Mapping out The City. - by Digital Nightfall
str8g8 on 10/12/2005 at 13:15
Wow, Sola, have you studied being patronising? Or is it just lots and lots of practise?
It is not disingenuous to go back to the original map, because subsequent ones were attempts to reach some middle ground, but which you attacked even more (!) and Doc_Brown's comments were in support of this original thinking, so I wanted everyone to be clear about that.
Quote:
I think it a current river shot near where Garret enters the Lost City
But we see the river where Garrett enters the Lost City. It is
obviously not the same. And the fact that the river
we see in game in Assassins is NOT an impediment means the servants conversation doesn't make sense to me in this context. I think you are being obtuse if you claim the A map suffers the same flaw.
Quote:
THIS IS MY POINT. If Newmarket were where Hightown was, there would be less debate. THEN you could claim that you were in line with the servant dialogue!
I'm sorry but it's not a very good point. Hightowne, may or may not be a better district, (for instance, it may be high as in "on high ground". In fact, doesn't the Assassin map go "up-hill" as it nears Ramirez? If so then this may well be the case). But even so, let us just say that New Market is a
more respectable area, and so
more worthy of the servant's pithy remarks.
Doc_Brown was pointing out the deficiencies of your layout. Each map has some deficiencies by the way, and we have to face them one way or another. If you can't even admit these deficiencies then I really despair of finding a solution. :(
Solabusca on 10/12/2005 at 14:31
Quote Posted by str8g8
Wow, Sola, have you studied being patronising? Or is it just lots and lots of practise?
... this leaves me shocked. Really. Go back and reread what you've been saying, mate - you've been remarkably patronizing and somewhat obtuse yourself.
If, however, you took offense - it was not intended. If my tone caused it, I will offer an apology.
Quote:
It is not disingenuous to go back to the original map, because subsequent ones were attempts to reach some middle ground, but which you attacked even more (!) and Doc_Brown's comments were in support of this original thinking, so I wanted everyone to be clear about that.
I only began having
signifigant issues with the map with incarnation 4. My only qualms about map 3 were the extended shape of the Old Quarter. I felt and still feel that it is too damned big, and it has many points where it would have divided into smaller sections - places where there are natural boundries, if you will.
Then Map 4 came out and the debate about Shalebridge began - as a direct result of it. Without that incarnation of the map, I would not have delved further, and come up with the in-game snippets that I have that weakens certain placements!
IF we revert to Map3, the issues that Map 4 created will still exist - although the will be signifigantly lessened. Better that we fall back to your arecent suggestion of removing Shalebridge all-told from the map as a problem invented by the creators!
Quote:
But we see the river where Garrett enters the Lost City. It is
obviously not the same. And the fact that the river
we see in game in Assassins is NOT an impediment means the servants conversation doesn't make sense to me in this context. I think you are being obtuse if you claim the A map suffers the same flaw.
... you completely miss the point, as you prove with your next statement.
Quote:
I'm sorry but it's not a very good point. Hightowne, may or may not be a better district, (for instance, it may be high as in "on high ground". In fact, doesn't the Assassin map go "up-hill" as it nears Ramirez? If so then this may well be the case). But even so, let us just say that New Market is a
more respectable area, and so
moreworthy of the servant's pithy remarks.
1) Up until this point, we have been using HIGHTOWNE to refer to a more up-scale area, not to anything elevation related.
2) Common sense would suggest that, in placement A, the people of Newmarket would have more to fear from the rabble of the Old Quarter (definately not an upscale area, I think we can agree) invading their turf, as opposed to the much further-away scum of Shalebridge, who already have a handy crossing point to the area - a bridge.
Quote:
Doc_Brown was pointing out the deficiencies of your layout. Each map has some deficiencies by the way, and we have to face them one way or another. If you can't even admit these deficiencies then I really despair of finding a solution. :(
You've placed it into an either/or situation, str8g8. It's either layout A) or layout B).
Too much
in-game evidence points away from each map - you say that the streets of Assassins prove that the river there 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.
We are both arguing from the same desire - to have a map that accurately reflects the in-game information we have been presented. Though occasionally frustrating, I think that nothing but good can come from our debates.
...
...
...
Dammit, where's Terri when ya need her!!! :cheeky:
.j.
[EDIT: Is it just me, or does the West side of the river seem to be much... older?
Dayport, Eastport, Auldale - all the places that the upper-class merchants and the lower-class nobility have decided to claim - it all smacks of rebuilding.
Maybe the 'old noble' sections are the north-west, where you can find old manors, places like Baffords and whatnot - to the East are the nouveau-rich, fresh-come to money.
This ties into something else - maybe the sections we're dealing with are much smaller than we're making them out to be - more cramped, per se. Constantinople only covered 8 square miles and had a population of (at times) 750,000 - 1 million...
Inline Image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Constantinople_medieval.jpgDoc_Brown on 11/12/2005 at 07:35
I might not be the best judge of character, but I'd like to think that over the past 40 pages I've seen enough to trust that either of you did not mean to offend anyone. Passion and intelligence are the two hallmarks of this project, and sometimes one can just overshadow the other. I hope I'm correct to assume we can clear the air on this and press forward?
Having said that, I apologize for any contribution I may have made to this little tiff. I wasn't aware that Solution A had made any official progress in my absence. To help set the matter straight, who has the links handy to the correct Solution A (for this current discussion) and Solution B?
Solabusca on 11/12/2005 at 10:01
Don't worry 'bout it, Doc... we're just bashing our heads trying to come up with a consensus. Of course it leads to frustration, and frustration leads to... wait, let me take off the Yoda ears.
.j.
EmperorSteele on 11/12/2005 at 14:12
Quote Posted by Solabusca
This ties into something else - maybe the sections we're dealing with are much smaller than we're making them out to be - more cramped, per se. Constantinople only covered 8 square miles and had a population of (at times) 750,000 - 1 million...[/img]
But now it's istanbul, not constantinople!
[off-topic, carry on]
str8g8 on 11/12/2005 at 21:22
Quote:
If, however, you took offense - it was not intended. If my tone caused it, I will offer an apology.
I was not offended in the slightest, so there is no need for apologies, my friend :). I felt your tone was a bit off, but perhaps I misread it (too many CAPS and
bold, perhaps?). But no doubt I can sound patronizing too sometimes.
Over a year of wrangling and trying to forge a consensus is what's left me frustrated. I get the impression there are those who enjoy the wrangling ... I don't, however. And I'm not sure I share Sola's optimism about this endless debate ... Sadly, I don't think we're any closer to actualy making a workable map. :(
This brings us to my next point. I think there is somewhat of a power-vacuum here. I think that every project needs a project lead, and we don't have one. We argue our various opinions but nothing will ever get decided this way. We need an impartial arbitratrator who can weigh up the individual arguments without getting personally embroiled, and break potential deadlocks.
I would like to nominate Doc_Brown, who has been involved in this the longest and has always shown himself to be objective and even-handed in these matters. And besides, as a doctor, he is a natural authority figure ;).
str8g8 on 11/12/2005 at 21:42
Quote:
[EDIT: Is it just me, or does the West side of the river seem to be much... older?
Your points are well made and chime with earlier ideas on this thread about the evolution of the City. Compare in-game for instance, the grid-like plan of Dayport to the winding streets of Old Quarter, South Quarter and so on. Take a look at a real world city like Edinburgh, divided into 2 halves, the Old Town, and New Town. The Old Town is winding, labarynthine, medieval, huddled around the castle. The New Town was built after the enlightenment on a rational grid, all straight lines and crescents.
This is what I had in the back of my mind when moving New Quarter. The only fly in the ointment is
Auldale. However, it is reasonable to imagine an older settlement here being swallowed up by the growing City and rebuilt for the brugeoning nobility trying to flee from the stench and squalor of Old and South Quarter.
As for the City being smaller, perhaps we should resurrect the micro map? Though I would like to stress the city could remain big but made up from unknown, unnamed quarters, districts and suburbs that we have never seen in-game. Certainly, the cut-scenes give the impression of a large industrial city. I would guess the population to be around 2-3 million.
Solabusca on 12/12/2005 at 14:24
One other thing we can consider, as well - someone once extrapolated that the East side of the City was rebuilt in the wake of fire - soemthing that seems to jive with the overall architectural changes we note, in Dayport (and even in Aulddale).
Let's not forget, either, that we have yet to speculate which areas are concerned with odiferous businesses and industry. We know that there's a lot of foundries, steel-mills, industrial presses - all these businesses require constant access to water. Neighbourhood featuring heavy industry should be along the riverbank, and at the edges of the City.
What if Dayport, Auldale and the like were industrial areas that have been converted into ... well, loft housing, for lack of a better word. Perhaps in the wake of fire, or Baronial decree...
As to size - perhaps we're just making the sections we're used to dealing with too large. If we run with the idea that the City is comparable in size with Constantinople (perhpas only two to three times the size) we might find that things fall into place in a similar way - Manhattan's only 22 square miles!
TTK12G3 on 13/12/2005 at 21:42
Quote Posted by Solabusca
...This ties into something else - maybe the sections we're dealing with are much smaller than we're making them out to be - more cramped, per se. Constantinople only covered 8 square miles and had a population of (at times) 750,000 - 1 million...
Yes. But Constantinople was an ancient and very well planned city. Several "readables" have suggested that the City expanded very quickly and unevenly.
Solabusca on 13/12/2005 at 23:11
Quote Posted by TTK12G3
Yes. But Constantinople was an ancient and very well planned city. Several "readables" have suggested that the City expanded very quickly and unevenly.
Good point - given that the west side of the river seems to showcase these characteristics. But it's also noted that the City seems to teem with life, and builds not only across but upwards - how many single story buildings can you name in ANY of the games? I'm sure the number can be counted on fingers and toes and still leave many to spare.
So the streets twist around one another, like coiled serpents, and the buildings thrust up beside one-another, like a mouth full of crooked teeth.
.j.
