|
It sounds like a silly title, I'm sure. Before I really get started, this is a demonstration of mere aesthetics. Mastering what I'm about to present does nothing to make your map layouts better, it is simply an art form. Perfecting it won't make your maps play differently, but it will make them much better looking, more presentable, and more impressive in general. It sounds easy, but it really isn't. What this skill is, more than anything, is one of the many hallmarks of a top-level mapmaker, and something only a few people can do so far, but not for no reason. This skill is derived from something most mapmakers don't bother with - principles of visual design. It's something most of us practice only when designing a map, so it builds up very slowly, some of us only beginning to touch upon it.
The first thing I'm going to do is show a series of Korean maps, all of which demonstrate the principle I'm attempting to describe:
+ Show Spoiler +
Now look at them again, after I scribbled on them a bit:
+ Show Spoiler +
And, for fun, a map I threw together specifically to showcase the same thing: + Show Spoiler +
Now that's all fun and good, you can really draw lines like that on any map, but the lines I drew highlight the way the map draws your eye across itself. Doesn't sound too special, but most of the maps I see don't do anything of the sort, and most of the ones that do are Korean. What I'm demonstrating is a sort of macro-aesthetic, where conventional devices like textures and doodads are micro-aesthetics.
This is a high level technique, one that requires you to craft the terrain of your map in such a way that envisions how the whole map will look once you're done. Every single nuance of the terrain is crucial, because what you're really doing is establishing flow, a basic visual concept. Just like the features of a map can transition naturally into each other to make a map that plays elegantly, the terrain of the map can be crafted in a way that makes the very sight of it something to behold - something that flows from one area to another, and before you know it you're looking at an organism, a whole that defies the individual pieces.
It's not exactly something I can teach, merely demonstrate, and hope that it will be appreciated and discussed by others, but its effect can be very powerful. Given the complicated nature of the technique, it's hard to describe what it is you're doing, but if I had to give it a name in a word, I'd have to call it Geomancy - bending the terrain to your will and making it come to life. Once you do it, the aesthetics take on a whole new life from a distance, making the presentation of a map so much stronger. It won't make much difference to a close-up view of the map, but crafting the terrain with one eye on how it looks from a distance will of course change how it looks up close, possibly opening new creative doors for you without you realizing it. I won't say to force this into your maps, because most people can't even do it, and it won't always happen anyway, but it's something to understand and appreciate, and hopefully it's a skill people will begin to foster more seriously.
And finally, now you know why it's called Planet S.
|
On April 11 2014 06:49 NewSunshine wrote: Now that's all fun and good, you can really draw lines like that on any map, but the lines I drew highlight the way the map draws your eye across itself.
The only one where your lines correlated to my eye movement was Whirlwind. I especially don't get the line you drew on Overgrowth. Was all about the golden S shape for me, going from main to main, followed by a line in mid going from top right to bottom left.
|
On April 11 2014 09:12 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 06:49 NewSunshine wrote: Now that's all fun and good, you can really draw lines like that on any map, but the lines I drew highlight the way the map draws your eye across itself.
The only one where your lines correlated to my eye movement was Whirlwind. I especially don't get the line you drew on Overgrowth. Was all about the golden S shape for me, going from main to main, followed by a line in mid going from top right to bottom left. Well, my lines make more sense once you look past the different colors. This technique is something that can make a totally untextured map look more appealing than you would think, like what I slapped together. You have to look at things a certain way, I guess.
|
This seems unnecessarily subjective while trying to address a real and important aspect of mapmaking.
Since it's TLMC season, I'll definitely venture that nicely readable map overview pictures go a long way towards making the concept of a map "pop" and therefore engaging the beholder effectively. The flow is a big part of this. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to design a map based on flow just to have good composition for the overview picture. However, good map design and an inherently beautiful overview often coincide.
|
This is what defines a well thought out development progress to me. Whenever you look at Korean (some western too) maps, you'll notice that the flow is put so deeply into the map layout that you cannot take the two apart. I disagree that map flow is solely appreciated on overviews - moving around a map, you can feel when the geometry is fluent, and certainly when it is not. The ones who master this skill, are the geniuses of level design to me.
|
I understand what you are trying to tell us NewSunshine, and I super disagree with it. I believe that "flow" is something that is important to gameplay on a map, but the visual "flow" you're talking about is clearly something completely different and in my opinion of no relevance whatsoever. It's kind of similar to chess — if you play chess at a high level, you'll eventually see that certain good positions just look aesthetic, but that doesn't mean that a position that looks bad when viewed from an aesthetic perspective is a bad position. Likewise, most good maps have gameplay flow that is obvious just from looking at a map, but that doesn't mean that a map you can draw pretty lines on is a map with good gameplay flow. I'm not saying that visual flow is a bad thing, but as you said yourself "every single nuance of the terrain is crucial", but every single nuance of the terrain is also crucial for gameplay, and gameplay takes clear priority. It's great if a map turns out to have visual flow, but if this affects your design process, then I feel you're doing something wrong.
Also, I think your examples are bad for a variety of reasons; first of all you should have used analyser pictures to demonstrate that this is a matter of terrain, not texturing, secondly you should have included maps with bad visual flow to show the difference, and thirdly you should have included maps with good visual flow but bad gameplay flow and vice versa to make it clear that these are different things.
The title seems very appropriate, by the way.
|
On April 11 2014 19:19 And G wrote: I understand what you are trying to tell us NewSunshine, and I super disagree with it. I believe that "flow" is something that is important to gameplay on a map, but the visual "flow" you're talking about is clearly something completely different and in my opinion of no relevance whatsoever. It's kind of similar to chess — if you play chess at a high level, you'll eventually see that certain good positions just look aesthetic, but that doesn't mean that a position that looks bad when viewed from an aesthetic perspective is a bad position. Likewise, most good maps have gameplay flow that is obvious just from looking at a map, but that doesn't mean that a map you can draw pretty lines on is a map with good gameplay flow. I'm not saying that visual flow is a bad thing, but as you said yourself "every single nuance of the terrain is crucial", but every single nuance of the terrain is also crucial for gameplay, and gameplay takes clear priority. It's great if a map turns out to have visual flow, but if this affects your design process, then I feel you're doing something wrong. I never tried to say that gameplay flow and visual flow are the same thing, I made it very clear I'm talking solely about aesthetics. I get that there are people who don't place too much value on aesthetics, and that's fine. And it doesn't affect the design of a map much at all, only as much as your particular terrain style. 5 people could each make the same layout, that plays exactly the same in 99.99% of cases, but their individual styles will make each map look substantially different, that's what I'm talking about here.
On April 11 2014 19:19 And G wrote: Also, I think your examples are bad for a variety of reasons; first of all you should have used analyser pictures to demonstrate that this is a matter of terrain, not texturing, secondly you should have included maps with bad visual flow to show the difference, and thirdly you should have included maps with good visual flow but bad gameplay flow and vice versa to make it clear that these are different things. The example map I provided has no textures, and demonstrates the same property, simply to show that textures have nothing to do with it. Analyzer pictures show it to some extent, but they break the terrain down to squares, destroying the actual cliff-shapes, and reducing the effect, going counter to my point. As for bad examples, point taken, I can do that.
|
On April 12 2014 01:14 NewSunshine wrote: I never tried to say that gameplay flow and visual flow are the same thing, I made it very clear I'm talking solely about aesthetics. I get that there are people who don't place too much value on aesthetics, and that's fine. And it doesn't affect the design of a map much at all, only as much as your particular terrain style. 5 people could each make the same layout, that plays exactly the same in 99.99% of cases, but their individual styles will make each map look substantially different, that's what I'm talking about here. This is true. However, I think we should endeavor to put equal care and effort into every inch of a map, because some of the last remaining spectator value in SC2 hinges on tactical plays. Unless it's something like Overgrowth, for example, where the map literally is just the flow.
|
On April 12 2014 01:30 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 01:14 NewSunshine wrote: I never tried to say that gameplay flow and visual flow are the same thing, I made it very clear I'm talking solely about aesthetics. I get that there are people who don't place too much value on aesthetics, and that's fine. And it doesn't affect the design of a map much at all, only as much as your particular terrain style. 5 people could each make the same layout, that plays exactly the same in 99.99% of cases, but their individual styles will make each map look substantially different, that's what I'm talking about here. This is true. However, I think we should endeavor to put equal care and effort into every inch of a map, because some of the last remaining spectator value in SC2 hinges on tactical plays. Unless it's something like Overgrowth, for example, where the map literally is just the flow. I understand this, and if you think my maps rely on aesthetics to get by you would be mistaken. I'm simply sharing an aesthetic skill that I've developed, something that only makes maps look better. Downplaying the aesthetics of a map for the reason of gameplay is dishonest, because they are not inextricably bound, one can be changed without affecting the other. The main argument I'm seeing in this thread is that gameplay is more important, of course it is, that doesn't mean the maps have to look worse for it. Like any time Blizzard makes an announcement regarding some new art for something, and people whine saying "well why don't you fix Protoss, or bugs xyz instead", but they don't interfere with each other, the complaints are misguided, you can have both.
|
I'm still stuck on how the core concept of the OP (visual eye flow) doesn't match up (for me, anyway) with exception to Whirlwind, because it's impossible to miss the deliberate visual rotation -- the map was even named after it. That said, terrain flow is always (or should be) geared toward affecting game play. Good terrain design will naturally trend toward an appealing aesthetic; people like when everything has a clear, useful purpose and is well proportioned.
That goes for anything, really. When you have something that's well designed, it generally avoids excess (be that functionality, materials, space, etc.) by stripping out anything conflicting or unnecessary, and what you're left with tends to gravitate toward an appealing experience. In this regard, I actually feel your personal example fails in its purpose. There are a lot of design decisions in that WIP where I fail to see the purpose of its implementation/inclusion. It's especially prominent when you compare it to the Korean examples.
p.s. Planet S had its name before the mid-map ramp changes. Your S shape in the mid there was non-existent in the original iteration. It got its name from being introduced in the SK Planet Proleague and featured SK Planet branding in the middle of the map. Just a marketing thing.
EDIT: Bonus piece, here's an image I used a while ago to illustrate terrain flow differences between one of my maps and Whirlwind.
+ Show Spoiler [Terrain flow of Khalani vs. Whirlwind] +
Ultimately, having a clear game plan for your terrain design is what gets you that aesthetic appeal IMO.
|
On April 12 2014 01:14 NewSunshine wrote: I never tried to say that gameplay flow and visual flow are the same thing I didn't say you did, and you were indeed very clear about this in your introductory paragraph (which ScorpSCII seems to have skipped). What I was saying is that this "visual flow" is nice, but that it is a mistake to value it too highly especially when it interferes with more important things like gameplay, or maybe even texturing/doodads.
On April 12 2014 01:14 NewSunshine wrote: And it doesn't affect the design of a map much at all, only as much as your particular terrain style. I don't quite understand this, and it seems to contradict what you wrote in your OP about macro-aesthetics, which seemed to imply that this visual flow had effects on gameplay since both are a result of terrain geometry design. Perhaps what's actually needed is an example of a map without visual flow, and of that exact same map only with gameplay-independent changes that result in visual flow. I think this would much better demonstrate what you're talking about than pictures of maps that differ in many more things than just visual flow.
|
On April 12 2014 04:15 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 01:14 NewSunshine wrote: I never tried to say that gameplay flow and visual flow are the same thing I didn't say you did, and you were indeed very clear about this in your introductory paragraph (which ScorpSCII seems to have skipped). What I was saying is that this "visual flow" is nice, but that it is a mistake to value it too highly especially when it interferes with more important things like gameplay, or maybe even texturing/doodads. Scorp seems to grasp the idea I'm presenting better than most, and looking at his last maps I think he was starting to utilize the concept himself, before he stopped making maps. And nowhere have I suggested that it is prioritized over anything else, or valued too highly. I'm suggesting that it's simply an additional aesthetic technique that has gone largely unappreciated, and using it does not interfere with a map's basic design.
On April 12 2014 04:15 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 01:14 NewSunshine wrote: And it doesn't affect the design of a map much at all, only as much as your particular terrain style. I don't quite understand this, and it seems to contradict what you wrote in your OP about macro-aesthetics, which seemed to imply that this visual flow had effects on gameplay since both are a result of terrain geometry design. Perhaps what's actually needed is an example of a map without visual flow, and of that exact same map only with gameplay-independent changes that result in visual flow. I think this would much better demonstrate what you're talking about than pictures of maps that differ in many more things than just visual flow. Nothing I've said is contradictory, it is indeed a macro-aesthetic technique, I'm implying that the differences in terrain that create the effect I'm describing are not significant enough to alter gameplay. But you're right, I will need to create an example to better illustrate this, since it seems to be hard to understand.
On April 12 2014 03:57 iamcaustic wrote:I'm still stuck on how the core concept of the OP (visual eye flow) doesn't match up (for me, anyway) with exception to Whirlwind, because it's impossible to miss the deliberate visual rotation -- the map was even named after it. That said, terrain flow is always (or should be) geared toward affecting game play. Good terrain design will naturally trend toward an appealing aesthetic; people like when everything has a clear, useful purpose and is well proportioned. That goes for anything, really. When you have something that's well designed, it generally avoids excess (be that functionality, materials, space, etc.) by stripping out anything conflicting or unnecessary, and what you're left with tends to gravitate toward an appealing experience. In this regard, I actually feel your personal example fails in its purpose. There are a lot of design decisions in that WIP where I fail to see the purpose of its implementation/inclusion. It's especially prominent when you compare it to the Korean examples. p.s. Planet S had its name before the mid-map ramp changes. Your S shape in the mid there was non-existent in the original iteration. It got its name from being introduced in the SK Planet Proleague and featured SK Planet branding in the middle of the map. Just a marketing thing. EDIT: Bonus piece, here's an image I used a while ago to illustrate terrain flow differences between one of my maps and Whirlwind. + Show Spoiler [Terrain flow of Khalani vs. Whirlwind] +Ultimately, having a clear game plan for your terrain design is what gets you that aesthetic appeal IMO. You're mistaking aesthetic flow for gameplay flow, and assuming that every angle and shape in the terrain influences gameplay in a different way, which is not true. Terrain can be styled a certain way while having no effect on how it plays out, and I also would argue the idea that a map's aesthetic appeal comes from how it plays, which makes no sense to me. Maps have both gameplay and aesthetic elements, and they are almost completely separate, save for rare cases. They are separate, but each and every map most certainly has both, and any map with aesthetic appeal owes that to its aesthetic elements, not gameplay. And as for the comparison you did some time ago, I'm aware of it, and your map is actually one I would use to illustrate messy aesthetic flow. Its main purpose would be to illustrate how strong that characteristic is in Whirlwind, and not much more than that.
As for my example map, you say its aesthetics falter because you see elements that serve no purpose. Before mentioning again how you're conflating aesthetics and gameplay, I would have you show me what you're referring to, because although it's an example of aesthetics it's a perfectly viable map design.
|
Does this means matching good base layouts with good pathways which creates a good gameplay flow, plus a lot of effort in aesthetics, therefore avoiding maps that produce good games but looks bad (Heavy Rain whitout Blink allin) and bad maps that looks good (Alterzim maybe)? I'm I close?
|
On April 12 2014 04:15 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 01:14 NewSunshine wrote: I never tried to say that gameplay flow and visual flow are the same thing I didn't say you did, and you were indeed very clear about this in your introductory paragraph (which ScorpSCII seems to have skipped). What I was saying is that this "visual flow" is nice, but that it is a mistake to value it too highly especially when it interferes with more important things like gameplay, or maybe even texturing/doodads.
I feel that attack was unnecessary. I have at no time stated that I think visuals should be of a higher priority than gameplay. I do however think that what makes a good map spectacular, is when it excels at everything - including map flow (previously refered to as macro-aesthetics). I do not think a level designer should always, if ever at all, base the map's geometry off of aesthetic flow rather than a gameplay philosophy, but I am of the belief that the people who manage to pull it all off at once are the geniuses of level design - with map flow often times being the most apparent lack in released maps.
|
On April 12 2014 04:42 NewSunshine wrote: You're mistaking aesthetic flow for gameplay flow, and assuming that every angle and shape in the terrain influences gameplay in a different way, which is not true. Terrain can be styled a certain way while having no effect on how it plays out, and I also would argue the idea that a map's aesthetic appeal comes from how it plays, which makes no sense to me. Maps have both gameplay and aesthetic elements, and they are almost completely separate, save for rare cases. They are separate, but each and every map most certainly has both, and any map with aesthetic appeal owes that to its aesthetic elements, not gameplay. And as for the comparison you did some time ago, I'm aware of it, and your map is actually one I would use to illustrate messy aesthetic flow. Its main purpose would be to illustrate how strong that characteristic is in Whirlwind, and not much more than that.
As for my example map, you say its aesthetics falter because you see elements that serve no purpose. Before mentioning again how you're conflating aesthetics and gameplay, I would have you show me what you're referring to, because although it's an example of aesthetics it's a perfectly viable map design. Not mistaking aesthetic flow for game play flow; I'm arguing that terrain design will dictate aesthetic flow. My talking about terrain design goes beyond window trimmings (e.g. straight edges for manmade terrain, rugged edges for natural) and focuses on the same idea that you showed in the OP: how the geometry of the paths create a particular aesthetic style. I'm saying that a more refined terrain layout will create that more aesthetically pleasing result. How that terrain is designed is also at the core of SC2 map design -- compare Yeonsu to Habitation Station, for example, and tell me that the game play flow isn't significantly different between the two. You're a mapper, you know this.
My biggest question is why you name this discussion point "geomancy" (a word actually referring to divination via terrain, kind of like reading tea leaves) to discuss aesthetic flow through manipulating terrain and then turn around to argue that aesthetic and terrain flows are somehow disconnected.
Anywho, onto the example map: + Show Spoiler [Terrain Design Critique] +
The end result is visual noise, competing elements, and excess that results in a degraded aesthetic experience compared to the more refined Korean maps. I could also talk about how it affects game play because, you know, they're related, but I fear you'd focus on that and say how I'm confusing two different topics that are actually parts of the same whole.
|
On April 12 2014 08:18 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 04:42 NewSunshine wrote: You're mistaking aesthetic flow for gameplay flow, and assuming that every angle and shape in the terrain influences gameplay in a different way, which is not true. Terrain can be styled a certain way while having no effect on how it plays out, and I also would argue the idea that a map's aesthetic appeal comes from how it plays, which makes no sense to me. Maps have both gameplay and aesthetic elements, and they are almost completely separate, save for rare cases. They are separate, but each and every map most certainly has both, and any map with aesthetic appeal owes that to its aesthetic elements, not gameplay. And as for the comparison you did some time ago, I'm aware of it, and your map is actually one I would use to illustrate messy aesthetic flow. Its main purpose would be to illustrate how strong that characteristic is in Whirlwind, and not much more than that.
As for my example map, you say its aesthetics falter because you see elements that serve no purpose. Before mentioning again how you're conflating aesthetics and gameplay, I would have you show me what you're referring to, because although it's an example of aesthetics it's a perfectly viable map design. Not mistaking aesthetic flow for game play flow; I'm arguing that terrain design will dictate aesthetic flow. Granted, your drawing of lines that don't even correlate to eye movement means my words are likely falling on deaf ears. My talking about terrain design goes beyond window trimmings (e.g. straight edges for manmade terrain, rugged edges for natural) and focuses on the same idea that you showed in the OP: how the geometry of the paths create a particular aesthetic style. I'm saying that a more refined terrain layout will create that more aesthetically pleasing result. How that terrain is designed is also at the core of SC2 map design -- compare Yeonsu to Habitation Station, for example, and tell me that the game play flow isn't significantly different between the two. You're a mapper, you know this. My biggest question is why you name this discussion point "geomancy" (a word actually referring to divination via terrain, kind of like reading tea leaves) to discuss aesthetic flow through manipulating terrain and then turn around to argue that aesthetic and terrain flows are somehow disconnected. Anywho, onto the example map: + Show Spoiler [Terrain Design Critique] +The end result is visual noise, competing elements, and excess that results in a degraded aesthetic experience compared to the more refined Korean maps. I could also talk about how it affects game play because, you know, they're related, but I fear you'd focus on that and say how I'm confusing two different topics that are actually parts of the same whole. You did not distinguish the scale of the terrain design, which is what matters, it is the essence of this entire technique, and what keeps the two of us from holding the same conversation. If you're referring to the differences in terrain between Yeonsu and Habitation Station, then of course that makes a difference. I find it surprising you're trying to throw that out as an argument, as though stating the obvious will deflate my point. The edging and the styling of the terrain are at the heart of what I'm talking about, and you completely glossed over that and moved onto terrain features on a large scale, which misses the point wholeheartedly. When you say terrain flow, you need to be more specific, terrain contains both aesthetic and gameplay elements, and the separation of the two is rather important when talking about aesthetics in particular. I feel most of what you're saying revolves around the terminology I'm using, when I thought it was rather clear what I was talking about. I also disagree with your map analysis, which appears if nothing else to simply attack the map because you want to win some sort of argument. I didn't create this post to incense an argument between anybody, so I don't exactly appreciate that it's happened over poor communication of all things.
|
On April 12 2014 08:31 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 08:18 iamcaustic wrote:On April 12 2014 04:42 NewSunshine wrote: You're mistaking aesthetic flow for gameplay flow, and assuming that every angle and shape in the terrain influences gameplay in a different way, which is not true. Terrain can be styled a certain way while having no effect on how it plays out, and I also would argue the idea that a map's aesthetic appeal comes from how it plays, which makes no sense to me. Maps have both gameplay and aesthetic elements, and they are almost completely separate, save for rare cases. They are separate, but each and every map most certainly has both, and any map with aesthetic appeal owes that to its aesthetic elements, not gameplay. And as for the comparison you did some time ago, I'm aware of it, and your map is actually one I would use to illustrate messy aesthetic flow. Its main purpose would be to illustrate how strong that characteristic is in Whirlwind, and not much more than that.
As for my example map, you say its aesthetics falter because you see elements that serve no purpose. Before mentioning again how you're conflating aesthetics and gameplay, I would have you show me what you're referring to, because although it's an example of aesthetics it's a perfectly viable map design. Not mistaking aesthetic flow for game play flow; I'm arguing that terrain design will dictate aesthetic flow. Granted, your drawing of lines that don't even correlate to eye movement means my words are likely falling on deaf ears. My talking about terrain design goes beyond window trimmings (e.g. straight edges for manmade terrain, rugged edges for natural) and focuses on the same idea that you showed in the OP: how the geometry of the paths create a particular aesthetic style. I'm saying that a more refined terrain layout will create that more aesthetically pleasing result. How that terrain is designed is also at the core of SC2 map design -- compare Yeonsu to Habitation Station, for example, and tell me that the game play flow isn't significantly different between the two. You're a mapper, you know this. My biggest question is why you name this discussion point "geomancy" (a word actually referring to divination via terrain, kind of like reading tea leaves) to discuss aesthetic flow through manipulating terrain and then turn around to argue that aesthetic and terrain flows are somehow disconnected. Anywho, onto the example map: + Show Spoiler [Terrain Design Critique] +The end result is visual noise, competing elements, and excess that results in a degraded aesthetic experience compared to the more refined Korean maps. I could also talk about how it affects game play because, you know, they're related, but I fear you'd focus on that and say how I'm confusing two different topics that are actually parts of the same whole. You did not distinguish the scale of the terrain design, which is what matters, it is the essence of this entire technique, and what keeps the two of us from holding the same conversation. If you're referring to the differences in terrain between Yeonsu and Habitation Station, then of course that makes a difference. I find it surprising you're trying to throw that out as an argument, as though stating the obvious will deflate my point. The edging and the styling of the terrain are at the heart of what I'm talking about, and you completely glossed over that and moved onto terrain features on a large scale, which misses the point wholeheartedly. When you say terrain flow, you need to be more specific, terrain contains both aesthetic and gameplay elements, and the separation of the two is rather important when talking about aesthetics in particular. I feel most of what you're saying revolves around the terminology I'm using, when I thought it was rather clear what I was talking about. I also disagree with your map analysis, which appears if nothing else to simply attack the map because you want to win some sort of argument. I didn't create this post to incense an argument between anybody, so I don't exactly appreciate that it's happened over poor communication of all things. If this is the stance you're taking, then you might want to take a moment to completely re-write your OP, because it's saying something completely different. In particular:
On April 11 2014 06:49 NewSunshine wrote: Now that's all fun and good, you can really draw lines like that on any map, but the lines I drew highlight the way the map draws your eye across itself. Doesn't sound too special, but most of the maps I see don't do anything of the sort, and most of the ones that do are Korean. What I'm demonstrating is a sort of macro-aesthetic, where conventional devices like textures and doodads are micro-aesthetics. First you were talking macro-aesthetics and how the terrain design draws your eye across the map, now you're shifting back down to window dressings like stylistic edging of terrain, or micro-aesthetics as you put it. I simply ask that you take a moment to figure out what point you're trying to make. Pick one:
On April 11 2014 06:49 NewSunshine wrote: This is a high level technique, one that requires you to craft the terrain of your map in such a way that envisions how the whole map will look once you're done. Every single nuance of the terrain is crucial, because what you're really doing is establishing flow, a basic visual concept. Just like the features of a map can transition naturally into each other to make a map that plays elegantly, the terrain of the map can be crafted in a way that makes the very sight of it something to behold - something that flows from one area to another, and before you know it you're looking at an organism, a whole that defies the individual pieces. OR
On April 12 2014 08:31 NewSunshine wrote: The edging and the styling of the terrain are at the heart of what I'm talking about, and you completely glossed over that and moved onto terrain features on a large scale, which misses the point wholeheartedly.
Personally I prefer the OP, because it's a much more valid and interesting discussion to have, but I have to defer to my critique of your examples in that case. I'm going to sidestep those weird accusations of "attacks" to win "arguments". This is a discussion thread, disagreement and alternative viewpoint is to be expected. My only real complaint is that it's hard to have a discussion on a supposedly shape-shifting topic.
|
On April 12 2014 02:42 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 01:30 EatThePath wrote:On April 12 2014 01:14 NewSunshine wrote: I never tried to say that gameplay flow and visual flow are the same thing, I made it very clear I'm talking solely about aesthetics. I get that there are people who don't place too much value on aesthetics, and that's fine. And it doesn't affect the design of a map much at all, only as much as your particular terrain style. 5 people could each make the same layout, that plays exactly the same in 99.99% of cases, but their individual styles will make each map look substantially different, that's what I'm talking about here. This is true. However, I think we should endeavor to put equal care and effort into every inch of a map, because some of the last remaining spectator value in SC2 hinges on tactical plays. Unless it's something like Overgrowth, for example, where the map literally is just the flow. I understand this, and if you think my maps rely on aesthetics to get by you would be mistaken. I'm simply sharing an aesthetic skill that I've developed, something that only makes maps look better. For sure, I remember when you first started sharing maps, and you've never skimped on the conceptual guts.
I think caustic has a fair point on calling you out on the interconnection between pathway design meant to be purely aesthetic and the gameplay effects it necessarily has -- since you are changing the game terrain, after all. If you are augmenting the pathable parts of a map, you're changing the gameplay no matter what. This is what I was getting at: there's a lot of value you can get out of fine-tuning proportions, distances, nooks and crannies, holes and spots, etc., which I think is also underappreciated. As well as route design which is what most "competent" mapmakers concentrate on centrally. Making terrain adjustments in both of those categories for the sake of flow should be done with due consideration of the gameplay ramifications, and probably shouldn't take precedence most of the time. Nevertheless, there is an external factor of map appeal which must always be considered. And in a larger sense, map readability does actually affect gameplay and spectator value, since it informs player and viewer expectations, which are an intrinsic part of play and spectator value.
|
On April 12 2014 08:56 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 08:31 NewSunshine wrote:On April 12 2014 08:18 iamcaustic wrote:On April 12 2014 04:42 NewSunshine wrote: You're mistaking aesthetic flow for gameplay flow, and assuming that every angle and shape in the terrain influences gameplay in a different way, which is not true. Terrain can be styled a certain way while having no effect on how it plays out, and I also would argue the idea that a map's aesthetic appeal comes from how it plays, which makes no sense to me. Maps have both gameplay and aesthetic elements, and they are almost completely separate, save for rare cases. They are separate, but each and every map most certainly has both, and any map with aesthetic appeal owes that to its aesthetic elements, not gameplay. And as for the comparison you did some time ago, I'm aware of it, and your map is actually one I would use to illustrate messy aesthetic flow. Its main purpose would be to illustrate how strong that characteristic is in Whirlwind, and not much more than that.
As for my example map, you say its aesthetics falter because you see elements that serve no purpose. Before mentioning again how you're conflating aesthetics and gameplay, I would have you show me what you're referring to, because although it's an example of aesthetics it's a perfectly viable map design. Not mistaking aesthetic flow for game play flow; I'm arguing that terrain design will dictate aesthetic flow. Granted, your drawing of lines that don't even correlate to eye movement means my words are likely falling on deaf ears. My talking about terrain design goes beyond window trimmings (e.g. straight edges for manmade terrain, rugged edges for natural) and focuses on the same idea that you showed in the OP: how the geometry of the paths create a particular aesthetic style. I'm saying that a more refined terrain layout will create that more aesthetically pleasing result. How that terrain is designed is also at the core of SC2 map design -- compare Yeonsu to Habitation Station, for example, and tell me that the game play flow isn't significantly different between the two. You're a mapper, you know this. My biggest question is why you name this discussion point "geomancy" (a word actually referring to divination via terrain, kind of like reading tea leaves) to discuss aesthetic flow through manipulating terrain and then turn around to argue that aesthetic and terrain flows are somehow disconnected. Anywho, onto the example map: + Show Spoiler [Terrain Design Critique] +The end result is visual noise, competing elements, and excess that results in a degraded aesthetic experience compared to the more refined Korean maps. I could also talk about how it affects game play because, you know, they're related, but I fear you'd focus on that and say how I'm confusing two different topics that are actually parts of the same whole. You did not distinguish the scale of the terrain design, which is what matters, it is the essence of this entire technique, and what keeps the two of us from holding the same conversation. If you're referring to the differences in terrain between Yeonsu and Habitation Station, then of course that makes a difference. I find it surprising you're trying to throw that out as an argument, as though stating the obvious will deflate my point. The edging and the styling of the terrain are at the heart of what I'm talking about, and you completely glossed over that and moved onto terrain features on a large scale, which misses the point wholeheartedly. When you say terrain flow, you need to be more specific, terrain contains both aesthetic and gameplay elements, and the separation of the two is rather important when talking about aesthetics in particular. I feel most of what you're saying revolves around the terminology I'm using, when I thought it was rather clear what I was talking about. I also disagree with your map analysis, which appears if nothing else to simply attack the map because you want to win some sort of argument. I didn't create this post to incense an argument between anybody, so I don't exactly appreciate that it's happened over poor communication of all things. If this is the stance you're taking, then you might want to take a moment to completely re-write your OP, because it's saying something completely different. In particular: Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 06:49 NewSunshine wrote: Now that's all fun and good, you can really draw lines like that on any map, but the lines I drew highlight the way the map draws your eye across itself. Doesn't sound too special, but most of the maps I see don't do anything of the sort, and most of the ones that do are Korean. What I'm demonstrating is a sort of macro-aesthetic, where conventional devices like textures and doodads are micro-aesthetics. First you were talking macro-aesthetics and how the terrain design draws your eye across the map, now you're shifting back down to window dressings like stylistic edging of terrain, or micro-aesthetics as you put it. I simply ask that you take a moment to figure out what point you're trying to make. Pick one: Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 06:49 NewSunshine wrote: This is a high level technique, one that requires you to craft the terrain of your map in such a way that envisions how the whole map will look once you're done. Every single nuance of the terrain is crucial, because what you're really doing is establishing flow, a basic visual concept. Just like the features of a map can transition naturally into each other to make a map that plays elegantly, the terrain of the map can be crafted in a way that makes the very sight of it something to behold - something that flows from one area to another, and before you know it you're looking at an organism, a whole that defies the individual pieces. OR Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 08:31 NewSunshine wrote: The edging and the styling of the terrain are at the heart of what I'm talking about, and you completely glossed over that and moved onto terrain features on a large scale, which misses the point wholeheartedly.
Personally I prefer the OP, because it's a much more valid and interesting discussion to have, but I have to defer to my critique of your examples in that case. I'm going to sidestep those weird accusations of "attacks" to win "arguments". This is a discussion thread, disagreement and alternative viewpoint is to be expected. My only real complaint is that it's hard to have a discussion on a supposedly shape-shifting topic. You're not getting how it works. The minute details, such as the angle of the terrain in a specific place, all adds up to change how the map looks from a distance. The largest impact such a change can have on gameplay is affecting whether it's a bunker or cannon spot, and obviously I won't just throw those in there, I'll make other considerations. Otherwise the effect is negligible, and gives you the room to style your map in a different way to just textures and doodads. I'm referring to individual units of terrain length, the smallest possible adjustment you can make, but composed properly, over the whole map, gives it a totally different look. Nothing I said has been contradictory, you just misunderstand, and perhaps I could illustrate the point better. All this argument so far has been ridiculous though.
|
On April 12 2014 09:29 NewSunshine wrote: You're not getting how it works. The minute details, such as the angle of the terrain in a specific place, all adds up to change how the map looks from a distance. The largest impact such a change can have on gameplay is affecting whether it's a bunker or cannon spot, and obviously I won't just throw those in there, I'll make other considerations. Otherwise the effect is negligible, and gives you the room to style your map in a different way to just textures and doodads. I'm referring to individual units of terrain length, the smallest possible adjustment you can make, but composed properly, over the whole map, gives it a totally different look. Nothing I said has been contradictory, you just misunderstand, and perhaps I could illustrate the point better. All this argument so far has been ridiculous though. Got it. I have to say, though, that the OP would have made for a lot more interesting discussion, and was actually worthy of a discussion thread. Not sure why you decided to abandon it; what's there to discuss about terrain edging?
|
|
|
|