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)
GOOD MAPS!
Posts
ridakian
0
ridakian
View playlists
CloseHowdy guys!
This is going to help me and probably everybody else....
What are your qualifications of a good map and as well as for a bad map?
Wee! Tnx again, again...
(Now I feel stupid for posting a lot on Game Design & theory...)
This is going to help me and probably everybody else....
What are your qualifications of a good map and as well as for a bad map?
Wee! Tnx again, again...
(Now I feel stupid for posting a lot on Game Design & theory...)
nickad
261
That's simple. Wait - No it's not.
I would say that first and foremost, design plays a major role into what constitutes a 'good' map. Maps with good design usually utilise elevation (or elevated pathways), layers (by this I mean various height levels in a map. An example would be climbing a ladder and walking across a gang-plank or bridge), and variation in the shape/form of the map (such as in caves, where the walls aren't just in a straight row. Caves have natural wall formations, so make them curved and organic!).
The design aspect also extends to the size of the map. If the map is too open or too large for no good reason, then it will just take the player longer to reach point B from point A, which will eventually just frustrate them. 'Good' maps strike a balance between the sizes of each map (small and closed-in maps are easier to design, allow for more detail to be displayed to the player and provide a clear and visible path to the next area, whilst large maps allow for more 'breathing room', but can take the player a while to traverse).
'Good' maps also take into consideration the direction the player must travel in to get from point A to point B. Walking in one direction on flat ground in a square-shaped level is going to get boring pretty fast. 'Good' maps will usually make use of the space of the map, and create a path that perhaps goes off in several directions, or is more organic (curving and twisting pathways, etc) to reach point B.
Though, design by itself is not the only factor to in the equation. Graphics is another vital part of a 'good' map. With graphics, it is pertinent that the mapper selects a visually-consistent graphical style, and knows how to use it (by this I mean that you know how it was intended to be used, or use the appropriate tiles for their appropriate use (such as cliffs walls for cliff walls, not dirt, etc). 'Good' maps will also use variation to add flavour to their maps. The same plant six tiles in a row doesn't look natural!
And that is about all I can really think about this late at night. If I can think of anything else, I'll post it tomorrow.
Also, If anyone mentions the Three-Tile-Rule >:(...
I would say that first and foremost, design plays a major role into what constitutes a 'good' map. Maps with good design usually utilise elevation (or elevated pathways), layers (by this I mean various height levels in a map. An example would be climbing a ladder and walking across a gang-plank or bridge), and variation in the shape/form of the map (such as in caves, where the walls aren't just in a straight row. Caves have natural wall formations, so make them curved and organic!).
The design aspect also extends to the size of the map. If the map is too open or too large for no good reason, then it will just take the player longer to reach point B from point A, which will eventually just frustrate them. 'Good' maps strike a balance between the sizes of each map (small and closed-in maps are easier to design, allow for more detail to be displayed to the player and provide a clear and visible path to the next area, whilst large maps allow for more 'breathing room', but can take the player a while to traverse).
'Good' maps also take into consideration the direction the player must travel in to get from point A to point B. Walking in one direction on flat ground in a square-shaped level is going to get boring pretty fast. 'Good' maps will usually make use of the space of the map, and create a path that perhaps goes off in several directions, or is more organic (curving and twisting pathways, etc) to reach point B.
Though, design by itself is not the only factor to in the equation. Graphics is another vital part of a 'good' map. With graphics, it is pertinent that the mapper selects a visually-consistent graphical style, and knows how to use it (by this I mean that you know how it was intended to be used, or use the appropriate tiles for their appropriate use (such as cliffs walls for cliff walls, not dirt, etc). 'Good' maps will also use variation to add flavour to their maps. The same plant six tiles in a row doesn't look natural!
And that is about all I can really think about this late at night. If I can think of anything else, I'll post it tomorrow.
Also, If anyone mentions the Three-Tile-Rule >:(...
post=118262
if it looks nice and functions. this is precisely everything you need to think about
This. While function is more important on a base level, looking nice is also important for your players' eyes (and to get players in the first place).
WolfCoder
3554
post=118254
....What are your qualifications of a good map and as well as for a bad map?...
Not all of these points have to be followed for me to consider it a good map, but many professional game designers give lists of good and bad level design, so I'll do the same.
Good
- Rewards are fitting for the difficulty spent getting to the reward.
- Map is shaped and makes sense for the location the map is located (caves don't go up, towers go up and down but not greatly spread out, etc.)
- Map is shaped, traps, obstacles, etc. to fit a theme. Theme does not change between maps of the same section (usually, there are very few exceptions).
- Dungeons get harder the closer the player is to the goal. Previous parts of the dungeon help prepare the player for later parts.
- If your game really (and I mean really) needs a level where you go through sewers, triple the effort you spend in making the map fun. Examples of good sewer levels include the one in Secret of Evermore. It's easier to just not have one though.
- Easy to navigate. Only true mazes should be hard to navigate.
Bad
- Used the random dungeon generator option.
- Is a sewer/ghost ship/plain cave/etc. level with nothing special about it.
- Is a map from Quest 64. It's actually the game I can very easily say has the most boring maps of any RPG ever.
- Traps have no warning elements (blood, bones, strange markings, slits, remains of previous unlucky adventurers, etc.)
- You see the same three objects over and over.
- Map is just a straight line. Maps like these should be reserved for places where scenes happen and bigger fights occur.
There's lots I can say, but you really only learn by doing.
post=118264post=118254There's lots I can say, but you really only learn by doing.
....What are your qualifications of a good map and as well as for a bad map?...
*by doing and playing lots of good RPGs (at least, ones you enjoy).
WolfCoder
3554
I really need to find that war-torn book of mine. I think it had an entire chapter of interviews just about level design (including some articles from a so-called grandmaster of level design). It has actually been a good thing to consult or read for fun now and then when you're in the planning phase. They even had Shigeru Miyamoto do several articles.
I forgot what edition it was, but it was titled Game Design, Secret of the Sages. The later editions are probably full of hot air, but mine was from like 2003 or something. It even had contrasting ideas too and everything.
EDIT: All right! I finally found the bible! It's the third edition. It's so worn out it looks like I drove over it with a tractor.
I forgot what edition it was, but it was titled Game Design, Secret of the Sages. The later editions are probably full of hot air, but mine was from like 2003 or something. It even had contrasting ideas too and everything.
EDIT: All right! I finally found the bible! It's the third edition. It's so worn out it looks like I drove over it with a tractor.
WolfCoder
Bad
- Is a sewer/ghost ship/plain cave/etc. level with nothing special about it.
- Is a map from Quest 64. It's actually the game I can very easily say has the most boring maps of any RPG ever.
- Traps have no warning elements (blood, bones, strange markings, slits, remains of previous unlucky adventurers, etc.)
actually now that i think about it there are plenty especially if you count phantom train as that kind of metaphor
Drakonais
2787
Phantom train was infinitely cooler than a ghost ship.
*insert synonym for ghost* + *insert explorable vehicle*
*insert synonym for ghost* + *insert explorable vehicle*
I don't think the Phantom Train is anywhere near a typical ghost ship. It is a SENTIENT TRAIN that you FIGHT and can get a temporary PC in.
WolfCoder
3554
The phantom train was basically how you would actually do a ghost ship in an RPG without actually doing a ghost ship. It's similar to the answer of how to do a sewer level without actually doing a sewer level.
Oh yeah, one developer in the book I mentioned really, really hated ice levels and spent half his interview talking about how ice levels are so overdone.
IT'S LIKE A PHASE OF MATTER IS BORING.
Oh yeah, one developer in the book I mentioned really, really hated ice levels and spent half his interview talking about how ice levels are so overdone.
IT'S LIKE A PHASE OF MATTER IS BORING.
post=118312
I don't think the Phantom Train is anywhere near a typical ghost ship. It is a SENTIENT TRAIN that you FIGHT and can get a temporary PC in.
WOE BETIDE ANYTHING NOT BE LITERAL
What? A phantom train could easily be a simple ghost ship. FF6 takes it to the next level, making it an interesting dungeon. Screw you.
post=118264
- Is a map from Quest 64. It's actually the game I can very easily say has the most boring maps of any RPG ever.
What are you talking about? Quest 64 was awesome in every way.
