Forum

by **lostatlimbo** on Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:26 pm

Looks good to me, but I'm not the person you need to hear that from. :)

by **isaiah40** on Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:41 pm

gimil wrote:At the risk of sounding like the bad guy, I am still not feeling the impassable stuff. Unfortunately I am not being much help in a solution. Does anyone else feel like this?

I'm with gimil on this one. Especially the mountains/glaciers. To be honest they look more like you took your greatwall from Transsib, colored it white and placed it this map. IMO, the mountains are the only thing wrong with this revamp. We all know you can do better mountains, so let's see some different varieties on here.

by **natty dread** on Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:10 pm

isaiah40 wrote:To be honest they look more like you took your greatwall from Transsib, colored it white and placed it this map.

I don't recycle my (or anyone else's) graphics. Everything here is drawn from scratch, by me, for this project only.

isaiah40 wrote:IMO, the mountains are the only thing wrong with this revamp.

IMO, they're fine and fit the style of the map.

Can I get some kind of reasoning here? People keep telling me they hate this and that, but it would help if I could get some actually constructive feedback here. What exactly is wrong with the mountains, or what kind of mountains would you rather see on the map and why?

by **Seamus76** on Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:33 pm

Personally I think the mountains look great. There's some very nice detail and shadow-play that really brings them to life. The only one I'm not a fan of, and it may just be me, is the top left glacier. I think it may need a little something where it meets the ocean, maybe a faint line, or ripple. Other than that, I'm not sure you can get better mountains. I mean they're hand drawn! Great work natty.

by **gimil** on Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:12 am

natty_dread wrote:
IMO, they're fine and fit the style of the map.

Can I get some kind of reasoning here? People keep telling me they hate this and that, but it would help if I could get some actually constructive feedback here. What exactly is wrong with the mountains, or what kind of mountains would you rather see on the map and why?

They really don't fit though. The impassables themselves are good artistically but they do not fit on this map in their current state. Every other detail on this map blends together beautifully and as far as graphics stamping it, I would argue is ready. Just the impassables stick out in a negative manner, they sort of sit on top of the map rather than feeling integrated like everything else.

They are more like blocks of colour put on top of the map, rather than something that is PART of the map.

by **natty dread** on Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:17 am

Why do you think they do not fit the map? What about them makes you think they don't fit the map? What kind of impassables would you rather see on the map?

See, personally I think they fit the map just fine. So I'm afraid unless I get some specifics there's nothing I can do about it. If I try to "fix" them without seeing what is wrong with them, I'll just end up with another set of impassables that you think don't fit the map. So I'm going to need some details, some specific answers, instead of just vague "they don't fit" or "they look ugly" comments.

by **DiM** on Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:25 am

the mountains don't look like mountains at all. there are no peaks, no size variations, no colour changes, nothing. basically they're very uniform from start to finish and look very artificial.
the forests have been improved greatly since the version where they looked like green gummy bears and i am pleased with them.

as for the glacier perhaps try to add some volume to it and then add some broken ice parts in the water with a few ripples and waves. that should be enough to let people know that's a glacier.

other than that, i'd like to see the bold black country borders be smoother. there are places where they feel unnecessarily jagged especially on the large map.

by **gimil** on Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:29 am

natty_dread wrote:Why do you think they do not fit the map? What about them makes you think they don't fit the map? What kind of impassables would you rather see on the map?

See, personally I think they fit the map just fine. So I'm afraid unless I get some specifics there's nothing I can do about it. If I try to "fix" them without seeing what is wrong with them, I'll just end up with another set of impassables that you think don't fit the map. So I'm going to need some details, some specific answers, instead of just vague "they don't fit" or "they look ugly" comments.

they sort of sit on top of the map rather than feeling integrated like everything else.

That is exactly what is wrong with them, as well as what DiM has said about them being to uniform. I have said this a couple of times now.

by **natty dread** on Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:51 am

gimil wrote:That is exactly what is wrong with them, as well as what DiM has said about them being to uniform. I have said this a couple of times now.

UGH... head explodes.

Dim basically wants me to do photorealistic mountains that look like real mountains. You want me to do mountains that "fit the style of the map" (without specifying what you think would fit the map...)

However, I can't do both. Since the style of the map is very stylistic and abstract, not an imitation satellite image, photorealistic mountains would look very out of place on the map. So it's either or, it's mountains that look like real life mountains, or mountains that fit the style of the map.

Anyway, here's one more alternate set of forests and mountains.

Click image to enlarge.

by **DiM** on Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:07 am

i don't want photorealistic mountains, i just want them to differ in size shape and colour.
your mountains have the same height width and colour from start to finish.

look at the mountains in dawn of ages or japan or middle east then translate those into a graphic style that suits your map.

why did you change the forests?