Unnamed Wip, Somewhat Ambitious -- Looking for a Good Honest Critique

[Peter Toth]

Hello Guild,

First of all, thank you for clicking on my map; I hope you're not disappointed!

For those interested in the atlas-style, I am requesting constructive criticism before moving forward to develop this conworld in full detail, right down to its exact chemical composition. Is there any aspect of the map that could be improved, such as the tectonic realism, the topography, the rivers, or perhaps the lakes? Please let me know.

P.S. I cannot decide which map looks better--the one with the bump map or without. I've included both so that you could help me decide.





As always, thank you for your visit!

Peter

[Bretton]

Both seem interesting to me so far. Guess it all depends on the kind of style you're looking for

[Eowyn Cwper]

-clicks on map-

-is not disappointed-

I prefer the second one but this may pretty much be a matter of taste. They both look splendid!

[Kellerica]

For me the bump map - it's not necessarily the bump itself, just that the colours have a bit more contrast to them and that's usually a plus in my book. Both look nice, though.

[Kier]

I guess its personal taste.

I like the bump map, but a lot of it can be too much, as in whole continents. It always feels forced to me.

I like the more muted colors on the map without it. You can always apply just a faint bump map to give a little texture if you feel its lacking.

[waldronate]

It looks pretty good overall. The bump map version has the landscape seeming a little blurry compared to the crispness and aliasing of the outlines and rivers. There also seems to be some square artifacts along the coastline that may be objectionable. Reducing the resolution by 1/2 would probably reduce most of those objections, however. Selecting along the coastline and giving it a tiny blur might reduce the artifacting along there, anyhow.

[jshoer]

Woah, so much detail!

I think the final answer depends on what kind of map you're doing. I like the bump map (top one) for a physical geography or landmark map, and the topo map (bottom) for a road atlas, for example.

You could also go both ways: overlay a black and white bump map with the topo map's color shading!

[rdanhenry]

For me the bump map - it's not necessarily the bump itself, just that the colours have a bit more contrast to them and that's usually a plus in my book. Both look nice, though.

Exactly what I was going to say. The difference in the color is so decisive that I cannot really evaluate the effect of the bump.

[KMAlexander]

Could combine the two of them, layer one ontop the other, and drop the opacity on the bump-map a bit. Might create some interesting effects.

I like 'em both. It's a LOT of detail. How big of a landmass are we talking here?

[Azélor]

There are a lot of rivers. Probably too much unless the goal is to show the hydrography of the region.
As for the style, both are fine but I prefer the second one. It looks cleaner.