Maps: Realistic or Surrealistic???

[Oldman]

Pop-Quiz:

How do you prefer your terrains? Do you like 'em realistic with good land shapes, sensible terrain placement etc...
Or do you like 'em original, makes you think, straight between the eyes surreal?

[Cam]

I guess that depends upon your definition of each, but from my understanding of what you mean, I would have to say "realistic". The reason being that the AI is pretty temperamental at the best of times, and bizarre terrain can severely unbalance a game's playability and the challenge posed by the AI.

With that said, if well considered, unusual terrain characteristics can lend enormously to the individuality and intrigue of a scenario (or game on pre-made map). Care, thoughtfulness, and playtesting will point to whether a 'surreal' set up is workable or not.

[Because I still can't spell ....]
[This message has been edited by Cam (edited May 09, 2000).]

[Mercator]

I prefer realistic terrains. The maps created by the random map generator simply suck. So I hope Civ3 has a more realistic generator (including plate tectonics etc.).

But in some kind of a fantasy/science-fiction scenario 'less usual' terrain placement, together with fancy graphics, could very well have a positive effect.

[Dan Silverwing]

The only example of a "surreal" map I can think of was the one used for that battle of the sexes scenario. Very wierd, but I suppose appropriate for that. Certainly maps like that show lots of imagination.

[Panda]

Realistic maps on the whole. I suppose on a world map realistic topography doesn't really matter as much, but on the more tactical WW2 scenarios it does. So John Petroski's Ansteig and Up the Deadly boot were both pioneering for this, proving ultra-realistic and very challenging, and more playable than if a ton of boring grassland was used.

------------------
"The man who can smile when things go wrong has thought of someone he can blame it on"