Mapping out The City.

str8g8 on 23/12/2005 at 11:21

Quote:

More than anyone else, he shows the tenacity and the balance to provide a guiding vision and strong lead for the mapping project.

On the other hand, naming any individual a project head ahould not mean that the end result is basically in the hands of one individual.

Well I agree with you on both counts, and I hear your concerns. But it doesn't have to put an end to debate - hopefully it would focus the debate and threrefore stimulate it. After all, we don't want the debate to be endless (do we ...?) Even if there is a democratic element to the decision-making, it still needs someone to manage that process to avoid it becoming bogged down. I'm fairly confident that Doc_Brown is sensitive to all these issues.

Quote:

hint, hint, any of you still lurking

I sincerely believe that this is not going to happen. Krypt tried to help us out for a while, but in the end I think we are on our own. We know there was a pretty well thought out map of the city for T1 and T2, and we can assume that T3 stuck to it only very loosely, and it has fallen to us to stitch together a continuity which doesn't actually exist.

Quote:

It may be that we need to tear down and rebuild once more

Maybe this is the case. Perhaps we go back to the basics with two new assertions: Shalebridge Cradle is in Shalebridge and Shalebridge is a district. Where will that lead us?

Doc_Brown on 24/12/2005 at 07:33

Well said, Sol.

I suppose all I can really say in response is let's just see what happens. I'll do my best to guide, not lead, the project towards a mutually acceptable solution. But if at any time you feel I'm not serving the project's best interests, then I'll step down from the role.

Solabusca on 24/12/2005 at 09:20

Best o' the season, O Captain, My Captain!

.j.

Mugla on 24/12/2005 at 09:25

Yes, good holydays to all.

Doc_Brown on 5/1/2006 at 05:39

Well, it's a new year...

Shall we continue?

:thumb:

jtr7 on 5/1/2006 at 20:02

Please. :thumb:

Sxerks on 5/1/2006 at 23:48

Now that we past the 1000th post, I think we need a good synopsis of
what info we have and what problems still need to be resolved.

jtr7 on 6/1/2006 at 04:21

I agree. A "State of The City Map Address."

Just to stimulate discussion:
I don't see why we can't have more than one map, i.e., one that is as close to canon as possible, while others may reflect significant changes from one game to the next, and leading up to maps from the most popular FM's. Obviously we should work on the canonesque before the expansions. If Metal Age is supposed to take place one year (or two?) after Dark Project/Gold--and the Mechanists wrought that much change in such a short period--and Deadly Shadows brought even more changes, then the map should reflect the evolution of borders, if only symbolically. There's no real way to nail a single map down, but a generalized version that allows one to see the organic quality of The City's growth over time. (Old roads giving way to newer roads, etc.)

Maybe THE map should only show what we know, irrefutably, from Dark Project/Gold. Metal Age could be layered over it, and Deadly Shadows over that. A skeleton to support the speculative muscles and sinews. Make it clear to those who view the map, without the benefit of these discussions, that the map represents what is known. All unknown elements (i.e, Constantine's Mansion, the Bonehoard, etc.) and other maps that relate to the canon map could be placed upon it as a layer of speculation.

Nothing new, but hopefully this'll spark a friendly debate, or strengthen convictions.

Mugla on 6/1/2006 at 12:21

Quote Posted by Sxerks

Now that we past the 1000th post, I think we need a good synopsis of
what info we have and what problems still need to be resolved.

This was why I thought it might be a good idea to help the wiki up and going. I was just given a nice continuation to my earlier abudance of free time, so I'll atleast be up on that project in a few.

jtr7:
Indeed, we had a short discussion on the map's format and what it should represent earlier. And as you thought, a complete layering and a small historic to go with each piece would be something to see, if a bit long to work out. Anyone here with the skills, time and patience?

Doc_Brown on 9/1/2006 at 00:24

Quote Posted by jtr7

If Metal Age is supposed to take place one year (or two?) after Dark Project/Gold--and the Mechanists wrought that much change in such a short period--and Deadly Shadows brought even more changes, then the map should reflect the evolution of borders, if only symbolically. There's no real way to nail a single map down, but a generalized version that allows one to see the organic quality of The City's growth over time. (Old roads giving way to newer roads, etc.)

Maybe THE map should only show what we know, irrefutably, from Dark Project/Gold. Metal Age could be layered over it, and Deadly Shadows over that. A skeleton to support the speculative muscles and sinews. Make it clear to those who view the map, without the benefit of these discussions, that the map represents what is known. All unknown elements (i.e, Constantine's Mansion, the Bonehoard, etc.) and other maps that relate to the canon map could be placed upon it as a layer of speculation.

The problem I see with this is two-fold. First off, I'm not sure there's enough information inherent in any one game to make a workable map out of the whole City. It is the combination that provides the connections we need to establish the various relationships.

Secondly, while making the map malleable would give us the flexibility to adjust for discrepencies, I fear the fluidity would undermine what we're trying to do here. If we simply shift things around every time we run into a roadblock, there's too much inherent flexibility, too many workable solutions. The limitations we continue to fight with are key to solving the puzzle.

Quote Posted by Sxerks

Now that we past the 1000th post, I think we need a good synopsis of what info we have and what problems still need to be resolved.

Very well:

The Dilemma
In our current incarnation of the City Map, Shalebridge is proving to be a sticking point. There are two approaches to the problem:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/str8g8/city_map_complete_new03.png) Version A
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/str8g8/City_new.png) Version B

To sum up the issue, let me quote Sol:

Quote Posted by Solabusca

Too much in-game evidence points away from each map - you say that the streets of Assassins prove that the river there [in Version B - Doc] is too small to warrant the servants' comment. So be it.

Too much in-game documentation (in the form of briefings, mission objectives, in-game dialogue, maps and text) across all three games counters version A.

The Options
(1) We consciously agree to ignore evidence and go with either Version A or Version B.
(2) We come up with a compromise that somehow finds a middle ground between the two versions.
(3) We take a completely new approach, quite possibly starting over from scratch.