Mapping out The City. - by Digital Nightfall
Szandor on 8/2/2006 at 21:08
Quote Posted by T-Smith
Less plausible then a three eyed demon using a talking gemstone to destroy civilization :P? Real life laws of geography/physics/whatever don't need to apply in the game :p
Yes, it is less plausible and no, we do not, but it will be easier to create a plausible map if we -- in addition to what we know from the game -- use our own reality as a reference. The game is based on our own reality, after all.
Mugla on 8/2/2006 at 23:29
The (
http://whitecortex.net/~mikko/thief/str8g8_city_03_small.jpg) old version with the river-bend.
The (
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/str8g8/City_new.png) new version without the river-bend.
The river-bend was due to a piece of deduction, where the location of Shalebridge and it's relation with Newmarket, and Newmarket's relation within the Assassins! -map, and Old Quarter's relation with said map and T3 map defined it's location to be where it is. Check maps from T3 manual, the Assassins! and consider the conversation of the Bafford's servants from T1.
No known dev comments should exist, simply our work here.
Atleast in the old version I was thinking of the 'delta' as a set of canal-works that were dug to support the City's water-supplies, much like aqueducts (except that here they were dug into the ground, most likely because of the hillside the City is located in (check cutscenes and intros); perhaps to regulate the flow-speed and because it was cheaper to dig through a few hills, than draw a set of pipes all the way from the mountain atop them).
In the old map the canals would begin from the first turn downwards, explaining much of the canals seen in Sealed Section, Ambush! and Assassins! (+Pagan Sanctuary).
And yes, I prefer to think fantasy settings having *add-on* rules of magic, instead of changing any of the existing laws of nature. Otherwise where should we stop manipulating the logic, eh? :p
str8g8 on 10/2/2006 at 14:51
Quote:
Well, Dayport doesn't really seem to be a dock district - it's like an area that's been built up from one.
We don't really see a great deal of Dayport, and what we do see is inland, so it's hard to say one way or the other. If Shalebridge stretches across the river, there is at least the possibility of more industrial activity spreading along the coast. A large City that relies on trade would support quite a large waterfront, certainly more than we see in T3.
The River bend is a legacy thing. There's no reason for it now. The unnatural flow of the secondary river has been well noted in the past. It might be possible to make a more natural layout, whilst still agreeing with the other map placements, however - as Mugla suggest, a network of canals leading off from the main river would be more reasonable. The main source for it at the moment is the Keeper map, which shows the secondary river running north-west to south-east. The T3 city map shows the main river runing north>south. That's why it looks like that at the moment.
FatherofGarrett on 10/2/2006 at 17:37
well unless the sun rises in the WEST...:erm:
Bronze Griffin on 11/2/2006 at 17:26
Quote Posted by FatherofGarrett
well unless the sun rises in the WEST...:erm:
Why not? The moon's upsidedown.
Doc_Brown on 14/2/2006 at 07:24
As much as the cyclical nature of this all amuses me, we really have made some excellent progress lately and I'd hate to see us lose steam now. The Shalebridge issue is the only major snag at this point, and we've all had time to think this one over. We're kind of dancing around settling the issue, so what do you say to finishing it once and for all?
Mugla on 14/2/2006 at 10:20
Indeed.
Well, I suggest Shalebridge isn't a district at all, just the bridge.
In the everyday talk though, the neighbourhood surrounding it can be called Shalebridge too.
This way we wont create fragmentation into the centrum, we wont have to split a district across a river, wont have to create a mini-district, ponder it's birth or explain why it isn't on the T3 map et cetera subconsciousness-nagging issues.
But no, I dont have any real issues why it couldn't be done the other way. 'Tis just my preference.
What say you?
str8g8 on 14/2/2006 at 13:00
Yes, works for me :thumb: I was against the idea of the bridge being the whole thing, that's all.
Perhaps we need to differentiate between quarters/districts etc with fixed geographical boudaries, and "areas" that people in the City refer to, but which are more organic and flexible in their definition.
One such area might be Shalebridge ... another might be The Docks, which recently came up.
Mugla on 14/2/2006 at 15:14
Well, we could do an 'Official City Mappe', made by the city-officials: district lines are drawn clearly for cartographical and land-owning purposes, street names etc. are mentioned. The font is a set-stone stylized one.
Upon this has someone scrawled, painstakingly, but publing servingly the main land-marks and inofficial quarters/locations (Pagan sanctuary? Shalebridge?). A red pencil used, perhaps with a slight curvature and artistical freedom? Like symbols?
This would then be neat, if layered to hide/show the inofficial part, so that people can either concentrate on the landscape, and every now and then switch on to check what they are looking at.
Well, one layer among the many. But does anyone know how to implement that into a website? Would we simply have to have separate .jpegs for each variation, or is there a PHP/Flash thingy that could be integrated into the site?
