im probably coming at this from a different angle, but here's perhaps a too-long ramble anyway.
for me, when i see a map, i scan for: fun (aesthetics), transferability, usability. this requires context(s).
cezar capacle recently talking about map or pointcrawl generation in his new mausworn hack. that is fun and usable, but only with the premise that all maps are cognitive - exiting as partially accurate ideas in each denizen's head. it works for a good exploratory game, because there can always be things you missed, and the map is always able to be updated, but never truly finished.
a map that we humans use - requires stability. and if a game requires that level of stability, i dont know if its that fun. modern ttrpgs tend towards a kind of static, tactical shooter sim idea of living = winning, losing = dying, so for me, that aesthetic is not really that interesting.
i think it tends to boil down to the kind of person you are and the kind of task you want or need to do. i use maps as reference, as ideas, as art... except when i need to find my way to some place i need to go. then i want my maps to be accurate.
really interesting! i also realised that i had interpreted "neighbourhood" on a too small scale, definitely not on the size of including several districts at least ^^ i also found it a fairly difficult exercise – i have very seldom lived long in any one place! though i did manage to make one of the block (is probably what it would be called in English) where i live now ^^
anyhow, as i'm gearing up to run a 'campaign' for my "home game group" set in a big city, this is really useful :D looking forward to the next installment as well :)
(i also saw the obligatory Box quote coming a long way, hehe x3)
(it was also very interesting/cool to realise that while i don't have a really *visual* mental map in my head, on account of aphantasia, i do still have one in the sense that i can from whatever i have, draw something visual on a piece of paper :) it makes sense now that i think about it, of course, i used to draw a lot growing up and all, and i can find my way back most ways i've walked in cities etc, so of course i have something ^^ but still cool!)
I remain convinced that every map maker should learn to read a topographical map and do more hiking.
There I was playing Nier Automa and my brain goes wow this map is shit. There I was playing Death Stranding and going, wow this map is shit.
It's great to study maps, to make something look pretty, it's another to actually use one to navigate and go, what works, what doesn't, and what do I wish I had.
Tilting the map in Death Stranding is nowhere as effective as if they had just made a normal map. In that game that is almost certainly the point I imagine.
It wants you to develop the habit of tilting the map and trying to judge grade as you plan your route. To look at the surroundings and yet I found the whole thing a mostly a reminder that the map is not the terrain.
Monochrome made it hard to distinguish. Nothing was marked. What is traversable and what is not is not consistent. The map is often obscuring the rest of the map.
It was designed to give you a vague sense of location, emphasis on vague but because it doesn't work as a video game map and you can't use it like you were doing landnav via landmarks and terrain it is functionally useless.
The memorization of the space is easier and more effective than using the map.
Learning how to read a topo has almost ruined my ability to read any sort of video game map because of the reasons you described. Except I always want to go one step further and say that video games can (and should) use topo maps as the standard for no other reason than getting mass exposure to the subject. Imagine if death stranding had realist land nav operation
im probably coming at this from a different angle, but here's perhaps a too-long ramble anyway.
for me, when i see a map, i scan for: fun (aesthetics), transferability, usability. this requires context(s).
cezar capacle recently talking about map or pointcrawl generation in his new mausworn hack. that is fun and usable, but only with the premise that all maps are cognitive - exiting as partially accurate ideas in each denizen's head. it works for a good exploratory game, because there can always be things you missed, and the map is always able to be updated, but never truly finished.
a map that we humans use - requires stability. and if a game requires that level of stability, i dont know if its that fun. modern ttrpgs tend towards a kind of static, tactical shooter sim idea of living = winning, losing = dying, so for me, that aesthetic is not really that interesting.
i think it tends to boil down to the kind of person you are and the kind of task you want or need to do. i use maps as reference, as ideas, as art... except when i need to find my way to some place i need to go. then i want my maps to be accurate.
Interesting! I agree it depends on what the player is looking for and the kind of fun they are trying to achieve. Thank you for this comment!
really interesting! i also realised that i had interpreted "neighbourhood" on a too small scale, definitely not on the size of including several districts at least ^^ i also found it a fairly difficult exercise – i have very seldom lived long in any one place! though i did manage to make one of the block (is probably what it would be called in English) where i live now ^^
anyhow, as i'm gearing up to run a 'campaign' for my "home game group" set in a big city, this is really useful :D looking forward to the next installment as well :)
(i also saw the obligatory Box quote coming a long way, hehe x3)
(it was also very interesting/cool to realise that while i don't have a really *visual* mental map in my head, on account of aphantasia, i do still have one in the sense that i can from whatever i have, draw something visual on a piece of paper :) it makes sense now that i think about it, of course, i used to draw a lot growing up and all, and i can find my way back most ways i've walked in cities etc, so of course i have something ^^ but still cool!)
Long time readers know to expect the Box quote on a regular basis. It's just too perfect!
So glad you actually tried the opening exercise! I'm not sure how many people would actually do that rather than just reading it.
Thank you!
I remain convinced that every map maker should learn to read a topographical map and do more hiking.
There I was playing Nier Automa and my brain goes wow this map is shit. There I was playing Death Stranding and going, wow this map is shit.
It's great to study maps, to make something look pretty, it's another to actually use one to navigate and go, what works, what doesn't, and what do I wish I had.
Tilting the map in Death Stranding is nowhere as effective as if they had just made a normal map. In that game that is almost certainly the point I imagine.
It wants you to develop the habit of tilting the map and trying to judge grade as you plan your route. To look at the surroundings and yet I found the whole thing a mostly a reminder that the map is not the terrain.
Interesting! What didn’t you like about the NA map? I’ve never played.
Monochrome made it hard to distinguish. Nothing was marked. What is traversable and what is not is not consistent. The map is often obscuring the rest of the map.
It was designed to give you a vague sense of location, emphasis on vague but because it doesn't work as a video game map and you can't use it like you were doing landnav via landmarks and terrain it is functionally useless.
The memorization of the space is easier and more effective than using the map.
Learning how to read a topo has almost ruined my ability to read any sort of video game map because of the reasons you described. Except I always want to go one step further and say that video games can (and should) use topo maps as the standard for no other reason than getting mass exposure to the subject. Imagine if death stranding had realist land nav operation
And that's why Tears of the Kingdom is best hiking game, sorry Kojima.