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.

[Cubical]

Just came across this and realized it has something to do with one of the points I was making. I also agree with most of what he said even though Wans levels are beautiful.

Originally Posted by konidias

I think it's complete garbage. No offense, and this is just my opinion... but why do people go through all the time and effort to make these elaborate levels which lack any real creativity or design? You're simply using like every tile you can find to make some insanely complex tiling that doesn't even make sense.

Take the 3rd level for example. You're using what are supposed to be beach tiles for ocean shores, as standing water tiles. You focus so much on your "mad awesome tiling!!11" that you don't focus on adding trees, or signs, or tables and chairs so people can like... sit down.

Honestly, if this level was online I'd avoid it at all costs. It doesn't look pleasant to be in at all. Walking through that upper water area would be hell. You'd constantly be falling in water and popping back out like 20 times just to get from one side to the other. You've got a tree stump out there in the middle of nowhere... Who cut that tree down? Some guy who decided "hey, I need some lumber, I think I'll cross this insanely zig-zaggy watery terrain to get to that one tree way over there so I can cut it down and then cross the water all over again to take back the logs."?

I would say 95% of the LATs on Graal today don't take anything into account except "is my level crazily tiled enough?!?". It's really annoying and a horrible direction to take Graal's levels in.

This kind of level wouldn't even be found randomly in a fantasy world, let alone actual real nature.

Here are some things I like to take into consideration when making levels:

1. is it somewhere people would like to go to hang out
2. does it serve any purpose other than showing your ability to make crazy tile designs?
3. are there focal points in which players can rest their eyes on instead of just non-stop chaos (as in your levels)
4. why are the objects in the level there, and why does it make sense for them to be there
5. is this level comfortable to walk through, or is it too complicated and messy?

Sorry that I blew up like this but I needed to get it off my chest.

/end rant

[FaLLChiLD]

Originally Posted by Crono

THAT WAS LIKE 4 YEARS AGO AND ONLY ON BABYLON OK? caps

Lol, I remember this. The whole top of the GMAP. ^_^

[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".

[Cubical]

I wish looping worked right

[WanDaMan]

The last time I checked you only need 100 levels to get a server online providing it were full of content for players not to get bored. You could easilly manipulate this to your favor, for example; make the overworld an island, add a forest and a snow town on a large cliff. That would probably leave you with about 60 levels left to detail and add content.

I believe my mistake is that I decided to do overworlds as a way to show my portfolio to build on my reputation and not at all taking in to consideration of the players when I first started thus resulting in my work never being released to the community. The quality of the levels is there in the levels but like a lot of you guys have said - there just isn't a point to them. The best advice I can give anyone is to just plan everything before you start developing. I learnt my lesson the hard way; here's a snapshot of VS:C' when I first started developing it : http://forums.graal2001.com/forums/a...9&d=1116097048. I had no idea what I wanted to achieve and eventually I ended up with this (SEE ATTACHED). Now whenever I'm developing I'm taking into consideration the players and what they will do!

[Cubical]

Originally Posted by WanDaMan

The last time I checked you only need 100 levels to get a server online providing it were full of content for players not to get bored. You could easilly manipulate this to your favor, for example; make the overworld an island, add a forest and a snow town on a large cliff. That would probably leave you with about 60 levels left to detail and add content.

I believe my mistake is that I decided to do overworlds as a way to show my portfolio to build on my reputation and not at all taking in to consideration of the players when I first started thus resulting in my work never being released to the community. The quality of the levels is there in the levels but like a lot of you guys have said - there just isn't a point to them. The best advice I can give anyone is to just plan everything before you start developing. I learnt my lesson the hard way; here's a snapshot of VS:C' when I first started developing it : http://forums.graal2001.com/forums/a...9&d=1116097048. I had no idea what I wanted to achieve and eventually I ended up with this (SEE ATTACHED). Now whenever I'm developing I'm taking into consideration the players and what they will do!

I have actually seen the towns I outlined with red from pictures you have posted on the forums and I really like them. I wish people still used that kind of styling. Your overworld is really pretty but like I said even if it were to goto classic people might visit the level once and never see it again which would be a waste of your hard work and the players time to go through that level. I'm not implying that a server can't have a few pointless levels because it's bound to happen.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by WanDaMan

The last time I checked you only need 100 levels to get a server online providing it were full of content for players not to get bored. You could easilly manipulate this to your favor, for example; make the overworld an island, add a forest and a snow town on a large cliff. That would probably leave you with about 60 levels left to detail and add content.

I believe my mistake is that I decided to do overworlds as a way to show my portfolio to build on my reputation and not at all taking in to consideration of the players when I first started thus resulting in my work never being released to the community. The quality of the levels is there in the levels but like a lot of you guys have said - there just isn't a point to them. The best advice I can give anyone is to just plan everything before you start developing. I learnt my lesson the hard way; here's a snapshot of VS:C' when I first started developing it : http://forums.graal2001.com/forums/a...9&d=1116097048. I had no idea what I wanted to achieve and eventually I ended up with this (SEE ATTACHED). Now whenever I'm developing I'm taking into consideration the players and what they will do!

Curious where you got the whole idea of 100 levels. I don't recall there ever being anything said with that much specificity.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Cubical

if it were to goto classic people might visit the level once and never see it again

So what? It's gonna happen anyways. Even if it was made so well people had to visit it a few more times, it's still eventually going to just 'rot away' by itself on the overworld. You can't force people to 'admire' a level past its purpose.

[Spark910]

Originally Posted by Bell

Curious where you got the whole idea of 100 levels. I don't recall there ever being anything said with that much specificity.

I seem to remember some old rules listing specific numbers of outside levels at about the time I joined PWA, whenever that was (2003-2004?).

[WhiteDragon]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

So what? It's gonna happen anyways. Even if it was made so well people had to visit it a few more times, it's still eventually going to just 'rot away' by itself on the overworld. You can't force people to 'admire' a level past its purpose.

I think an important thing is to always have something interesting in every part of the overworld. This is not only because purposeful levels are "better".

A big reason is that if you are running around with the expectation that there is nothing cool to find, it'll be boring. But. if you are running around with the expectation that there is great stuff everywhere, it'll be fun to even run around.

Since actually having stuff builds the expectation, I think doing something like this would make exploration in Graal much more interesting.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by WhiteDragon

I think an important thing is to always have something interesting in every part of the overworld. This is not only because purposeful levels are "better".

A big reason is that if you are running around with the expectation that there is nothing cool to find, it'll be boring. But. if you are running around with the expectation that there is great stuff everywhere, it'll be fun to even run around.

Since actually having stuff builds the expectation, I think doing something like this would make exploration in Graal much more interesting.

My objection is not against whether levels need to have purpose or not, but that big overworlds automatically = bad. Sure, there is a huge margin for error, but it's equally as bad to make a boring and uneventful small overworld. The mindset needs to move away from big = bad and more to empty = bad. It's all about how the worlds are designed from a creative and skilled viewpoint, not from some empty numbers.

[WhiteDragon]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

My objection is not against whether levels need to have purpose or not, but that big overworlds automatically = bad.

I'd say there is a fairly strong relationship between "big" and "empty", which is maybe what this thread is warning? Dunno.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by WhiteDragon

I'd say there is a fairly strong relationship between "big" and "empty", which is maybe what this thread is warning? Dunno.

I don't think it's constructive to look at it in such a black and white manner though.

[scooter123]

Implement something on a server that leads players back to old areas, like Dusty's back and forth item thing. Go back and forth from new and old areas. Old areas you could not get to without certain things?

[Cubical]

Typing on my phone and quoting doesn't want to work for some reason so bear with me and just. Look back a few post.

@scooter123: That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Kind on topic, I'm working on a 12x12 overworld in my spare time attempting to apply everything I mentioned in this thread in it. I currently don't have internet once again so I can't get a copy of dustys clean pics1 and have only got the outline of all the main parts done until I can get more tiles. Ill take a picture on my phone and post it when I get a chance.

@WhiteDragon: that's kinda what I meant but kinda not.

@Dusty: I'm not implying that big overworlds are bad but I think smaller overworlds are much more logical not only from a developeras stand point but from a players.

[scooter123]

Smaller or big overworlds. It's the lack of planning for a big overworld. A small overworld is simpler because staff will not get bored, stop and can get it done in a quicker time. When it is a big overworld the staff think it will be easy, but once they get a few levels done they realize how long it will take and do not plan it out at all.

[Dnegel]

Originally Posted by scooter123

Smaller or big overworlds. It's the lack of planning for a big overworld. A small overworld is simpler because staff will not get bored, stop and can get it done in a quicker time. When it is a big overworld the staff think it will be easy, but once they get a few levels done they realize how long it will take and do not plan it out at all.

qft

Yeah, many people that make big overworlds mostly dont know how hard it is.

[fowlplay4]

Originally Posted by scooter123

It's the lack of planning

This is why any size of overworld (or any kind of development really) will fail or fall short of what it could be.

[Darkrazor]

Originally Posted by Crono

I agree with what you're saying, functionality over quantity is the way I look at it nowadays.

I think a lot of focus has always been placed on individual levels. To create a good map is very different, more difficult, and much more time consuming. That's why a lot of LATs, like me, suck at making overworlds but excel in individual/clumps of levels. The LATing community as a whole is kind of on stand still, if not going backwards. Good to see such threads.

he said it all.