Why are small minimalist overworlds deprecated?
I have always liked overworlds that were simple and small and I really don't know why they aren't being taken advantage of more often. Not just that but the over detailing of levels causes players to go around unnecessary obstacles. It seems like everyone wants to have a huge overworld even through it is extremely unnecessary for a wide variety of reasons.
Now on to the second part of my question and reasons why it's ridiculous, over detailing of levels. I don't know why everyone feels a need to throw random grass indentations or raise the grass in every level, make dirt paths that go absolutely nowhere, a bunch of random tiles to fill up blank areas. This sorta coincides with the point I made about Pointless Content. Sure you can't just leave the level blank but you shouldn't fill it up 5000 tiles, maybe a few things of tall grass here, a rock, a few bushes. I have the same problem when it comes to making levels but I have been trying to stray away from it. I personally think classic has an overworld that is easier on the eyes than anyone currently in existence. I think more developers should take after how classic levels were designed and ditch the whole 'lets make a level and throw cliffs and jagged paths and things to block the players everywhere.' Ok, enough about this because I'm sure this whole section has been covered multiple times by multiple people. Now for my original question. Why are small minimalist overworlds deprecated? Could anyone explain why a 10x10 overworld with simple level detail tends to be looked down upon. I have a feeling that even if the overworld was one of the prettiest things on graal that It would be denied for classic status just for it's size and lack of level detail. What I don't think everyone understands is we don't have 1000 people on each server so why create 4000 pointless levels? |
I agree with what you're saying, functionality over quantity is the way I look at it nowadays.
The simple answer is this: most LATs are clueless. I'm not gonna act perfect, I suck at overworlds. For a perfect example of what an overworld should be check out Atlantis (I think Crow did it). There was a time when gmaps didn't exist and levels were actually made by hand. They weren't generated and thus less levels were filler and more served a purpose. Older servers were like this, even UN. UN's current size is due to the conversion to a gmap. This added a ton of useless filler levels that never needed to be there in the first place. This is not to say that these servers had great maps before, no, but the levels were more likely to be useful than a gmap filled for the sake of being filled. 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. |
Personally, The development community itself for graal is at a halt itself. I also agree with you cubical.
|
What can I say.. agreed!
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I agree completely with everything you just said Cubical.
|
Hi, you sent me a link to your post in a PM so I figured I would go ahead and provide some feedback. I am replying to your post as a leveler that is sure some people accuse him of overdetailing and as an experienced player that has been playing Graal for years.
I believe a major reason people might prefer a larger overworld to a smaller one is that they associate a larger overworld with more (or more capacity for) content. It's logical for people to think that a big place has more room for stuff to put in it. Obviously, more room does mean more stuff to put in, but most people know that just because the overworld is big doesn't necessarily mean there is or will be a lot of content in it. You already mentioned ways a small overworld could be added to to introduce more content. I think your arguments promoting a small overworld are pretty valid. Especially for an under construction server when development work is the most important aspect, and taking on developing a large overworld might not be the best move. But if you're trying to achieve the hosted section, I could see how a larger overworld might promote the image that your server has a great deal done and has plans for getting a great deal more done. I can't say a whole lot on the issue about new players finding their way around. I exclusively play Unholy Nation and Zodiac and have for years; therefore, I know my way around those servers well enough. Any new player is going to have some trouble navigating around an overworld they're unfamiliar with. A smaller one would be easier to find one's way around, but signs could also help point people around, as can maps. A bit on the socialization aspect you mentioned. Yes, socialization is a big part of the Graal gaming experience. The problem you stated about large overworlds being non-conducive is ameliorated to some extent by the playerlist and PMs, as well as toguild messages, toall messages (do any servers still use these?), and chat systems that various servers have now implemented. They might not be the same as seeing what another player is doing and commenting in real time, but they do serve a big purpose in communication. Some servers have warping items to help players get around larger overworlds so that it isn't necessary to walk through so many levels (most of the time) to find someone to hang out with "in person". Finally, a bit on over-detailing levels. A couple times in your post you mentioned over-detailing blocking movement: "the over detailing of levels causes players to go around unnecessary obstacles" and "'...block the players everywhere'". What I believe this issue really boils down to is leveling style, which is the primary factor in all disputes about leveling. First, when I make (and "over-detail") my levels, I do not include many tiles that block player movement. Tiles that do this (hedges, fences, trees, mushrooms, small stones, rooshes, etc.) are kept off to the sides of a level or grouped together in areas throughout the level that players can easily see and navigate around. The tiles that would cause people to say my levels are over-detailed are completely passable. I also use cut bush tiles and underneath rock tiles much more often than I do the actual bush and rock (those that can be picked up) tiles. It's true that (at least ideally) dirt paths should only exist to lead players from one area to another area (with some sort of content in both places). I personally dislike the more simple leveling styles I remember from playing Classic and prefer more interesting (less predictable) levels that I can explore or look at (especially when I and players like me idle). All the same, it is important for things in a level to be conducive to player movement and exploration, but remember that a great deal of what goes into a level is dependent upon the leveler's style. Hopefully you find my feedback useful in your wondering. If you have any questions about things I mentioned, feel free to contact me. |
I agree.
|
I couldn't agree more, I would hate to make 100 levels when I know for certain that players will only cluster around 2 or 3 of the levels.
But I do enjoy exploring big maps, so I guess large overworlds can be justified in that sense (aslong the exploration isn't meaningless!). Perhaps it's an issue of ego, a "my sword is bigger than yours" kind of thing... |
When is the last time an overworld has been released? I wouldn't say that they're deprecated just that people really haven't been making over-worlds at all lately, and the last overworld I saw (Noct.) was pretty small.
|
Meeeeh, I've argued this so many times, and it can be such a lengthy argument :(
edit: Okay, time to elaborate. First off, smaller overworlds will not be a breeding ground for social interaction. People will always clump in specific levels regardless of how small the overworld is. Look at UN. People are always at Town Center. That has nothing to do with the size of the overworld. You could crop UN down to just Town Center as their whole overworld and people would still be clumped outside of OSL, thus the rest of TC is equally as 'useless' as the rest of the overworld. However, like I said I've argued this a lot so I'm going to simplify things: Making an overworld small is not going to magically fix the problems you mentioned. It has nothing to do with the size or content of the overworld but the attitude of the developers. The only way a large overworld would be a waste is if it was poorly planned and executed... and surprise, that's exactly what happens! UN's overworld isn't what I'd consider huge, but it's a ****ing maze to navigate through and mostly empty/unfinished. You can't just go from one town to the other, most of the time you'll end up at a dead end. Most UC servers will start with a huge overworld, simply with the intention of 'wowing' players with the size. They'll never have the manpower to fill it. There are countless other examples that back up what you say, but I don't agree with the real problem being the size of the overworld, but the developers behind them. I'm not condoning 50x50 gmaps and such, but I'm against the idea that overworlds should be a max 10x10 because people think it will magically make the server better. Better planning and execution will make the overworlds and servers better. |
2 Attachment(s)
Before I say anything else I'd just like to note that this is not a thread bashing larger overworlds but trying to figure out what the obsession is with them and the show the benefits of creating a smaller overworld. I see more pros than cons of creating a smaller overworld which is what compelled me to make this thread. Also I would like to figure out why no one has got a server with a small overworld to classic status.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
edit: The levels attached is just personal preference of how I like my levels to look. I prefer the plain look to the random tile fill look. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for it being easier on the development staff, it is and it would probably cause your staff to create higher quality work because
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I sort of lost track of what I was talking about in half of those comments I just made because I'm talking to a friend on the phone before I leave but hopefully it doesn't confuse anyone. If there is any confusion please let me know. |
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright (C) 1998-2019 Toonslab All Rights Reserved.