(I know people will hate me for this) Nintendo had it right, we had it wrong. I'll say it right now, EVERY SINGLE MAP I MADE THAT I POSTED ON MRT IS BAD. Nintendo's style is really what we should strive for.

Honestly, I can say... Nintendo has made very beautiful maps, and very playable maps.

I disagree. Nintendo is a far cry from beautiful maps, at least to me. It was very playable, but I think a beautiful map has to look natural as well as be playable. square patches of grass, straight lines of trees, and mountain tiles that almost perfectly follow each other just doesn't cut it as natural.
When we use the Nintendo style of mapping, we have a void where originality used to be. you should use your own style instead of mimicking another style. I actually tried to make a Nintendo style map, and I hated it. Maybe I don't have the touch that Cirno has, but I absolutely hated my Nintendo maps, and I'm sure others would as well.

Ninja Caterpie
August 4th, 2009, 12:17 AM
All of the above.

Well, some things can still be beautiful without screwing with gameplay. Mountains and trees and water can have nice, awesome, beautiful, natural shapes without screwing with gameplay. The only thing that poses a problem is when the mapper makes it so natural that it restricts the player.

But both together is good. Sasquatchd00d does this brilliantly, and Thrace does too. So do I, if I say so myself. 8D

And Disturbed, most of your maps are awesome-looking to play in too, stop putting yourself down.

Kyouya
August 4th, 2009, 04:44 AM
nintendo did it so you can have both but if i could only chose 1 playabilty since the whole map isnt shown in game to see that it is beatiful

NarutoActor
August 4th, 2009, 08:33 AM
there intertwined if the map is ugly I dont want to play it so its not playable if the map is not playable its not beautyful

Disturbed
August 4th, 2009, 01:06 PM
And Disturbed, most of your maps are awesome-looking to play in too, stop putting yourself down.
I doesn't like mah old maps though.

And to what you said, Munchlax... who says the maps can't be filled with scripts?

Full Metal
August 5th, 2009, 04:28 AM
OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHH interesting...
well here's what i say.
1)If your posting the map on MRT you want to post a BEAUTIFUL map but where it isn't obviously unplayable (make it atleast somewhat playable, people can tell)
2)If you are doing a hack, you want a little bit different type of map.
Well, you are playing a game so you want playable maps right?
BUT that's not saying that they can't look good either.
I reccomend setting the map and block view size to double
then look at things the way a player would, 15 square blocks (i think that's the right number)
and make a "min-map" without necessarily random big tree placement, but rather a few small trees (i'm talkin 1 or 2 here) and decide if that area should have wild-grass or not.
After you make the map go to regular size and check to see if you missed anything or not.
Make sure the map makes sense.
E.G. your path(s) connect, and that you didn't "misplace" any trees or nothing. Those sort of things, then it's not a bad map necessarily (just remember the little trees aren't necessary every 15 tiles OK?

Crimson Stardust
August 5th, 2009, 04:51 AM
I have an answer to this..its short and sweet...
a map{if you are making for a hack}must have bothe qualities..its what make the maps look great and nice to play in..

CrystalPhoenix93
August 5th, 2009, 04:53 AM
I don't understand why a map can't be both!

Pokestick, good times.
August 5th, 2009, 05:05 AM
Hm. No inbetweens?

I voted for beatiful. Because that's what I'm good at XD
Jokes aside (it's true though), a map can be fun to play even if the play itself is a living ... Am I allowed to say that specific word? Anyways, I think a stunning beauteful map can be good even if it's actually stunning the player, but of course I'd prefer having a winning combination ^^

- Pokey Out!

ElPresidente
August 5th, 2009, 08:39 AM
Maps can be both, but if someone gets too carried away mapping twist, turns, and intricate patterns with trees, you might end up with a maze for a first town. That's not fun.

I say routes can be more creative and still fun to play, but if everything is that detailed, it can be a pain. I've never seen a big city that was really creatively detailed (people are probably too lazy) but that could be really fun.

0d'
August 5th, 2009, 09:24 AM
Man... it's hard to choose. For me a beautiful map gotta be playable and vice-versa.

Curt_09
August 5th, 2009, 05:19 PM
I like to have both, but when it comes right down to it playability is the primary concern. There could be a square zigzag between towns and I would like it better than a mess of checkerboarded trees that I can't hardly find my way through. Of course, both of those would be hacks that I wouldn't be playing for very long.

Shade007
August 6th, 2009, 09:02 AM
Its hard to pick one......but i'll go with....beautiful maps.

Shadow2by4
August 9th, 2009, 06:33 PM
My vote goes for beautiful maps. Sure, a well-designed dungeon is good for the soul in most cases, but let's face down the nature of the game; Pokemon is designed around frequent random encounters and a turn-based battle system. This can make long dungeons, even the most intuitive and challenging, with lots of features, seem tedious and boring. Beautifully drawn and perhaps even animated maps, however, bring the game to life. Though, I may be a tad biased. I play hacks on GPSP through a very cramped memory stick, so getting more bang for my megabyte is very important to me.

Otter
August 9th, 2009, 06:37 PM
Overall, I think maps should focus more on visual appeal, so my vote goes for beautiful maps. However, playability is also important, and going overboard with making a map fancy shmancy can kill the playability, thus effectively ruining your efforts (hard to appreciate the beauty of a map when it's a pain just to navigate through). As long as you perfect the visuals of your map without making intricate patterns, paths, twists, turns, etc. then you're good to go.

Sarcastic Prince
September 4th, 2009, 06:45 AM
Both. Empty maps are worthless and pathectic, and that's what it is. But however, a great map which cannot be played is even more pathectic. So, the answer is: Both.

QuilavaKing
September 4th, 2009, 10:21 AM
I'm not going to vote because it's both. A beautiful map without playability is still awful and vice versa. Aesthetics and playability go hand in hand really. A map that's beautiful, but only gives me one tile of walking space? No thanks. A map that gives me a wide variety of things to do as well as giving me space to move, but looks terrible? I'll pass. But people tend to lean towards beauty for some reason. Take Pokémon Crono for example. The routes give the player little room to move, yet they look aesthetically pleasing. And this is a very well made hack and quite popular.
Took the words right out of my mouth.

Wiimeiser
September 4th, 2009, 10:57 PM
I voted playable, but it really depends. All maps must be playable but I think it depends on what kind of map it is. If it's free roaming, like a town or a large route, focus on making it look good. If it's a difficult cave late into the game, like Victory Road, Concentrate mostly on playability and keep looks to "no glitches".

Brofaux
September 13th, 2009, 04:27 PM
-.-

I don't see why a map can't be beautiful and playable at the same time.
You can't have one without the other.

I don't care if its super playable, but if it looks crappy, I'm not playing it. Thus, its not playable.

chalk
September 13th, 2009, 09:05 PM
I think the best is a mix of both. If it's playable and not good looking then I don't really like it. But if it's not even playable then what's the point?

Lollypop
September 14th, 2009, 02:36 AM
I vote for playable as if the map looks good but is impossible to play on, then whats the point of playing it? Remember, a game is for playing and not looking but of course, beautiful maps also add some art into the game/hack.

psychicboy
September 16th, 2009, 06:35 AM
If you ask me, both would be pretty nice to have in a hack >.>

Syrex
September 18th, 2009, 09:34 AM
I like Beautiful Maps. I like to be visually pleased.

TB Pro
September 18th, 2009, 09:00 PM
I used to be in love with beautiful maps(and still am), but my idea has kinda shifted. I prefer to keep maps beautiful, but alter them enough to have good playability as well. So I guess both.

→goon
September 19th, 2009, 10:17 AM
Each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Although some will argue against it, playable maps do give up some beauty in regards to the overall feel of a map. And the same is true for beautiful maps because to make a map completely beautiful, some playability will have to be sacrificed. Finding a median is definitely what maps should strive for.

The Prince of Sweet Sorrow
September 20th, 2009, 03:02 AM
I think playable maps are better. I used to make maps without playability, but i realised that was wrong.
Any map in the game must have playability, so it doesn't screw up with the border bloc/ etc. etc.
When i see mistakes in a map when i'm playing it, it pisses me off.

Nintendo's maps may have playability 10/10, but they are not beatiful.

→goon
September 21st, 2009, 03:06 PM
Nintendo's maps may have playability 10/10, but they are not beatiful.

I have to disagree with that statement.

Have you ever seen Sevault Canyon? How about Route 119, or pretty much any of the RSE mapping? Those are some beautiful maps if you ask me.

The Prince of Sweet Sorrow
September 23rd, 2009, 10:38 AM
I have to disagree with that statement.

Have you ever seen Sevault Canyon? How about Route 119, or pretty much any of the RSE mapping? Those are some beautiful maps if you ask me.

Yes, maybe they are, but i was talking in general.

Spherical Ice
September 23rd, 2009, 10:40 AM
Nintendo maps are beautiful, but they aren't 'natural'. They're 'square'. Which I prefer.

Anyway, I find that playability is a bigger priority than beauty, however an empty field isn't very nice, either.

bt me no liek maizs n maizs of tr3z n mntuns.

Satoshi Sugimori
September 23rd, 2009, 01:06 PM
I have to say both, they have to be beautiful and playable, every good mapper knows that.
Why would you make an ugly playable map or an beautiful unplayable map that just makes no sense.
So again it has to be both.

The Prince of Sweet Sorrow
September 24th, 2009, 04:26 AM
I have to say both, they have to be beautiful and playable, every good mapper knows that.
Why would you make an ugly playable map or an beautiful unplayable map that just makes no sense.
So again it has to be both.

Next time, read the first post. Gir? said it clearly:
What is more important to you? A beautiful map or a playable. No in betweens here.

You should choose Beautiful maps, or Playable maps?

Mister Flogers
September 24th, 2009, 10:17 PM
Playable, though i make my makes good looking as best i can, also big

Ninja Caterpie
September 25th, 2009, 12:02 AM
Yes, maybe they are, but i was talking in general.

Uh, yeah, it's called getting better at it over time, which is exactly what Nintendo does.

RBY? Horribad.
GSC? Getting better.
FR/LG? Mostly just as bad as red, but better.
RSE? Epic.
DPPt? Still good.

MK
September 25th, 2009, 06:29 AM
Well if it was beatiful... it wouldnt be a pokemon hack, it would just be
a map... It must be playable to be a hack!