The Lands of Fyre

[Cirias]

This started out as a 10 minute mapping challenge I decided to set myself. Let's just say that one thing led to another, and I ended up spending several hours on it instead!

I'm not sure which version I prefer. The first one is the original map, then below that I've posted an alternate version which is darker and features a fiery title.



ALTERNATE VERSION:

[ChickPea]

I love both versions and can't quite decide between them. I think the lighter version is perhaps marginally easier to read, but the dark version makes a great impact.

My only niggle would be with the light-coloured labels. I find them a little hard to read, and I think the colour doesn't blend well with the rest of the map. To me, it sticks out like a sore thumb. I understand that you might want to draw special attention to those places by using a different colour and font, but I feel it doesn't quite succeed.

For what it's worth, I'm new to map-making, but have a little experience with web design. I was taught that a design 'no-no' was using two similar - but slightly different - font styles on the same page, as the styles clash. So, for instance, a serif and a sans-serif font together are fine, as they provide a nice contrast to each other, but using two serif fonts that look broadly similar was bad form. I understand the rules for maps are probably a little different, but when I look at your map, I see two clashing script fonts. I love the black-coloured font, as it's clear and easy to read, and works well with the style of your map, but the other font is just too similar. It doesn't contrast, it only clashes, and it's harder to read too. My suggestion would be to use the same font throughout, but you can provide contrast by varying the size, colour, or perhaps letter thickness if a Bold/Heavy option is available.

Those are my thoughts, take 'em or leave 'em!

[Cirias]

Thanks, ChickPea!

I did wonder about those light-coloured labels when I first did them. The black labels came later on, so in hindsight I should have gone back and brought the labels all into line. Oh well, we learn through trial and error!

I agree that the light version is better for readability (which I've been pulled up on before), but my guilty pleasure is the dark version with the dramatic fiery title

[Chick]

...I agree that the light version is better for readability (which I've been pulled up on before), but my guilty pleasure is the dark version with the dramatic fiery title

If the purpose of your map is to frame and hang on your wall, or to post online and be pretty, then you should go with the version that speaks that to you. If the purpose of your map is for a user to read and find locations, and understand the terrain of the depicted area, then you should go with the version that is the most readable. There is no right or wrong here, just the intended use and your personal preferences

[Galendae]

River Police! Pull over! You have an awesome map here, but the river system in the top left section of the continent. Impossible! For serious awesomeness the fine is waived. Consider this visit by the River Police to be an informative critique. Future violations may require action on our part

[Eilathen]

I agree with what was already said : An awesome map, landshape-wise. Some river-issues. And the brighter version is far superior in my opinion.

[Cirias]

Uh oh, caught red-handed by the River Police! I don't quite know what I was doing with those rivers - I'm usually a stickler for rivers that follow the laws of nature.

Let's just say a wizard did it and move on