It looks slick, but the purpose of a map is to provide information. How well it provides information in this context will depend a lot on the method of FTL travel used in the game.
I see that the game is apparently supposed to be a strategy game of some kind, but no indication of how the player will move around the map, or even if that is part of play.
“Maps encourage boldness. They're like cryptic love letters. They make anything seem possible.”
-Mark Jenkins
Very good point, Wormspeaker - thanks for raising it! I shall indeed have to think on that.Originally Posted by wormspeaker
Travel within the game is kept pretty simple, and maps such as those presented to the player in the UI - or indeed like this one, which echoes it - show a much larger region than is actually inhabited. Were even a single pixel of the Milk Way graphic to be made a playable area, the actual percentage of 'exciting' gameplay space would be minute. Instead each map zooms closer in on the galaxy, a hexagonal sector and then an individual star system. It's within these star systems that the titular DarkConduit comes into play: FTL travel is enabled by a network of portals.
I can see it'll take some trial and error to represent this portal network on the map, but I realise the importance of that more acutely now. Thanks for the reality check.
Edit: Just to clarify... The purpose of this map is not to help with our game design: I already have that covered through design documentation and other graphics. So while portraying the method of travel is important for this map as a thematic piece of work, I'm not relying on it as part of a reference document. It's mostly for the art, in that respect.
Last edited by Sinnyo; 05-05-2011 at 05:50 PM.
"Leave nothing but journey histories, take nothing but pictures; speak softly and carry a big lightsaber."
raygungoth.net | @RaygunGoth (known by that handle most places but here!)
I see that you have updated the map to show "one to many - linear jump" type FTL system. In this case you describe it above as a stargate type set up. At this point the map makes a lot more sense. Because without those jump lines I was assuming that it was a "free form omnidirectional" type FTL system. If that were the case I was unable to determine how long it would take to get from one point of interest to the next.
So at this point, the only criticism that I have is that if travel from one point of interest to the next does not involve the space between the points of interest, then showing that space between them is counterproductive. In this case, showing the hex grid under the points of interest does not provide useful information, unless the game charges movement based on the number of hexes that the path travels though. If that's the case then you will need to make sure that the paths conform to the hexes (instead of cutting straight across them as they do now). If the paths have a travel time equal to their length regardless of the number of hexes that they pass through then you should dispense with the hexes (at least at the lowest display level) and just put a length on the path. (If this is supposed to be a mock up of an interactive interface, then maybe the length only shows up if the route is highlighted.) However, if the length of the path is irrelevant to gameplay (meaning that it takes only one move to travel one jump regardless of length) then the paths only show the directions available for travel and then the hexes and lengths of the paths are irrelevant and should not be shown.
I suspect that the hexes shown reflect the way in which the game will be coded (an X/Y coordinate of the game asset) but the player does not need to know this unless it is relevant to gameplay.
Visually, aside from the seemingly unnecessary hex grid, it looks great.
“Maps encourage boldness. They're like cryptic love letters. They make anything seem possible.”
-Mark Jenkins
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
