The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Fan Game Hub (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=156)
-   -   Beautiful or Playable Maps? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=188718)

Conan Edogawa July 31st, 2009 3:52 PM

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?

Pokepal17 August 1st, 2009 5:01 AM

Id say playable maps since the look of a map will not always tell us it's playability.

Chibi Robo August 1st, 2009 6:52 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 6:59 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 8:16 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 8:27 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.

Luck August 1st, 2009 9:33 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 2:41 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 2:43 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 2:55 PM

NO

hunterzhorizon August 2nd, 2009 2:49 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 5:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disturbed (Post 4933029)
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 2:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokepal17 (Post 4936042)
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 3:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gir? (Post 4937997)
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 4:11 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 4:23 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 1:51 PM

Beautiful - Exactly why Hoenn is my favorite region

Chimchar 9 August 3rd, 2009 6:21 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.

Luck August 3rd, 2009 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disturbed (Post 4933029)
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 4:44 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 8:33 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 1:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninja Caterpie (Post 4942608)

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 4:28 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 4:51 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..


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 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.