I had another blog entry planned and all but written today about the ‘Rule’ tree, but that’s going to be posted next week in light of last night’s work. I’ve been doing some upgrading of the visual appearance of the world map – it was looking rather monotonous, so I decided to add a coastline effect, some shading for height levels, and variation in the icon and coloring used to display land. I’m very happy with the coastline effect, though the height shading is VERY unsubtle at this point, with broad-brush gradients and no real mixing between terrain shades (which I intend to add today or tomorrow), but in principle, that’s a big change I’m moving for. So do please note this is in its very early stages, but here’s what things look like now (map size = small):
However, I then (entirely accidentally) switched the land coloring to be inverted, and got:
I rather like it. It certainly shows up the height shading much more clearly, even in the very basic form that shading currently takes. Rivers look a bit odd, and should probably have their colour changed, but I thought this was interesting enough to be worth posting about. Which does everyone prefer? Note that both are going to gain a lot more detail and subtlety in terms of shading of terrain – different types will blur into each other – and in terms of shading of height, as you can currently very clearly make out the height changes. However, with all that said – which looks better? I’m still undecided myself, so I’d like to open this up to some discussion.
The inverted is brighter, which is nice, but it gives off a kind of… radioactive feel. That’s not so nice.
I’d prefer the colour scheme of the first with the brightness and clarity of the second; that’s possibly an unreasonably difficult thing to do, though.
Would it be viable to have a button to toggle the view between the two?
I personally agree with above statement.
The only reason the first one is abit hard to read is because it’s so dark. while the second one is easy to read but looks abit “off” althought i wouldn’t say radioactive but definently more tropical kind of look, looks like jungles and deserts instead of green forests and plains.
The second one looks like thermal imaging…Predator’s view of the world.
The first one is dim, but certainly recognizable for what it is.
I like the second one. Of course, we’d have to see how it goes as you put the next touches on it. I also agree that a toggle might be good to let people choose which one they want to play with.
Did you try a single line for the coastline rather than double? The double line is quite strong and draws a bit too much attention to the coast compared to the actual land mass. It could also be the brightness compared to the rest of the glyphs that makes it pop so much. Sure the coast should be obvious, but not so much so that it draws your attention away from everything else.
Definitely the first.
The second one gives a sort of cartoonish feel, I think. I definitely prefer the first.
Ferst is beautiful.
I prefer the first one because of the simple beauty of ASCII but maybe you could combine the two. Make the background of each tile a darker hue and the actual symbol brighter.
Also, maybe the symbols for rivers and coast lines should switch?
The first is most helpful, but the second looks nicest. Go for the first, but perhaps brighten it up a little.
While the contrast and clarity of the second one is nice, the first one just kind of “feels” better. It would be wonderful if you could somehow blend clarity with subtlety.
I like the 2nd one, you get a better idea of what the type of land would look like.
A mixture of the two might also be an interesting idea.
Thank you all a lot for the feedback; it’s great to have so many responses! I’ve had so many comments on various websites/fora on the maps that I’m not going to reply to them all at once, but just cover the outcome next week. Either way, I think the outcome I’m leaning strongly towards now is one most people will find satisfactory : ).
I agree that the second is clearer while giving the map a very vivid nigh cartoonish feel. I don’t think it necessarily matches the setting you described in earlier posts. I also agree that the coastline is very strong and conveys a message that it might be something to pay attention to more so than the landmass.
I like the mixture and toggle ideas, though I would choose the first option in a heartbeat over the second.
Interesting, thanks – come next Monday I’ll be discussing my current map plans in light of all this feedback, but based on what you’ve said, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed : ).