The right looks

[Crusard]

I just wanted some opinions on how should a map be decorated. I haven't had positive opinions in my now old campaign, but when I compare it with many others I still think it looks good, so it's probably about styles. So, back on topic, should a scenario look realistic, or more fantastic looking with vast adventure objects, or something else?

[Crusard]

Oh also, what do you think about the use of the brushes? I've never used them myself, but maybe they're not that bad...

ps: Oooooh, we can double-post on these forums!

[wimfrits]

, so it's probably about styles.

I think that's it.
My personal preferences :

- realism. Which is a bit controversial in a fantasy setting. Perhaps a 'plausible reality' is a better way to call it. I want to feel 'at home' in a map; believe my surroundings, so I can more easily indulge myself in the map and have a more intense experience.
When graphics are 'over the top', I can no longer believe the map and have a less good time playing.

- story-map connection. A powerful way of bringing the map to life are textual references to the surroundings.

- open map. As a player I want to feel free to a degree. All narrow paths and difficult navigation make me feel locked in.

- details. Especially little details like Vlaad used in his map 'Truth and Justice' I really enjoy.

- some degree of 'smoothness'. Don't know how else to describe it. Decorations should not distract from play, but should fit at all times. Instead of harsh decorations, the map needs to flow. A bit like a blurred picture.

Oh also, what do you think about the use of the brushes? I've never used them myself, but maybe they're not that bad...

Tried them only several times. I think they're nice for filling up space along the outlines of a map. But for parts that really need attention, brushed graphics have a tendency to look artificial imo.

[Ururam Tururam]

Oh also, what do you think about the use of the brushes? I've never used them myself, but maybe they're not that bad...

Tried them only several times. I think they're nice for filling up space along the outlines of a map. But for parts that really need attention, brushed graphics have a tendency to look artificial imo.

I use them extensively, often overlying a few different brushes one on another. I almost never let the first fill be the final, I try several ones until I find a combination that looks well enough. Then I correct what needs to be corrected manually.

[Crusard]

- story-map connection. A powerful way of bringing the map to life are textual references to the surroundings.

Hmmm, that's an interesting point now that you name it. Descriptions do change the way players look at the map.

I use them extensively, often overlying a few different brushes one on another. I almost never let the first fill be the final, I try several ones until I find a combination that looks well enough. Then I correct what needs to be corrected manually.

I might use them I the future, as I plan to make a Campaign once Equilibris is out. Of course, I won't forget the techniques I used with the standard editor

[Thelonious]

It would be a shame if you'd do that.

[Veldrynus]

it's probably about styles.

Well, I do prefer a less realistic but original looks for my maps. I try to create strange and shocking combinations, like puting regular sea objects on lava rivers and such. This can be a risky thing, because some players might think that the objects were placed on random, and the unusual look is result of lazy and chaotic design. Rule #1 is that everything must look intentional. Creating such maps is very hard, but it can be rewarding if done right.
The main problem with the H4 graphics are the colors. There are rarely two objects of different type with a very similar color. For example, there no other mountain object wich has a similar color to the mountain of the phoenix dwelling. This problem makes the creation of realistic looking maps damn hard. I've seen only very few maps wich had great realistic decorations. So, I decided to try out the opposite direction, and made maps where the fantastic look was the dominant one. Some people like the 'radical' style of my maps, some don't. I can very well understand this. My personal favourite is Draconic 2, wich I think, is my best looking map.
Of course, I don't recommend this style. It is mine !

[Kalah]

The most important thing to decorate a map with, is landscape. Mountains, rivers, slopes and trees are much more natural to find than treasure chests and artefacts.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

I just wanted some opinions on how should a map be decorated. I haven't had positive opinions in my now old campaign, but when I compare it with many others I still think it looks good, so it's probably about styles. So, back on topic, should a scenario look realistic, or more fantastic looking with vast adventure objects, or something else?

I prefer to have terrain that is logical for the town type, especially for the player's homeland. However, your story may make some fantastic features quite logical.

Brushes can save a lot of time and look good. However, even after using a brush I'll add more decoration and make changes to what the brush did.

I like for the edges to be decorated as well instead of leaving them "open." The seas too (if you have water in your map) should be decorated (ie small islands, moss, seaweed, rocks, and sea objects.)

BTW, one of the reasons I am looking forward to the next version of Equilibris is the additional decorations and different looking quest huts. A good looking map makes the map more enjoyable to play (at least for me.)

GOW

[ByteBandit]

I have to agree with Kalah here. A map should have plenty of decrorative elements to it, especially if you play it over and over again. It may take more time to create the great map, but like anything else, it'll pay off in the end.
Almost all the highly rated maps are also a pleasure to look at as well as play.

[Ururam Tururam]

By the way the system I use to rank a map is first of all rating it 0-10 if each of four categories: playability, design, story, and innovations. The final ranking is then 4p+3d+2s+i, so it can be said that a good visual look is of 30% importance towards the general success or failure of a map.

[Thelonious]

Originality is important too.

[ByteBandit]

Also, for me, the map does'nt necessarily have to be hard to win to be enjoyable. If the story and the decorations hold my interest, then the map is truly worth playing again. So I guess I judge a map on it's replayabilty quality. (Is it worth playing again?)

[Crusard]

I usually don't play the same map twice, mainly because it would mean less time to spend playing other good maps. I usually like maps that have original features and missions, not just fetch-and-return or capture this or that castle. Graphics are also important to me, and so far there were only a few maps that did look good and realistic.

Ok, this pictures show my preferred style:

What I like to see:
http://cablemodem.fibertel.com.ar/rebel ... phics1.jpg
http://cablemodem.fibertel.com.ar/rebel ... phics2.jpg

And what I don't like:
http://cablemodem.fibertel.com.ar/rebel ... phics1.jpg
http://cablemodem.fibertel.com.ar/rebel ... phics2.jpg[/url]

[ByteBandit]

I guess what I meant by replayability, is playing the map again a long time from the first time I played it. Like six months from the original time I played it. Because there is always a map that you play that sticks in your mind and you enjoyed it. I design maps that you want to go back and play again because, as we know, the random factor makes it impossible for the same map to come up twice.

[Crusard]

I designed my only campaign so that you *have* to play it again

[Thelonious]

Ah, you can do in so many ways you want to check it out the other way?

[ScarlettP]

Some people like the 'radical' style of my maps, some don't. I can very well understand this. My personal favourite is Draconic 2, wich I think, is my best looking map.
Of course, I don't recommend this style. It is mine !

See, I'm one of Vel's biggest fans. I have always LOVED the way he decorates. To me, it make a map far more interesting and entertaining to constantly be trying to see the next fun thing that Vel has in store. But I don't think anyone else could do it as well as he does, so don't try.

Was it Roben who did the Planeswalker? Those were fun! I loved his use of the 'snow' terrain as 'clouds' and the way he lined everthing with placed events "You went to close to the edge and fell off the cloud. You loose!" That was brilliant.

But unless you are REALLY good at being strange and unusual, I wouldn't go that way. Some experiments just DO NOT work! I tried very hard to do something like Vel's odd combinations on a map I was working on in partnership with someone else. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't come up with anything that he liked. The collaboration pretty much died on the vine.

The best bet is to try to make it look natural. Remember, you are not limited to the brushes that came in your tool box. You can make your own. I find that to be VERY helpful. I've got custom brushes for Grass, flowers, rocks, and trees. I use one on top of the other, then come in and move things around by hand.

[Thelonious]

I really want the expansion ... to bad it's not for sale around here (in stores) and HoMM V is comming out. Else I mught have bought it.

[Crusard]

It's not for sale around here either, but...