![]() |
Beautiful or Playable Maps?
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?
|
Id say playable maps since the look of a map will not always tell us it's playability.
|
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 |
Playability is the most important aspect of mapping. Who cares if it looks beautiful if you can't get through the map?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
NO
|
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.:) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I agree with Disturbed entirely. I prefer simple, playable maps, with a few touches. Like a fence, or something subtle.
|
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 |
Beautiful - Exactly why Hoenn is my favorite region
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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
|
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
|
Quote:
And to what you said, Munchlax... who says the maps can't be filled with scripts? |
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? |
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.. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:26 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.