How Abstract is Too Abstract? - Maps

[Roguedeus]

To be more specific, how much contextual information is REALLY necessary for you to intuitively understand the game world?

Let’s take Maps as an example of abstraction. Not all RPG’s present the game world the same way or with the same level of detail. But most succeed at what they intend to accomplish, using one or more maps, providing a sense of ambiance, context, distance, etc…

These are certainly not an exhaustive list of examples, but some use only local maps, linked through very specific entries and exits. Such as roads, paths, or even fast travel points. Others use world maps to group local maps geographically and show their locations via icons, like little towns or cave entrances. While still others, use little more than one battle scene after another with a menu in between that sort of functions as a headquarters.

I don’t want to limit the idea of maps to purely how they exhibit their correlations. Most maps also double as containers for other things, such as treasures, monsters, non-player-characters, lore, random events, etc… All with varying levels of abstraction.

So, what are the bare minimum specifics that you have found provide an acceptable form of map? Be as specific or general as you like. I’d like to see as many different opinions as possible.

I will do my best to engage everyone that takes part, likely asking more questions, hoping I get as much information as possible!




Depending on how well a reception this topic gets, I’ll likely ask follow ups regarding other related abstractions. I’d pack them all in here, but I think baby steps are best when tackling more esoteric concepts.

 

[dragoonwys]

What is the bare minimum for a map? As little as you need really. A map is in its most basic form a space for the gameplay to take place in. If the map hinders the gameplay in an unintended way then it is too abstract for your needs.

Take for example a game of chess, the bare minimum 'map' needed for that game would be the need for a checker pattern through out the whole map as the gameplay depends on placement of the peices. If I were to replace the checker map with a plain white map, it would be trouble some for the players playing. And thus that map would be too abstract.

Branching from that concept, you can make a game map plain black but with white geometric symbols to suggest objects and the player. Through gameplay, the player would eventually grasp which symbol does what, example, the circle is the player, triangles are enemies to be avoided and squares are walls that you can't pass through.

So for more complicated gameplay obviously you'll need a more complicated map, so the definition of the bare minimum map highly depends on the kind of game it is at the end. It could be a blank void with simple symbols or a highly detailed forest background with many hidden passages and treasures in every corner.

 

[Roguedeus]

@dragoonwys

Thanks for the reply!

What is the bare minimum for a map? As little as you need really. A map is in its most basic form a space for the gameplay to take place in. If the map hinders the gameplay in an unintended way then it is too abstract for your needs.

Take for example a game of chess, the bare minimum 'map' needed for that game would be the need for a checker pattern through out the whole map as the gameplay depends on placement of the peices. If I were to replace the checker map with a plain white map, it would be trouble some for the players playing. And thus that map would be too abstract.

Your examples of chess and checkers are good ones, considering that both games are almost as abstract as they can be and still remain playable by most people. (For those interested in even further abstraction and not familiar with the game ‘Go’ I would recommend looking into it.)

Interestingly, most chess games can be reduced to sequential changes of the coordinates of its pieces, eliminating the need for a chess board at all. Of course, few people can play chess without a board, let alone enjoy it. Which would represent a maximum abstraction of sorts… To be fun, Chess requires a visual representation of each remaining pieces coordinates.

Branching from that concept, you can make a game map plain black but with white geometric symbols to suggest objects and the player. Through gameplay, the player would eventually grasp which symbol does what, example, the circle is the player, triangles are enemies to be avoided and squares are walls that you can't pass through.

So for more complicated gameplay obviously you'll need a more complicated map, so the definition of the bare minimum map highly depends on the kind of game it is at the end. It could be a blank void with simple symbols or a highly detailed forest background with many hidden passages and treasures in every corner.

Do you have an example of an RPG (or related) game with a map that was too abstract (not complex enough?) for you?

Imagine a Dungeon, in an RPG. What is the maximum abstraction you can imagine finding fun? What sort of details do you think can be implied, and what must be expressed for you to find it worth trying to explore?

 

[Sharm]

I should probably wait until I've slept to reply, but I want to get my thoughts down before I forget. Sorry for getting rambly, I'm sleep deprived. Hopefully it makes sense and is interesting.

When discussing this kind of basic abstraction I think it's really useful to study games from the beginning of gaming. Have you ever played a text adventure? Even though it's all text and no graphics at all there is a map of sorts, and you have to navigate that map successfully to complete the game. You only get a simple description and some basic directions, and that is only for one room at a time. But it works. Modern gamers probably think it's too much reading, but if you've actually played a good one you know how deeply immersive it can be.

That's probably the biggest advantage to being abstract. The less information you give the player, the more of themselves they have to invest in it. When done well, this means that the game will be deeply personal, with the best graphics, the scariest monsters, the most interesting characters, the most amazing meaning that the individual can imagine. When done poorly, this means no interaction at all, nothing to spark the imagination, and players quit.

While doing things abstract means everything can be a little bit better than you could possibly make for the player, you have to be extra clever to pull it off. There aren't any easy shortcuts to make it work, there's nothing to fall back on if you have a weak part of your game. Normally you can rely on things like great music or flashy graphics or any number of other elements to pull your game through a rough spot and most won't even notice, but if you don't have any of those things, you have to be great all the time. So I think using abstraction to an extreme is a gamble. Especially since it can be hard to get people to even try something if it's too visually abstract.

This is pretty interesting to discuss, but I'm not sure how to apply things learned from the maps of Zork to making an RPG. I think we have to go further up the realism chain to get to something relevant. So . . . I guess that would have to be Dwarf Fortress. Pictures, sort of, all made up of text. I don't know for sure, I haven't ever played it, not my kind of game.

I do know that there's a learning curve. Even though it's visual you can't just hop on as a new player and know instantly the difference between a dwarf and a blade of grass. (Grass is a comma? Maybe?) Time has to be spent getting the player familiar with the visual language. This can be a huge problem because you're putting the boring stuff right at the start, when you have precious little time to get someone's permanent attention. Take too long to explain and you'll lose all your players before they even get to play.

There's also another element to consider. Paralysis of choice is a real problem you'll be confronting your players with. Yeah, that character can look like literally anyone, but which anyone to choose? For me, if there's too much of a blank slate, I won't bother. So Mr. Blank MC stays Mr. Blank for the whole game. I don't care about him, he's bland and boring. I need a certain amount of information to go on before I care.

So I guess for me the answer to your questions is "as much information as it takes to make me care". How much and which type depends a lot on what your game is. A silly game with triangle trees, yay! The same graphics with a deep and complex story? Nope. I don't need much personal investment for a silly game, but I need to care about the world a lot before you can tell me a detailed story.

Now I wonder, why are visual detals immersive? Going back to the text example, that shouldn't be the case. Maybe it has to do with what I talked about with Dwarf Fortress, how low information visuals can slow down the start of the game. Visuals can be a shorthand for a lot of information. The more abstract something is, the less information you can get from it. You probably could get triangle trees to work in a deeper game, but that's putting even more stress on the other elements to succeed, and the more complicated the game is, the more work those things are already doing.

Okay, I'm losing track of things, time to call it a night regardless of what thoughts are left. To sum up: Abstraction is very useful but can make other things more difficult, so it should be used purposefully and in balance with other elements of the game design. There is no one answer for every game. Goodnight everyone!

 

[Wavelength]

I feel that any point on the gamut of abstraction vs. dimensionality can make sense, and how well your choice will work depends almost entirely on what dynamics you're trying to deliver to your player.

Examples of dynamics that work well with highly abstract maps/worlds/travel are games with a highly strategic/tactical bent, and games with a heavy focus on characters over places. In the former, most of the appeal is in the choices you make, and abstracting the physicality of the world can allow the designer and player to focus on the enjoyment of making decisions and quickly seeing their results, rather than doing the legwork to get around. In the latter, having a map to run around adds little appeal and can be considered a waste of time when the player would rather spend this time learning more about the characters and their place in the world.

• Disgaea is a great example of a game that works well with highly abstract maps and travel.
• Even where the game works well with highly abstract maps, it still pays off to invest a little into creating really nice scene/background art to represent the places in your world. This will be the only link (besides narrative) between the player and the placemaking of the game world, and an evocative picture is worth a thousand words!

Examples of dynamics that work well with highly dimensional maps/worlds/travel are games where placemaking is at least equal in importance to characters and plot in the story, games where physical exploration has significant gameplay implications (e.g. it is risky, but the player's skill at finding things can help them conquer other challenges), games where full immersion is of high importance (usually where the designer is aiming to have their game be played as 'abnegation'/as a 'pastime'), and games which aim to be more viscerally than intellectually satisfying. Where placemaking is important, dimensional maps grant far more opportunities to show off the details and offer the player to see places from different viewpoints. Where physical exploration affects gameplay, abstract maps will usually simplify the process too much. Where immersion is important, dimensional maps can maintain the illusion and believability of a real place whereas abstract travel will highlight the game's artificiality. Finally, where viscerality is a goal, the player's ability to walk, run, jump, attack, find things, dig, fly, climb, break things, pass things, and play around on maps will add this dynamic and is only possible on dimensional maps.

• World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that works well with highly dimensional maps and travel.
• Even where dimensional travel will add a lot to the gameplay experience, it's so important to make sure that it almost never feels like a slog. Make sure that characters' physical movement feels quick and punchy, add enough interesting details that the player will find something they find interesting or curious every two minutes of travel, and where a lot of backtracking will be necessary, add fast-travel options like mounts that can be used later on (once the player has traversed an area once or twice already).

As always, the game designer's best tool is their ability to precisely align the game's mechanics with the dynamics that their particular game is using to provide enjoyment to their players.

 

[Roguedeus]

@Sharm

I should probably wait until I've slept to reply, but I want to get my thoughts down before I forget. Sorry for getting rambly, I'm sleep deprived. Hopefully it makes sense and is interesting.

When discussing this kind of basic abstraction I think it's really useful to study games from the beginning of gaming. Have you ever played a text adventure? Even though it's all text and no graphics at all there is a map of sorts, and you have to navigate that map successfully to complete the game. You only get a simple description and some basic directions, and that is only for one room at a time. But it works. Modern gamers probably think it's too much reading, but if you've actually played a good one you know how deeply immersive it can be.

This is a large reason for my making the OP. I grew up playing RPG’s in the 80’s, before there were anything remotely resembling ‘Good’ graphics, and I remember being equally, if not more, engaged than I am with most RPG’s today. Especially the pretty ones.

That's probably the biggest advantage to being abstract. The less information you give the player, the more of themselves they have to invest in it. When done well, this means that the game will be deeply personal, with the best graphics, the scariest monsters, the most interesting characters, the most amazing meaning that the individual can imagine. When done poorly, this means no interaction at all, nothing to spark the imagination, and players quit.

While doing things abstract means everything can be a little bit better than you could possibly make for the player, you have to be extra clever to pull it off. There aren't any easy shortcuts to make it work, there's nothing to fall back on if you have a weak part of your game. Normally you can rely on things like great music or flashy graphics or any number of other elements to pull your game through a rough spot and most won't even notice, but if you don't have any of those things, you have to be great all the time. So I think using abstraction to an extreme is a gamble. Especially since it can be hard to get people to even try something if it's too visually abstract.

I have been wrestling with a few ideas lately, in regards to how abstract I can get while still providing enough relevant specificity to not lose my target audience before I begin. And while I have managed to get my head around it, I need to make sure I am not just talking myself into something. Thus any conversation helps. Especially contradictory opinion. (Not that yours is)

This is pretty interesting to discuss, but I'm not sure how to apply things learned from the maps of Zork to making an RPG. I think we have to go further up the realism chain to get to something relevant. So . . . I guess that would have to be Dwarf Fortress. Pictures, sort of, all made up of text. I don't know for sure, I haven't ever played it, not my kind of game.

I do know that there's a learning curve. Even though it's visual you can't just hop on as a new player and know instantly the difference between a dwarf and a blade of grass. (Grass is a comma? Maybe?) Time has to be spent getting the player familiar with the visual language. This can be a huge problem because you're putting the boring stuff right at the start, when you have precious little time to get someone's permanent attention. Take too long to explain and you'll lose all your players before they even get to play.

I agree that including as many immediately recognizable parts of the genre are key to bridging the divide between the new and the old (or expected). Your examples are good ones. I have wanted to play Dwarf Fortress for years, but each time I try I get frustrated and stop.

I want to love it… But I find myself unwilling to learn too. So I suppose that means it is a bit too abstract for me. (I deleted a much larger reply here, in the hopes of not derailing the topic)

There's also another element to consider. Paralysis of choice is a real problem you'll be confronting your players with. Yeah, that character can look like literally anyone, but which anyone to choose? For me, if there's too much of a blank slate, I won't bother. So Mr. Blank MC stays Mr. Blank for the whole game. I don't care about him, he's bland and boring. I need a certain amount of information to go on before I care.

So I guess for me the answer to your questions is "as much information as it takes to make me care". How much and which type depends a lot on what your game is. A silly game with triangle trees, yay! The same graphics with a deep and complex story? Nope. I don't need much personal investment for a silly game, but I need to care about the world a lot before you can tell me a detailed story.

Now I wonder, why are visual detals immersive? Going back to the text example, that shouldn't be the case. Maybe it has to do with what I talked about with Dwarf Fortress, how low information visuals can slow down the start of the game. Visuals can be a shorthand for a lot of information. The more abstract something is, the less information you can get from it. You probably could get triangle trees to work in a deeper game, but that's putting even more stress on the other elements to succeed, and the more complicated the game is, the more work those things are already doing.

Okay, I'm losing track of things, time to call it a night regardless of what thoughts are left. To sum up: Abstraction is very useful but can make other things more difficult, so it should be used purposefully and in balance with other elements of the game design. There is no one answer for every game. Goodnight everyone!

Thank you for the reply! I found it very interesting. Please feel free to elucidate and elaborate as much as you will. Especially if there is a detail you think I’ve not considered.

 

[Roguedeus]

@Wavelength

I feel that any point on the gamut of abstraction vs. dimensionality can make sense, and how well your choice will work depends almost entirely on what dynamics you're trying to deliver to your player.

Examples of dynamics that work well with highly abstract maps/worlds/travel are games with a highly strategic/tactical bent, and games with a heavy focus on characters over places. In the former, most of the appeal is in the choices you make, and abstracting the physicality of the world can allow the designer and player to focus on the enjoyment of making decisions and quickly seeing their results, rather than doing the legwork to get around. In the latter, having a map to run around adds little appeal and can be considered a waste of time when the player would rather spend this time learning more about the characters and their place in the world.

• Disgaea is a great example of a game that works well with highly abstract maps and travel.
• Even where the game works well with highly abstract maps, it still pays off to invest a little into creating really nice scene/background art to represent the places in your world. This will be the only link (besides narrative) between the player and the placemaking of the game world, and an evocative picture is worth a thousand words!

Thank you for your reply. I’ve quoted only the first half to help focus things on what struck me most about it.

Have you played any RPG’s that mostly abstract both characters and places?

Perhaps to focus almost entirely on the importance of choice?

 

[Kes]

[dpost]Roguedeus[/dpost]
When you want to quote more than one person, please use the Multiquote button. Using just the quote button automatically starts a new post.

 

[Wavelength]

@WavelengthThank you for your reply. I’ve quoted only the first half to help focus things on what struck me most about it.

Have you played any RPG’s that mostly abstract both characters and places?

Perhaps to focus almost entirely on the importance of choice?

No problem. I'm very curious why you bring up the idea of abstracting characters as well!

It's an interesting and slightly unintuitive question, as one of the aspects that contributes to a game being an RPG is its emphasis on developing characters (narratively as well as mechanically). For that reason, most of the games I can think of which abstract both character and place aren't RPGs. (And, additionally, RPGs tend to have a focus on storytelling, whereas it's difficult to tell a full story while abstracting out its characters.)

One RPG I can think of (though I haven't played it) that I think fits what you're asking, while actually telling a full story, is Long Live the Queen, which has characters and places but seems to mostly abstract them into game elements (rather than character-building or place-making for its own sake), for the purpose of focusing entirely on the choices you make and how those choices affect your Princess' abilities, tools, and survival. This game is extremely well-liked among its players, so it may be worth playing if you're fascinated by the idea of abstracting both in favor of player agency in gameplay.

The mobile game space, for whatever reason (perhaps the limits on the size of its games and the general cynicism of its developers) also seems to abstract its characters and places pretty often. Match Land has zero story but most of the other aspects of an RPG (character stat growth, turn-based combat against monsters, game economy, looting, HP/MP resources, progression through new locations, etc.), and it does abstract both its characters (basically piles of numbers) and locations (basically piles of enemies) so that you can focus on its interesting Match-3-meets-RPG combat and its reward loops. RhythmStar is another game with very little story but enough RPG aspects to arguably be considered part of the genre, which abstracts away its characters and locations in a similar way to Match Land.

I thought I'd be able to come up with more for you, but whereas I can think of a lot of RPGs that abstract their places (into little more than a themed series of menus, activities, or enemies), I can think of very few that abstract their characters in a similar way! That's usually the realm of the nearby genre of strategy games (or completely dissimilar genres like party games).

 

[ScientistWD]

I... uhmm... also want to be a part of this conversation...

But the idea of abstracting a map as far as possible kind of just draws me to ask what kind of game you're making, and what purpose the maps serve, right? Like, when you're skating around the overworld of Persona 4, you're gonna find that there are only a few maps with specific things in them, usually. Sometimes they're long and sometimes they're short and sometimes there's a lot of stuff and sometimes there's literally nothing. Maps are places, right? But why... go... anywhere?
In a game about exploring places, you still have to abstract them because this is a videogame, but if you make the whole thing a menu or something you might lose a few people. Granted, the machinations of a game menu can still be a thing you explore, but I mean what kind of game are you even making.
Most of the ancient Pokemon games are considered RPGs. They all have bunches of maps and stuff, a whole "region", of sorts, because part of the "Pokemon Journey" experience is exploring the world. But Pokemon Stadium? The first one? No maps. Basically. I think there's like a picture of places you go to battle, but you can't exactly move around them in the same kind of way. The two games have the exact same combat mechanics, but one of them is only about battles and so its maps are super obscured.
As much as I could see a game where each map is just a list of points of interest, "exploring", "navigating", and "traveling" in that kind of a space are totally different from something like Breath of the Wild. I guess my thesis here is that maps can be more abstract if they ain't no thang in your game. But you have to have stuff to interact with if the maps are indeed a thang, right?

So I guess I have to ask. What purpose do maps serve, here? Just, a place? Are you looking for ways to represent places? To get a player to feel like they're in a location? The most obscure game I've ever played is Cultist Simulator. Not an RPG in the 80s Final Fantasy style we're thinking of, but it did have "places" that had to be "explored". Does that count as a map? Because answering the question of the map's purpose should be what goes into deciding how far to abstract them, doesn't it?

Heck, this game design jargon is a little much for me...

 

[Roguedeus]

@Wavelength

Visual Novels are a good example of abstraction. But I tend to find them boring. With some of Winter Wolves games rare exceptions.

I have found the constraints of computer RPG's far too limiting to satisfy my idea of 'Roles', yet exemplary at satisfying my idea of 'Rolls'... Thus, I tend to gravitate towards challenge and progression focused computer RPG's. Preferably ones NOT built around egregious RNG, or monotonous grinds.

I thought I'd be able to come up with more for you, but whereas I can think of a lot of RPGs that abstract their places (into little more than a themed series of menus, activities, or enemies), I can think of very few that abstract their characters in a similar way! That's usually the realm of the nearby genre of strategy games (or completely dissimilar genres like party games).

Please, share whatever you think might apply. I may have not seen them before! (It's likely I haven't)




@ScientistWD

Thanks for the reply! And thank you for pointing me to a few examples, especially Cultist Simulator. I've started watching a Lets Play of it, and I find it quite interesting.

Perhaps I can return the favor and suggest a few highly abstract games I've stumbled onto lately. Consuming Shadow, and Occult Chronicles. It would seem that the Cthulhu'esque genre is pretty heavy in abstraction, due to necessity. I haven't found any equally abstract games outside it.

As for the core of your point, I would agree. It depends greatly on what kind of game you're making. In this case, I am specifically referring to Western RPG's and perhaps even JRPG's (if possible). The only ones that really play with abstraction are idle-like, casual RPG's and Text based RPG's like MUD's.




...

I want to thank everyone that has taken part so far.

It seems as though my OP is a little obtuse, and isn't stimulating much real discussion. But for what it's worth, I think its helping. The more I engage here, the more I hope to discover. So please, feel free to take part, even if you think you are repeating what's already been shared or think you need to point out some nuance I may be missing.

 

[VisitorsFromDreams]

Have you played any RPG’s that mostly abstract both characters and places?

Id recommend Hylics as an example of this. Every element of the RPG is abstract but at the same time by using good color and visual design theory the environments are still easy to navigate and somewhat leads the player through the game. Abstraction is fine as long as you have enough of an understanding of visual language to stop that abstraction having a negative impact on a players ability to navigate said games world.

 

[Roguedeus]

Id recommend Hylics as an example of this. Every element of the RPG is abstract but at the same time by using good color and visual design theory the environments are still easy to navigate and somewhat leads the player through the game. Abstraction is fine as long as you have enough of an understanding of visual language to stop that abstraction having a negative impact on a players ability to navigate said games world.

Thanks for pointing out Hylics!

That is a clear example of how little needs to make sense, and still be a playable game. It makes me wonder, how many people who have never played an RPG would even 'get' it, or enjoy it.

 

[Tai_MT]

I'm probably not qualified to talk about this, but I kind of want to add in my two cents. At least, as far as I understand the original post.

How much you can "abstract" largely depends on the level of "personal immersion" your medium allows for.

If you're simulating the entire world from the viewpoint of omnipotence... Abstract as much as possible, because there's no "personal immersion" you have to shoot for. Players just need to know what everything is at a glance and nothing more. If you're simulating stepping into the shoes and have a first person perspective, however... Oh, you can abstract pretty much zero, because it's got the most amount of "personal immersion" possible.

But, even that, has limits. If I'm playing a First Person Shooter, I accept a certain level of abstraction on things that do zero to gameplay. Water graphics? Abstract them. Unless I'm interacting with that water in some way, there's no reason to ever do more than abstract it. Trees that move in the wind? Again, unless I'm interacting with those moving trees or that wind, abstract it. Blades of grass? Abstract it. Let's be honest here, paint your ground green, and that's all I need. Unless your grass being tall and 3D or whatever serves a purpose towards the gameplay, abstract it out, because you're wasting time messing with it otherwise. I don't need grass that blows in the wind either. Just make the wind noise and it's good enough. Waste of resources to animate stuff your player won't really be interacting with.

In general, you abstract anything that the player won't be interacting with frequently. Or, you only abstract enough to get the point across to the player of what they're looking at.

However, in an RPG... while I like abstraction... There are things I tend to prefer as a player. I like when maps have "obvious connection points" between them. Or, when it's obvious that you've done an abstraction (like say being able to see more road beyond what you can touch before teleported, and it's obvious that this new map connects to that old one, visually). Likewise, if I'm inside a building, I hate abstraction. If you have a family of 4 in a house, but only 1 bed... I raise my eyebrows. If your home doesn't have a kitchen, I also raise my eyebrows. These are things I notice and that cannot be abstracted. Though, if you'd like to abstract out a bathroom... I'm okay with that, depending on the setting. Likewise, if every interior looks the same from house to house... I begin to lose immersion in your game. Because, your NPC's don't have a personality of their own.

Though, overworld maps or exterior maps in forests and such... Feel free to abstract that. I hate map clutter. If you have junk on the ground every 2 or 3 tiles... It looks very "manufactured" and destroys immersion while also looking like Clutter. It's good to abstract here if you can.

I dunno if that helps.

 

[Countyoungblood]

I hate tedium so I enjoy games with symbolic travel but you lose the exploration goody hunt. Some games to research..

Ogre battle: the march of the black queen

Ogre battles map was really just a menu that looked like a paper map. Travel is a non issue you are where you want to be just by selecting the zone. My preference since travel isnt fun to me.
Fantastic game.

Dwarf fortress

Df generates its map procedurally by creating mountains..eroding them with rivers.. warring civilizations to determine borders all of this before you get to pick a spot to play from. Your little square you pick is part of the world and where you choose to play decides how your enviroment will be. Hot/cold oceans rivers forests deserts and what kind of creatures you might encounter as well as what civilizations may invade or offer to trade. Its pretty dang deep.

 

[Roguedeus]

Edited for clarity...

I'm not sure if I want to start an entirely new topic for this and I think it may be related somewhat to the OP... Since abstraction often costs the player a since of discovery.

How important is it that a game include a process of discovery for new map space?
How would this effect potential abstraction?

What forms of discovery do you find most appealing, or irritating?
(Secrets?, Puzzles?, Gatekeeper Battles?, Delayed Access? (Ex: Unreachable ledge, reached later), etc...)

Thanks!

 

[lianderson]

Are you making an 80s style rpg and just want to check the community's feedback on abstract graphics? Cause, if so, I'm down with playing the game.

As for forms of discovery, all those you listed can go a long way. They help the player remember areas beyond their images.

 

[Kes]

@Roguedeus
[mod]Please do not hi-jack a thread with a different question to that of the OP. You can read our forum rules here.[/mod]
Please start a new thread.

 

[Roguedeus]

@Roguedeus
[mod]Please do not hi-jack a thread with a different question to that of the OP. You can read our forum rules here.[/mod]
Please start a new thread.

This is my topic. I am merely continuing it.
To avoid confusion, I clarified the offending post.

Are you making an 80s style rpg and just want to check the community's feedback on abstract graphics? Cause, if so, I'm down with playing the game.

As for forms of discovery, all those you listed can go a long way. They help the player remember areas beyond their images.

Not exactly. I am trying to get whatever feedback I can in regards to common expectations. Map abstraction often results in some commonly 'expected' features of maps being dumped in exchange for creative license. For example, it is kind of hard to have secrets in auto generated maps, or cookie cutter ones with random rooms, etc... Or just plain text. The sense of discovery gets missing. Maybe? Unless someone can point to some examples where that doesn't happen?

Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks for yours.

 

[Kes]

This is my topic. I am merely continuing it.

Oops - that's what I get for modding using my phone, I thought your reference to "the OP" was to someone else, as in 'original poster', not 'opening post'.
Sorry about that.