Mapping out The City.

[str8g8]

You are trying to find out the map devs started with, but which got distorted during the process. This is why you take their developing conditions as a piece of evidence. You are trying to find the original product.
You are doing a treatise on how they made the map

You're just paraphrasing my argument and making it sound trite. That's really not what I am doing at all. I'm doing the same as you! If we have contradictory approaches it's just a matter of emphasis. You prefer sight-seeing and cut scenes, I prefer to go on the maps and in-game evidence - but not because they are closer to the original vision of the devs or something, but because they are the most important and enduring experience of the game!

Sure cut scenes are important, but they're not more important then the actual game, the actual maps! They should be used as supporting evidence, and the same goes for skybox info. That's all I'm trying to get across.

In fact, I've realised for some time that what we have to do is go beyond the dev's map, which was only partial and fragmentory. When you start joining the dots, so to speak, then you realise this is a creative enterprsie (if it wasn't, I wouldn't be bothered). As I've said before it's about bringing the City to life, not just a dry cataloguing of districts.

cheers
str8g8

[Mugla]

I asked you to correct me and you did. Thanks.

I prefer the maps and ingame over concept too, I'm doing just some extra work in trying to fit what can be fitted in. It's purely accidental!


The reason of me getting confused was the moving the Cradle to the second bridge; we do have a map of it afterall, and I can't remember any good evidence pointing towards it being moved, except that there's that logo in the map and a door to the Cradle (note, other map clearly circles the spot, this just adds a vague logo!); but even so we already used the separated apporach.

EDIT: I've been having too much work lately, so some of my confusion can be put to not paying attention/being tired; I'll try to revise everything on a later point again. You may disregard my ramblings above.

[Doc_Brown]

Does the compass in the Docks not point south when you face the water? If it doesn't then, uhhhhh woops

That is exactly what my gut has been telling me. That the in-game compass is incorrect, and not Garrett's map of the area. Now you see why I brought you into the discussion: even without consciously being aware of the map and its relations during development, you picked up on how it was intended to work.

-Krypt says that the compass was accidental, and was meant to be with water south (again, this isn't evidence for me )

Oh? Isn't this the highest level of evidence we have, intel directly from a developer?

[str8g8]

even without consciously being aware of the map and its relations during development, you picked up on how it was intended to work.

or just made the same assumptions we all did ...

Anyway, I don't think Krypt's comments categorically say the compass is wrong. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Krypt) To me he seemed to be unsure whether the compass or the map is wrong! Let's not even use the word wrong, because remember that the map needn't be wrong, just misleading.

But let me offer an explanation of how this happened. The Docks were built in a certain way, and when the map came to be drawn, it was just rearranged to fit the screen better. Imagine if they hadn't done this - the Docks map would have been all squashed up with all that empty space either side - yuck! I would have done the same thing. And I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of rotating the whole level to then fit in with the illustration!

The problem now is that you and presumably many other players now have a definite mental image of the Docks based on this map, and it doesn't look right the way it is. But if we rotate the Docks then it might look wrong to others (like me!) So what is the final arbiter in such circumstances? The truth.

/gets off high horse
str8g8

[Mugla]

Oh? Isn't this the highest level of evidence we have, intel directly from a developer?

It isn't evidence for me. As I said, I'm doing a fan-addition, a continuation of work to what LGS and IS did, not an investigation of how they intended the map to be. I think str8g8 approved with this approach too?

So it isn't actual evidence, it is a clue to the actual evidence (and these are the primary reasons for our gut-instinct too):
-The TDS map has Docks towards south
-All the previous dock-areas are towards south
-Overlook is towards "forward-right" from the piers
-Overlook has forested land painted where the Docks should be if it would be otherwise
-The lighthouse and the river-mouth looking coast suggesting where the sea and where the River are
So the intent to do it so firstly produced those, but then someone just flipped the compass.


So to say, it's just what evidence is in everyones mind, that governs the image they have.
But as the map-makers, we must consider each piece.



str8g8:
I'm sorry if I managed to sound rude yesterday, when I made account of my way of seeing the issue. I really revised both ways neutrally for me, though it seems I wrote it so that you found some 'trite' in it. I wasn't sure that we had the same view on it, and frankly, I'm still not. Could you elaborate on this?:

It may have come from a much earlier (read: larger) version of the map than the one you see in the game.

I guess that points towards moving the Cradle back up to the 2nd bridge, then ...

Here you seemed to be suggesting that you're taking their original intent as evidence.

I think what Kyrpt's post helps us do is understand exactly why and where in the process of making the game the discrepencies occur, which in turn places us in a better position to make a call on this.

Here you seem to think exactly as I posted above to Doc.

For instance, if we know that the cutscenes were done by a 3rd party (presumably rustmonkey) and that they weren't necessarily working from the same page as the level builders, then we can say that the cut scenes are less reliable evidence than the in-game maps (produced in-house).

But here you seem to be negating the above quote and claiming that the working conditions have effect on the way we should judge evidence.

You're just paraphrasing my argument and making it sound trite. That's really not what I am doing at all. I'm doing the same as you!

And here you seem to suggest first the other, then the other.


Could you help me out here?

[str8g8]

Alright, let me make it perfectly clear:

Map-making manifesto: the purpose of mapping out the City
The purpose of the map is to bring the City to life, to build on what LGS and ISA did, by tying the overall structure together, and filling in the gaps where necessary. It is hoped that this will be an inspiration and a source of information for the Thief community and FM creators.

I hope we can ALL agree on this much

Mugla, it wasn't that you were being rude, just that I felt words were bring put in my mouth. That's a politicians tactic - to explain what the other guy's point of view is, in a supposedly objective fashion, but making it sound weak. It's not necessary as we are all capable of expressing our own opinions in our own words.

So ... to clarify. Krypts info is important, just as Randy Smith's comments were (which I notice you've quoted quite a few times Mugla!). Although we are not simply reconstructing the developer maps, their intentions are important factors when wrestling with all these discrepencies. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Anyway, it seems I'm outvoted on the Docks . I'll post a fix soon.

cheers
str8g8

[Mugla]

Mugla, it wasn't that you were being rude, just that I felt words were bring put in my mouth. That's a politicians tactic - to explain what the other guy's point of view is, in a supposedly objective fashion, but making it sound weak. It's not necessary as we are all capable of expressing our own opinions in our own words.

I'd say that IS quite rude, and I apologize. I was trying to explain your intent with my own words, so that I could understand them myself. Meaning, I didn't understand you from my point of view.

So ... to clarify. Krypts info is important, just as Randy Smith's comments were (which I notice you've quoted quite a few times Mugla!).

Randy's comment was important to me because I was really afraid that there is an unreleased map of the City, that might get published later-on; it might be a bit from here or there, but it would in the end make us do double work, if it needed correcting or explaining, why the different in-game areas deviate from this map (they did say they deviated from the original).

Although we are not simply reconstructing the developer maps, their intentions are important factors when wrestling with all these discrepencies. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Anyway, it seems I'm outvoted on the Docks . I'll post a fix soon.

cheers
str8g8

Unfortunately that can't do for me (that you can't be clearer, that is).
Their original intent is helpful, as in it will help us understand the map better, and find pieces of proof. But they said it themselves, they didn't stick to it faithfully.
We are trying to keep the experience seamless, the continuity of Thief valid; to let the working conditions or original intent affect the evidence would be to stray from storyteller to historian. It's like Tolkien's son would had not continued Silmarillion in a story format, but as the life-story of his father, taking his working conditions into consideration and let that affect the book.

So every piece of the game (except concept art) is biblically correct. They all have to be fitted somehow, so that no-ones vision gets bashed. If it isn't possible in any manner, we will have to either weight the evidence, or make a general nudge;
I think we might be able to do this with the Docks, so that all the evidence gets in; we nudge everything only by an inch. Let's try the compromise of 45 degrees like Doc said, "correct" the TDS map's dock-line to be a bit more angled (22,5 degrees CCW), and claim the compass is throwing off only 22,5 degrees, and we don't have to contradict with the scenery anymore we are checking with Doc so much.
This way neither groups supporters should notice anything odd. Maybe.

[Krypt]

Each designer would pretty much build their maps in whatever way would be easiest to create the desired layout, and the methods would differ for each designer and each map. This meant that maps were almost never synced up with other maps they were meant to be adjacent to, or their intended orientation in the City. This was why we had the North marker object, so you could essentially rotate the map without having to physically rotate the geometry. The problem was that we never did a compass-syncing pass on TDS that I can recall. We did this at one point near the end of the project on DX:IW and it helped a lot with making things consistent.

Anyway, it seems as though the North marker was something that slipped through the cracks in the Docks As far as I can recall, the Docks were supposed to be on the South coast.

[str8g8]

the Docks were supposed to be on the South coast.

Well, that's ... unequivical! Thanks Krypt And although the idea of the compromise is well intended, I think this is a case where we can make the call. I'll move the Docks to be south facing, and I guess Overlook goes with it.

Does anyone have any additions on the list of streets I posted earlier? Can't believe I didn't miss some ...

cheers
str8g8

[str8g8]

update

docks, overlook and cradle have been moved, bonehoard has been moved

also, Hightowne and Downtowne have been reinstated as districts, just to see what it looks like. Downtowne would be a part of the Old Quarter, Hightowne a part of North Quarter ..., in the way that Stone Market and New Market would also be considered districts rather than full-blown quarters.

also added some boundaries, just for clarity. These will form the basis of the city walls when they are added.

cheers
str8g8

[Mugla]

Goodies!

Suggestion: Remember how Rampone's was kinda in a bay, what with where the ship was? And notice that piece of road you originally attached Bonehoard to? So perhaps we could continue Docks just enough to add Rampone's there?

[str8g8]

Suggestion: Remember how Rampone's was kinda in a bay, what with where the ship was? And notice that piece of road you originally attached Bonehoard to? So perhaps we could continue Docks just enough to add Rampone's there?

Yes, I like that ... that road would be Winston Ave then? Looking more closely, maybe Wayside Docks should continue along the waterfront to the city wall?

cheers
str8g8

[str8g8]

On a side note, I've been trying to join up some of the dots regarding the canal structure, and it ended up kind of ... well, Venetian. Now, we know that Deadly Shadows couldn't handle swimmable water, and that there was a noticeable absence of canals (although there's a canal in Auldale, and a creek in the pagan HQ). In contrast, if we look at the main playable city sections from T1 and T2, namely the ASSN map and the AMB map, then there is a lot of canal-age, and they all have to go somewhere, presumably.

So how do the users here see the rest of the city? Is it full of canals, or is it limited to certain quarters?

Any thoughts?

cheers
str8g8

[Fish-face]

Speaking as a gamer, not a cartographer (although I do watch this thread carefully) I'd expect there to be quite a wide canal system, but definitely confined to certain areas. I would imagine the richer areas having a canal system like Auldale's - more sparse, but perhaps grander, dressed up. Somewhere for people to go on boat trips and to sit beside.

[Mugla]

Also remember that some waterways go UG from time to time:
-Baffords sewers
-Sealed section mid-N
-Auldale Gamall's Lair entrance
-Ambush! Northwestern parts, Marketplace and SW/SE exits
-Lost City Entrance!

To put it simply, thanks the turn we managed to make into the River due to Shalebridge/Newmarket, we're having a clear something that the River is going around; namely the hills that I suggested based on the paintings.
Thus it would seem logical that the canals go either completely exposed alongside the hills (north-south), or half- under half- between while going west-east?
This logic could help us do a canal-system based on something.


On a similiar note, Helena Way could actually be a major water-way, as being N-S, going between the hills.

[str8g8]

Fish-face, I was thinking along similar lines ... some areas would be heavily canal-ed, ie OQ, other places not so much, ie Auldale. If city is built on a delta, or a system of rivers, as has been suggested, than the canals would have been created in order to "manage" the flow of water, prevent flooding etc.

Mugla, we're having enough trouble mapping the city surface, never mind what's underground

But I agree that it might be useful to form some notion of what is higher and lower ground in the city (Hightowne, Downtowne maybe has a bearing on this?). It's just a matter of providing a framework, really. It is starting to come together now!

cheers
str8g8

[Fish-face]

On Downtowne and height, remember that, e.g., the South Downs are actually a set of hills, so Down doesn't always mean low. Perhaps irrelevant, but whatever!

I think the managing of a delta idea is not a bad one, or at least, the managing of the river mouth. Geographically, the mouth doesn't look like a delta, but managing water flow seems logical, especially with pumping stations and so on.

[Lamb]

Damn am I glad my teacher didn't make us map out this thing in ArcMap last semester. I think he would of ended up with 20 different versions of the City.

Oh as for that compass vs map being wrong, well in my experience in forestry has showed me that in 99% of the time the compass is never wrong, unless you're doing sumthing wrong and in that case you usually end up lost somewhere in the dense Canadian wilderness.

Besides most maps in those days were probably not 100% correct with there directions and placements and were most likely used to give you a general idea of where something would be.

[str8g8]

Down doesn't always mean low

True, and in this case the implication is also of a poorer district. But it has been suggested before that Hightowne is a richer area, built outside the OQ and looking down on the squalor, so to speak, which I kind of like. And, as Mugla has pointed out the main river changes course at about the right point to back up this theory.

99% of the time the compass is never wrong

In Real Life maybe, but as Krypt makes clear, the compass in the game isn't so reliable.

I'm tempted to point out at this point that if the Docks compass could be misaligned, then so could the compass on the ASSN map, which could mean in turn that the Keeper map could indeed be upside down, eliminating all this messy multiple river stuff, and creating a more balanced city ... but I won't ...

cheers
str8g8

[Bronze Griffin]

most maps in those days

What days are these?

[str8g8]

the olden days, of course

The map is getting very complicated right now, so I might just post the canal/river system by itself, for clarity's sake, followed by the road network and city wall structure ...

cheers
str8g8

[str8g8]

river network

This just shows the underlying river\canal network extrapolated from known positions.

Let me know what you think

cheers
str8g8

[Bronze Griffin]

I really like that!

[Mugla]

Fancy.

Though you should put some extra notion to Shoalsgate station's moat, Pagan sanctuary's creek and Assassin maps rivers: the one you've got now is from the Keeper map, while the ingame and Assassins suggest that the two rivers have gone either underground, or joined with the last one.

Also, you have a small canal going through the spot where I thought Rampone's would had been, but then again, we haven't seen the spot you thought of either.


Also as a wise-ass comment, I'd you to note that you could had finished the underlying road map first, so that you don't need to correct it afterwards. But the same problem would had occured vice versa, no? So a sketch on both first, then these neat versions.


Waiting for more!

[str8g8]

Shoalsgate moat is present ... it's the sqaurish part (directly above "OLD" and by river... though I think the scale is off here

Pagan Sanctuary creek is the diagonal section east of T3 SQ, the position is extrapolated from the position of the well in SQ

Rampone's is where you suggest now, so yes, that canal will have to move slightly.

The roads, canals, walls are all being worked up at the same time, working out details between them ... the canal system is just more complete at the moment.

Roads are pretty awkward though. I am working from the keeper map because it delivers the right detail and scale, but we get a real spiders web of roads, which look completely different to the style of road layout in other parts of the map, ie the Framed map, which in turn are different from the style of the T3 maps...

I'll post more soon
cheers
str8g8