|
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?
|
On April 12 2014 09:47 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +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? It and the OP are one and the same. It is responsible for maps leading your eyes from one area to another fluidly, and the ability to put it together in such a way that it creates that effect is what the discussion should entail, I would think. The way you refer to it is downplaying the power it has, though, merely labeling it terrain edging and moving on misses out on what you can really do with it.
|
On April 12 2014 10:27 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 09:47 iamcaustic wrote: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? It and the OP are one and the same. It is responsible for maps leading your eyes from one area to another fluidly, and the ability to put it together in such a way that it creates that effect is what the discussion should entail, I would think. The way you refer to it is downplaying the power it has, though, merely labeling it terrain edging and moving on misses out on what you can really do with it. I'd love for an explanation on how it's the terrain edges, and not the structure of the map, that create those wonderful eye movements you were emphasizing in the OP. Whirlwind especially.
|
On April 12 2014 10:35 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 10:27 NewSunshine wrote:On April 12 2014 09:47 iamcaustic wrote: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? It and the OP are one and the same. It is responsible for maps leading your eyes from one area to another fluidly, and the ability to put it together in such a way that it creates that effect is what the discussion should entail, I would think. The way you refer to it is downplaying the power it has, though, merely labeling it terrain edging and moving on misses out on what you can really do with it. I'd love for an explanation on how it's the terrain edges, and not the structure of the map, that create those wonderful eye movements you were emphasizing in the OP. Whirlwind especially. It's a combination of both. Let's see, so there's a basic path your eye will take through the map. You usually start at the main base and work your way out through the rest of the map, along basic paths, dictated by the general shape of the terrain, from one base or feature to the next. All maps have this. What I'm illustrating is that the edges of the terrain play an important role in highlighting this movement. Think of the edges as a railing that encloses the basic paths your eyes take. When there's an edge that follows along with the natural direction of the terrain, it facilitates the whole's aesthetics, making your eyes more naturally move a certain way over the map. If the edges of the terrain are discordant with each other and the basic path of the terrain, it slows the eye's movement, because you're busy reading a less consistent terrain design. It feels less natural, the flow has been disrupted by a design that doesn't facilitate it. Going back to the lines you put in your own map, those lines are mostly valid, but the design of the edging in your map doesn't take my eye and guide it along, if anything it takes away from it. When you look at Whirlwind, the lines going through the map are just as valid as they are on yours, but the construction, down to the last detail, moves you along a conveyor belt almost, you look at the natural and before you know it you've spun around to the middle. That's in effect what I'm trying to explain, hope this makes sense.
|
On April 12 2014 11:22 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 10:35 iamcaustic wrote:On April 12 2014 10:27 NewSunshine wrote:On April 12 2014 09:47 iamcaustic wrote: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? It and the OP are one and the same. It is responsible for maps leading your eyes from one area to another fluidly, and the ability to put it together in such a way that it creates that effect is what the discussion should entail, I would think. The way you refer to it is downplaying the power it has, though, merely labeling it terrain edging and moving on misses out on what you can really do with it. I'd love for an explanation on how it's the terrain edges, and not the structure of the map, that create those wonderful eye movements you were emphasizing in the OP. Whirlwind especially. It's a combination of both. Let's see, so there's a basic path your eye will take through the map. You usually start at the main base and work your way out through the rest of the map, along basic paths, dictated by the general shape of the terrain, from one base or feature to the next. All maps have this. What I'm illustrating is that the edges of the terrain play an important role in highlighting this movement. Think of the edges as a railing that encloses the basic paths your eyes take. When there's an edge that follows along with the natural direction of the terrain, it facilitates the whole's aesthetics, making your eyes more naturally move a certain way over the map. If the edges of the terrain are discordant with each other and the basic path of the terrain, it slows the eye's movement, because you're busy reading a less consistent terrain design. It feels less natural, the flow has been disrupted by a design that doesn't facilitate it. Going back to the lines you put in your own map, those lines are mostly valid, but the design of the edging in your map doesn't take my eye and guide it along, if anything it takes away from it. When you look at Whirlwind, the lines going through the map are just as valid as they are on yours, but the construction, down to the last detail, moves you along a conveyor belt almost, you look at the natural and before you know it you've spun around to the middle. That's in effect what I'm trying to explain, hope this makes sense. That's texturing at play, IMO. Khalani Sanctuary looks nice up close, but I did it before I really started working on my map texturing in the context of the greater picture. The end result is a visual aesthetic that doesn't help pronounce the terrain flow. I think a good counter-example to this on my part would be Sol Crossing. I've taken to improving my map texturing to help define the terrain structure and flow.
I think your choice of Overgrowth is a perfect example for me to make this case; the low grounds don't even have terrain edges to dictate that flow you drew. It's all sleight of hand using textures, doodads, and pathing paint. That said, I do agree that good aesthetics will help guide the eye. I just think you're misunderstanding what's actually doing the work.
|
|
Lets all just keep this friendly
|
On April 12 2014 08:17 ScorpSCII wrote: I feel that attack was unnecessary. Wasn't an attack, just a demonstration that NewSunshine's OP can be (and has been) misunderstood. In your first post here it seems clear that you're not talking about purely visual flow, or at least not in the same sense as NewSunshine. Basically, NewSunshine's OP is so vague (or arbitrary) that most people can interpret it along the lines of their own opinions on macro-aesthetics (which everyone has) and think they're actually talking about the same thing.
On April 12 2014 15:01 iamcaustic wrote: It's all sleight of hand using textures, doodads, and pathing paint. That said, I do agree that good aesthetics will help guide the eye. I just think you're misunderstanding what's actually doing the work. This (and pretty much everything else Caustic said in this thread).
|
Man those Korean maps sure look good, now that I look at them again!
Korhal Sky Island and Planet S look really good o.o
And yeah, a lot of Korean mappers I know are really into the "flow" of the map to make sure the map geometry is very good. This really makes the maps "stable" without awkward points as well, I feel. But some maps really have to squeeze out all the space for the layout and rush distances to work, which is why their geometry may not be as appealing. But for standard maps, such as EW's, a nice flow to the map is a good thing
EDIT: btw, EW drew these EXACT lines to demonstrate how these lines of flow are really important to maps. Coincidence?!
|
On April 12 2014 15:01 iamcaustic wrote: I think your choice of Overgrowth is a perfect example for me to make this case; the low grounds don't even have terrain edges to dictate that flow you drew. It's all sleight of hand using textures, doodads, and pathing paint. That said, I do agree that good aesthetics will help guide the eye. I just think you're misunderstanding what's actually doing the work. I'm not misunderstanding anything. By saying it's all down to textures you're ignoring the effects of basic geometry, and I hope you're not about to say that that's the case. In the case of Overgrowth, it's an exception insofar as it establishes a terrain geometry without using cliffs. Cliffs just happen to be the most common method by a wide margin, but a clear boundary created by doodads can have the same effect, the geometry on that map is as real as on any other - if you don't believe me on this one, Korhal Sky Island does the same thing in many places. I also thought I dispelled the notion that textures create the effect when I provided a textureless example, which you dismissed only on the basis of gameplay elements. And how, in the case of Whirlwind, do the textures create that effect and not the geometry? You're starting to lose me here. I agree with the idea that textures play a role in how you read a map, because textures could theoretically be applied in a way that misleads your eye, based on how we're accustomed to seeing textures used on a map. But don't get the wrong idea, textures are no substitute for the aesthetics of a map's geometry, you are incorrect on that assertion. Most all maps use textures to highlight pathing in a very basic way, it's nothing special, what I'm illustrating is altogether different. I think your newest map is a good enough example of what you're talking about, but it has nothing to do with what I've been trying to explain.
On April 12 2014 18:29 Semmo wrote:Man those Korean maps sure look good, now that I look at them again! Korhal Sky Island and Planet S look really good o.o And yeah, a lot of Korean mappers I know are really into the "flow" of the map to make sure the map geometry is very good. This really makes the maps "stable" without awkward points as well, I feel. But some maps really have to squeeze out all the space for the layout and rush distances to work, which is why their geometry may not be as appealing. But for standard maps, such as EW's, a nice flow to the map is a good thing EDIT: btw, EW drew these EXACT lines to demonstrate how these lines of flow are really important to maps. Coincidence?! I understand exactly what you're talking about, especially when you talk about proportions forcing this quality out of a map on occasion, Frost is a great example of that. Koreans have been the ones imbuing their maps with this quality the majority of the time, foreign exceptions being possibly a couple maps by etcetra, myself, and maybe others I'm forgetting, but they've been the ones who held the greatest mastery of the technique.
|
Sunshine, I think you need to be more reductionist in order to have this discussion effectively because you've been 75% talking past each other back and forth for a page.
What are the cliffs and holes (as you put it, purely terrain) showing up as in an overview picture, where what you call flow can be apprehended if it is manifest? Differences in pixel color.
What do doodads and textures show up as in an overview picture? Differences in pixel color.
Obviously all of the above can contribute to guiding the eye around.
When your eye is wondering around an image and your various mental compartments are assimilating the meaning of it on a deeper analytic and intuitive level, clearly you are not basing your inner model on a pixel perfect assessment. There are various things at play at different scales informing your understanding, which will vary between individuals and involve a lot of overlap between details that we as mapmakers know as the true guts (pathable areas) and the visuals.
Cliffs are generally a faithful indicator of pathable areas, and they are usually visually distinct, although this is certainly aided by other cosmetic features. So it is sensible to concentrate on them. But any visual communication of pathability on a map is having the very same contribution to flow. Cliffs just happen to be a pre-coupled (and the most common) version of this. If you wanted you could make a map entirely out of painted no-path, and then make it sensible with textures and doodads only. Grok?
I would also point out that a lot of people just have different visual comprehension traits and abilities based on their natural faculties and experiences, so what you see in the terrain structure of an overview picture will most times be a lot deeper than the average starcraft player, let alone a layman who's never seen the game. Even your ability just to discern the cliffs separates you.
|
On April 13 2014 06:44 EatThePath wrote: I would also point out that a lot of people just have different visual comprehension traits and abilities based on their natural faculties and experiences, so what you see in the terrain structure of an overview picture will most times be a lot deeper than the average starcraft player, let alone a layman who's never seen the game. Even your ability just to discern the cliffs separates you. I agree with your points, but this last part is most noteworthy to me. What I aimed to do with this post was eliminate this separation, by showing everyone exactly what it is I was seeing, by showing examples and explaining it in words, when even I had a hard time identifying what it was for a long time. I see now I probably should not have taken this topic as lightly as I have, and a more comprehensive breakdown would have been desirable, that I admit. Hopefully I can still demonstrate what I'm attempting to here, but it won't be as clean as it could have been. Sorry guys.
|
On April 13 2014 06:04 NewSunshine wrote: I'm not misunderstanding anything. By saying it's all down to textures you're ignoring the effects of basic geometry, and I hope you're not about to say that that's the case. That second sentence screams, to me, that you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm referring to the overall aesthetic -- a combination of terrain edges, texturing, and doodad work -- that helps to guide the eye around the map. That's not the same as saying "it's all down to textures", but rather pointing out that, for Overgrowth especially, you're marginalizing texturing and doodads to emphasize how much more important cliff edges are (they're not).
I'll admit it took me a while to finally figure out exactly what aesthetic concept you were trying to highlight, because the OP was all over the place and literally outed doodads and texturing as being irrelevant to the topic (they're quite relevant). You were all on the terrain train, so I thought you were discussing overall terrain structure and flow.
I (again) definitely agree with the discussion about how map aesthetics can help to guide the eye across and create a pleasing look; my comparing of Khalani Sanctuary and Sol Crossing was a demonstration of my own attempts to apply the concept in my more recent works. I think your OP is extremely confusing and misses the mark on properly describing what you're trying to discuss, as well as fails to properly identify how the Koreans go about doing it.
I also think your textureless example fails to perform as well as you think it does. It's definitely hampered by its core design and doesn't have the other aesthetic tools to compensate for it.
On April 13 2014 06:04 NewSunshine wrote: I agree with the idea that textures play a role in how you read a map, because textures could theoretically be applied in a way that misleads your eye, based on how we're accustomed to seeing textures used on a map. But don't get the wrong idea, textures are no substitute for the aesthetics of a map's geometry, you are incorrect on that assertion. You had just finished about how Overgrowth establishes terrain geometry without actually modifying terrain, and then you say this. This is the kind of confusion I'm talking about regarding the OP and your own understanding of the topic. I really don't think we disagree with the result, but rather your insistence that terrain is more heavily weighted over the other aesthetic options when it comes to achieving the result. It's like (actually, quite literally) arguing sculpting is superior to painting for establishing design principles. Wanted to throw the link in there to point out that I mean something quite specific when I say design principles.
Ah man, this conversation is reminding me of my college days in my art and design class.
|
I also practiced graphic design, for 5 years starting in high school, and took it up as a pastime, just like mapmaking is for me now. In my practice flow was the main element I focused on, and that experience is showing up for my maps now, so I feel I know what I'm talking about. You were correct in thinking I'm talking strictly about terrain. You are incorrect in thinking I'm saying it's more important than the other elements, it's not. However, the technique I'm talking about deals almost strictly with the geometry of the map's terrain. The effect I'm talking about is something you can't get from other types of aesthetics, something textures and doodads can only accentuate or detract from. You refer to your own maps in terms of the overall concept of eye movement, and perhaps you focused too much on that particular phrase, and again I could have been more clear, but I'm not addressing every aspect of a map's aesthetics, merely one that few seem to understand and appreciate. You reference sculpting versus painting, and it's a perfect analogy, only I'm not arguing that sculpting is superior, simply that it is an alternative/additional technique for establishing an aesthetic in a 3d space. Nothing I've said is inconsistent, but to see that requires an understanding of what I'm trying to explain.
edit: and I will attempt a revision of the OP soon, that's more explicit in the ideas I'm trying to convey, and the boundaries placed on it, as in what it does/does not do, and what does and does not contribute to it. I should probably work on TLMC maps first however.
|
On April 13 2014 06:55 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 06:44 EatThePath wrote: I would also point out that a lot of people just have different visual comprehension traits and abilities based on their natural faculties and experiences, so what you see in the terrain structure of an overview picture will most times be a lot deeper than the average starcraft player, let alone a layman who's never seen the game. Even your ability just to discern the cliffs separates you. I agree with your points, but this last part is most noteworthy to me. What I aimed to do with this post was eliminate this separation, by showing everyone exactly what it is I was seeing, by showing examples and explaining it in words, when even I had a hard time identifying what it was for a long time. I see now I probably should not have taken this topic as lightly as I have, and a more comprehensive breakdown would have been desirable, that I admit. Hopefully I can still demonstrate what I'm attempting to here, but it won't be as clean as it could have been. Sorry guys. No worries man! We express ourselves in order to learn and teach, and I think that's happened here. ;D
+ Show Spoiler +caustic notwithstanding.
|
@NewSunshine: Sounds good. The one thing I was going to say in response to your post was to revise the OP, because it's certainly not doing justice to the topic you want to discuss and in fact, does hold some inconsistencies with your later posts. In particular, I have to go back to this paragraph I had outed earlier:
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. Definitely looking forward to reading your revision.
|
On April 13 2014 09:15 iamcaustic wrote:@NewSunshine: Sounds good. The one thing I was going to say in response to your post was to revise the OP, because it's certainly not doing justice to the topic you want to discuss and in fact, does hold some inconsistencies with your later posts. In particular, I have to go back to this paragraph I had outed earlier: 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. Definitely looking forward to reading your revision. Definitely. With the part you quoted, I'll emphasize how this aesthetic technique only contributes to eye-movement, when it seemed to be understood that I was implying that was all there is to it. Although what I'm describing is probably tied with textures for being the strongest contributor. Any inconsistencies most likely came from poor communication on my part, but rest assured I understand the subject enough to want to write a post about it, it's just hard to pin down as you could probably tell.
|
|
|
|