Beautiful or Playable Maps?

[Syrex]

I like Beautiful Maps. I like to be visually pleased.

 

[TB Pro]

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]

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.

 

[Ray Maverick]

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]

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.

 

[Ray Maverick]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ray Maverick]

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]

Playable, though i make my makes good looking as best i can, also big

 

[Ninja Caterpie]

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]

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!