To be honest I think the map looks rather ugly - why couldn't they do something like Victoria's geographic map? This one is a strain to look at.
Map of Europe, what you think about it?
- Thread starter joriandrake
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
well in my personal opinion the map does not look that great,but this is a personal opinion,i prefer the Victoria map either.
Galleblære said:
AMEN! This is my greatest fear. That everyone is going to get so "wrapped up" in making beautiful 3-D graphics that the darned game won't be playable. I generally liked the EU II map. It was pretty "clean" and most of the graphics served a game purpose. I'm already a bit worried that the main contribution of the new 3D graphics is going to be eyestrain and confusion.
I totally agree with you. The only thing I would add is that my greatest fear is that they make a game that is not only unplayable, but also with bad looking 3D graphics...Mike Scholl said:
I don't have the impression that Paradox is focussing on the graphics at the cost of gameplay. From what I've seen in the diaries, I think they're pretty much focussed on the gameplay. And let's face it: every reviewer complained about the recent Paradox games that the map wasn't 3-D. The devs have to think about the market. People expect 3D these days, and I think that if they went 2-D they would have less sales.Mike Scholl said:
Also, I think the 3-D map makes modding more easy (but I could be wrong about this).
Finally, having a nice looking games doesn't exclude good gameplay. Both aspects are handled by different people, so it's not like that the people who do the gameplay can't focus on the gameplay.
The EUIII map, aspect-wise, is coming along nicely in my opinion. I wouldn't even want an excellently beautiful map because the world ain't beautiful. 
So if the EUIII map is even marginally prettier than the world, everything's good.
So if the EUIII map is even marginally prettier than the world, everything's good.
WHAAAAAT??? Where do you live, mate? Underground?Rotten Venetic said:
If this map reached 1% of the beauty from the real world it would already be nice... but it doesnt at all!
Its amazing the things people are saying now to defend this map... face it: its ugly and probably it wont change.
Cavendish said:
That's your opinion and, because it's an opinion, people are going to disagree.
The map looks fine to me. I've played on 2D, four color maps for years now, this isn't any worse. I'm not going to say it's better because it's about on the same level graphically, in my opinion. It also looks like there's a terrain mode, if you look at the interface on the right. I'm thinking that's what that button with the mountains on it is for. Maybe that map will be to your satisfaction.
EDIT: By the way, I'm referencing the screenshot in the latest Development Diary.
Last edited:
Cavendish said:
You'd probably point out the natural wonders of the world, the whole natural scenery and what buildings have seen the slightest aesthetic touch to them - that is indeed beautiful, but only so much. And, to my mind at least, all that beauty pales when compared to the disgusting sceneries including most industrial platforms (especially most derelict ones), about 80% of every town and village on this world, including the worst of all - the bidonvilles. I have not seen any significant amount of bidonville live, but I have enough knowledge of them to form the belief that bidonvilles alone render this world well and truly ugly. But I'm going off-topic. Poverty and the general lack of aesthetic sense of the human species is not the topic.
Point is, I rather like the map and how it's improved. Before, I thought it was ugly, myself, but now I've found a new liking for it.
What I would regard as errors on the map is increasingly being limited to the placement of cities, province borders and such, all of which are easily corrected by absolutely anybody.
Edit: Added a 13th Romanian province to my retconing.
Last edited:
The map is moving along, the elevation is a great improvement. I'm willing to bet the map will look okay in the final version of the game. Even if it stays the way it currently is...it's the gameplay that matters!
mhusoy said:
To me this point (more provinces) is more important than the scale of the map.. we played in a eu2 map with green\brown\withe\yellow colors and nothing elese... and we played well. But the upgrade were always focused (ok the upgarde of some people) on have many provinces
jordarkelf said:
I think Diplomacy players are especially sensitive to the map. We should take heart that it's a while until the final product will be released. Obviously, PI is aware of its customers' concerns.
Sorry about that, was a typo. The list has undergone re-calculation lately; changed the 6 to 7 as well as other stuff; the count is now 351.
and now we have more photos
I can see Navarra with sea connection, bigger Rossillon and Girona, the provs and similars always had a geographic solution and Rossillon and Girona are bigger, the north prov of Rossillon for me are bigger because is Montpeller and Carcassona region united
I see the naval power of Navarra
I can see Navarra with sea connection, bigger Rossillon and Girona, the provs and similars always had a geographic solution and Rossillon and Girona are bigger, the north prov of Rossillon for me are bigger because is Montpeller and Carcassona region united
I see the naval power of Navarra
I tend to agree. The thing that made me love paradox games was that their games didn't try to look flashy and instead focused on a clean, easy to read interface.Rocketman said:
The EUIII interface appares to be messy and really lost the "paradox feel".