Why are small minimalist overworlds deprecated?

[DeCeaseD]

Originally Posted by Bell

Hence why I believe that if someone is going to use a level generator they should make a map that they can actually manage. Its far simpler to expand later than it is to come up with ideas as to how to fill a massive map first thing.

I most definantly agree. I personally prefer to make smaller maps that are connected. That way you can just add on as you go, make different locations, make different LOOKING locations, so on and so forth. But, like I said earlier.. most just lack any type of creative imagination when it comes to Graal, so they assume by making a bigger map, they can just add a bunch of useless crap, and make up what they are as they go along.

[Elk]

Originally Posted by DeCeaseD

I most definantly agree. I personally prefer to make smaller maps that are connected. That way you can just add on as you go, make different locations, make different LOOKING locations, so on and so forth. But, like I said earlier.. most just lack any type of creative imagination when it comes to Graal, so they assume by making a bigger map, they can just add a bunch of useless crap, and make up what they are as they go along.

Most just lack organization...

[Kamaeru]

I think it would be interesting to go back to not using gmaps...

2D Zelda games would be wack as **** if they used something like gmaps.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Kamaeru

I think it would be interesting to go back to not using gmaps...

2D Zelda games would be wack as **** if they used something like gmaps.

64x64 levels is a limitation even Zelda on the SNES didn't adhere to. Sectioned off areas would be cool if done right.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Kamaeru

I think it would be interesting to go back to not using gmaps...

2D Zelda games would be wack as **** if they used something like gmaps.

gmaps are great, it's how they're implemented that's a bit "meh".