Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
DISCUSSION ON MAP DESIGN: ACCESSIBILITY VS. AESTHETIC VALUE
Posts
Pages:
1
Chartley
50
Chartley
View playlists
CloseI began thinking about this after the recent map design contest. What exactly makes a good map? There are many factors, but I think what it boils down to is this: A map can either be tailored for game play, or focused on aesthetics and atmosphere. Perhaps if you are lucky, you can find a balance of both! I shall post some polar extreme examples of some maps from well known games, and illustrate a few thoughts on each.
Pokemon: Accessible
Pros
- Clearly defined boundaries of passability. It is very easy to see where you can walk, and where you can't.
- More suitable to action gameplay. This is debatable, but it does make sense. Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past is a good example of this, because the maps were very clearly defined, though not so pretty. They fit very well for gameplay!
- Generally easier to design.
Cons
-Not unnecessarily ugly, but generally much more simple and less atmospheric than the aesthetic maps.
-Possibly restricting on artistic vision.
Chrono Trigger: Aesthetic
Pros
-These types of maps have the potential to be absolutely gorgeous, and can be extremely successful at establishing atmosphere and setting.
-Allows for some more complex map structures.
Cons
-Requires much more effort to design
-Restricts gameplay
So those are the two extreme examples I can think of. I think this discussion is especially relevant to Rpg Maker, considering the recent release of Rpg Maker VX. With the release of VX, we now have a bit of a split between those who like XP, and those who prefer VX. One of the dividing points is that of the RTP, and how it handles map design. VX generally produces much more accessible maps, where as XP's tends to be more complex and aesthetic.
So, what do you guys have to say on the topic? What are some factors to consider in map design? Neither of these polar extremes is really any better than the others, both are widely used in the history of Video Games. Which type do YOU prefer, and why?
Pokemon: Accessible
Pros
- Clearly defined boundaries of passability. It is very easy to see where you can walk, and where you can't.
- More suitable to action gameplay. This is debatable, but it does make sense. Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past is a good example of this, because the maps were very clearly defined, though not so pretty. They fit very well for gameplay!
- Generally easier to design.
Cons
-Not unnecessarily ugly, but generally much more simple and less atmospheric than the aesthetic maps.
-Possibly restricting on artistic vision.
Chrono Trigger: Aesthetic
Pros
-These types of maps have the potential to be absolutely gorgeous, and can be extremely successful at establishing atmosphere and setting.
-Allows for some more complex map structures.
Cons
-Requires much more effort to design
-Restricts gameplay
So those are the two extreme examples I can think of. I think this discussion is especially relevant to Rpg Maker, considering the recent release of Rpg Maker VX. With the release of VX, we now have a bit of a split between those who like XP, and those who prefer VX. One of the dividing points is that of the RTP, and how it handles map design. VX generally produces much more accessible maps, where as XP's tends to be more complex and aesthetic.
So, what do you guys have to say on the topic? What are some factors to consider in map design? Neither of these polar extremes is really any better than the others, both are widely used in the history of Video Games. Which type do YOU prefer, and why?
Neophyte
155
There's a time when both are needed in a game. I'll try and give some examples.
Take a look at towns and villages in RPGs. A basic rule of thumb for towns is for it to be easily accessible, with some designation of where to go and what buildings are accessible. While nothing worthy of gameplay happens here, NPCs can fill the void, as well as goodies and secrets. You know where to walk, but towns aren't necessarily easy to design.
Now on the other side are your forests, plains, and mountains. These usually have an aesthetic feel to them, because the player wants these areas to have a certain atmosphere. If you think about it, these areas are EASIER to design, because half the time you aren't thinking of certain events taking place like towns do. You simply know what the area is going to look like, and don't have to worry about anything else. This usually leads to boring dungeon design though, so it's better to combine the two.
Caves and other inners(temples, ruins, etc) usually seem much more balanced in terms of design. The paths are usually clearly designed, but can look stunning at the same time. It's the perfect balance of gameplay and design.
In my opinion, I try to combine the two. I lean towards accessibility, but that doesn't mean I can't make the maps gorgeous. Games like Super Mario RPG and Terranigma are good examples of games that are capable of both.
Take a look at towns and villages in RPGs. A basic rule of thumb for towns is for it to be easily accessible, with some designation of where to go and what buildings are accessible. While nothing worthy of gameplay happens here, NPCs can fill the void, as well as goodies and secrets. You know where to walk, but towns aren't necessarily easy to design.
Now on the other side are your forests, plains, and mountains. These usually have an aesthetic feel to them, because the player wants these areas to have a certain atmosphere. If you think about it, these areas are EASIER to design, because half the time you aren't thinking of certain events taking place like towns do. You simply know what the area is going to look like, and don't have to worry about anything else. This usually leads to boring dungeon design though, so it's better to combine the two.
Caves and other inners(temples, ruins, etc) usually seem much more balanced in terms of design. The paths are usually clearly designed, but can look stunning at the same time. It's the perfect balance of gameplay and design.
In my opinion, I try to combine the two. I lean towards accessibility, but that doesn't mean I can't make the maps gorgeous. Games like Super Mario RPG and Terranigma are good examples of games that are capable of both.
maladroithim
1495
This is really a question of your game type.
A game like Zelda or Lolo or something where you interact with the environment requires maps that are accessible. It's not always an action game, but a game where you actually do things in the environment or interact with it. You'll notice that shooters with cover systems always have flat surfaces that you can bump up against and that puzzle games have very geometric and clearly-defined shapes. Action games like Ninja Gaiden usually have wide-open areas that give you plenty of room to move around but you don't have to do anything inside of them.
A game like Final Fantasy or Oblivion where you don't really do anything inside of the environment doesn't really need clearly defined geometry. They aren't platformers so you don't need clearly defined ledges and they aren't shooters so you don't need to have identifiable cover. A lot of games like this strive to make you pay attention to how gorgeous the environment is and these games usually are not action or puzzle games. This is especially suited for stat-crunching RPGs. Sometimes titles like Resident Evil or Bioshock make you do things inside of dense environments and it can be a little frustrating (this is especially true of old RE games with pre-rendered maps).
In terms of RPGMaker I think for most types of games dense environments are called for. Personally I find RPGs like that a little boring unless their stat-crunching is extremely compelling (Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, or Shin Megami Tensei games are good examples). I really wish people would focus on putting puzzles and things to do in their games or make stat-crunching more fun to keep me engaged rather than assuming that I'll be so impressed with their ripped tiles that I'll automatically have fun.
Legacies of Dondoran is a great example of an RPGMaker game with dense maps that give you nothing to do, but has compelling stat-crunching to keep me interested in the gameplay. Kinetic Cipher is an example of a game that gives me lots to do inside of the maps and therefore keeps them pretty clean and easy to interpret.
Ugh screw Suikoden II and its never-ending series of forest dungeons with nothing inside of them.
A game like Zelda or Lolo or something where you interact with the environment requires maps that are accessible. It's not always an action game, but a game where you actually do things in the environment or interact with it. You'll notice that shooters with cover systems always have flat surfaces that you can bump up against and that puzzle games have very geometric and clearly-defined shapes. Action games like Ninja Gaiden usually have wide-open areas that give you plenty of room to move around but you don't have to do anything inside of them.
A game like Final Fantasy or Oblivion where you don't really do anything inside of the environment doesn't really need clearly defined geometry. They aren't platformers so you don't need clearly defined ledges and they aren't shooters so you don't need to have identifiable cover. A lot of games like this strive to make you pay attention to how gorgeous the environment is and these games usually are not action or puzzle games. This is especially suited for stat-crunching RPGs. Sometimes titles like Resident Evil or Bioshock make you do things inside of dense environments and it can be a little frustrating (this is especially true of old RE games with pre-rendered maps).
In terms of RPGMaker I think for most types of games dense environments are called for. Personally I find RPGs like that a little boring unless their stat-crunching is extremely compelling (Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, or Shin Megami Tensei games are good examples). I really wish people would focus on putting puzzles and things to do in their games or make stat-crunching more fun to keep me engaged rather than assuming that I'll be so impressed with their ripped tiles that I'll automatically have fun.
Legacies of Dondoran is a great example of an RPGMaker game with dense maps that give you nothing to do, but has compelling stat-crunching to keep me interested in the gameplay. Kinetic Cipher is an example of a game that gives me lots to do inside of the maps and therefore keeps them pretty clean and easy to interpret.
author=Neophyte link=topic=1195.msg17862#msg17862 date=1211871250
Now on the other side are your forests, plains, and mountains. These usually have an aesthetic feel to them, because the player wants these areas to have a certain atmosphere. If you think about it, these areas are EASIER to design, because half the time you aren't thinking of certain events taking place like towns do. You simply know what the area is going to look like, and don't have to worry about anything else. This usually leads to boring dungeon design though, so it's better to combine the two.
Ugh screw Suikoden II and its never-ending series of forest dungeons with nothing inside of them.
I am extraordinarily pro-access. I love RMVX. I love FF1 tiles.
This doesn't mean that I don't like pretty games-- I sure as Hell do. But really, when I play a game I like to know HEY THIS IS WHERE YOU GO AND THIS IS WHERE YOU DON'T.
EDIT: And yeah, accessible maps are so much easier to make <3
This doesn't mean that I don't like pretty games-- I sure as Hell do. But really, when I play a game I like to know HEY THIS IS WHERE YOU GO AND THIS IS WHERE YOU DON'T.
EDIT: And yeah, accessible maps are so much easier to make <3
Really good topic Chartley.
I typically prefer accessible maps, though I do try and make them relatively easy on the eyes.
I typically prefer accessible maps, though I do try and make them relatively easy on the eyes.
I find it annoying if I can't really explore the map well. I'm not going to mention any names, but I know of a few mappers that can map something beautiful to the eye, but you just can't navigate through it, or their is only one path through the map, making it very boring.
As long as I can explore the areas, im good =D
As long as I can explore the areas, im good =D
I like a nice balance of both. Some games that were very "pro-atmosphere" such as Ara Fell turned out to be really messy! It simply overloaded itself with detail and ended up ruining the game for me. Another con you can add to your list, Chartley, would be the fact that a lot of the "detailed" maps tend to have tons of mapping errors on it that pisses me off.
I agree with things some others said about this earlier. I think maps should be constructed around what kind of gameplay you have. ABS like Zelda needsan "accessible" map, whether Final Fantasy and other turn-base games generally don't.
I agree with things some others said about this earlier. I think maps should be constructed around what kind of gameplay you have. ABS like Zelda needsan "accessible" map, whether Final Fantasy and other turn-base games generally don't.
Euphorian
80
I find accessible maps extremely boring. But like was said before, I don't like open places too much. Also, with aesthetic maps, they have more of a potential to be functional with complex puzzles. The logic behind that is if you have an Accessible map, you probably have three-four spaces most of the time, at least, that need to be blocked in order to make it necessary for the player to solve a puzzle. Aesthetic maps- probably only one or two. Plus Aesthetic maps create more of an atmosphere anyway. So they're stylish and functional~
Accessible maps are just there. Feels like dungeon crawling, which ew.
Side note- by my standards, that Chrono Trigger map is pretty accessible, versus aesthetic. There's really not much on it.
Accessible maps are just there. Feels like dungeon crawling, which ew.
Side note- by my standards, that Chrono Trigger map is pretty accessible, versus aesthetic. There's really not much on it.
Shadowtext
120
Keeping in mind that it would be pretty insane to go to extremes and not have any attention to the other one, I'd say accessibility is the more important thing to look at here. Games should always strive for accessibility, and making things simple for the player. Only after the gameplay has been made as elegant as possible should the aesthetics come into question, and as little as possible should be sacrificed to make an elegant map aesthetically pleasing.
But really, there's no reason an accessible map can't be pretty, and a situation where a map isn't both is a pretty clear example of failure on someone's part....either the art director or the map designer or the programmers. Not that failure is unforgivable (especially in the amateur community), but it's a failure nonetheless.
But really, there's no reason an accessible map can't be pretty, and a situation where a map isn't both is a pretty clear example of failure on someone's part....either the art director or the map designer or the programmers. Not that failure is unforgivable (especially in the amateur community), but it's a failure nonetheless.
Erave
1444
There's no reason you can't have both. Balance is the key to pretty much any art form anyway.
For instance, the bells and whistles could just spruce up the map and give it more eye candy, but if the added fluff is done well it shouldn't block the main path or obstruct free movement.
For instance, the bells and whistles could just spruce up the map and give it more eye candy, but if the added fluff is done well it shouldn't block the main path or obstruct free movement.
I just can't do the pokemon style, in fact I can't do accessibility at all. I start off simple, but I just keep adding more and more and I can't stop myself. I always forget, just because I know the routes to go, doesn't mean the player does.
I would consider the chrono Trigger screenshot to be a good balance.
I would consider the chrono Trigger screenshot to be a good balance.
If I can't figure out where to go by looking at the map, there's something wrong with the map. I don't care how pretty it looks if I can't get around or if it interferes with gameplay and it'll tax my patience with a game. It'd be like bad cameras in 3D games.
That said, there's no reason why you can't have a mix of pretty and good maps. I maybe had one or two instances where I wasn't sure where I could go in Chrono Trigger and that's nothing to sweat about.
That said, there's no reason why you can't have a mix of pretty and good maps. I maybe had one or two instances where I wasn't sure where I could go in Chrono Trigger and that's nothing to sweat about.
iamnot
48
Balance, balance balance!
I am not very good at balance. I am one of those lame mappers who makes nice maps but you can't explore them. But when testing my game, I have found that it is not very fun as most of the paths are very linier and there is not much in terms of exploration, something I am working on.
It is not easy (at least for me) to find a good balance, but I think it is key to making good maps.
Also all of the above is subjective, and depends on your game. Some games work better with simpler maps (i.e Pokemon)
I am not very good at balance. I am one of those lame mappers who makes nice maps but you can't explore them. But when testing my game, I have found that it is not very fun as most of the paths are very linier and there is not much in terms of exploration, something I am working on.
It is not easy (at least for me) to find a good balance, but I think it is key to making good maps.
Also all of the above is subjective, and depends on your game. Some games work better with simpler maps (i.e Pokemon)
Pages:
1
