Anyone else disappointed with San Francisco's map design?

[Space_Monky]

Maybe you should take a look at pictures of areas that were hit by a nuke or carpet bombing. And even if, it does not make SF less bleak and boring which is a design decision.

the effect of a one megaton is enough to incinerate and topple buildings at something like 20 square miles...

[Commander Longrod]

I'm bothered by the fact that the most urban areas are all right at the beginning. Mount Tam is awesome, and the rest of the map has pockets of unique terrain like the docks in the southwest, or the mines in the center, but none of them are very big. 101 Keys is pretty cool, however linear it is. It has a good mix of flat areas, and multiple level structures. San Francisco is true to lore, with a weaponized terraforming blast, I'm sure the area would be pretty desolate. That being said, a wall of half standing high rises that were multiple floors and open on one side would be a cool area for a shadow war, and even to PvE against waves of enemies for a final story mission to take down Dark Matter.

All of that taken into account, I'm stoked for a new area. Expansion prz. :3

[EdgeTW]

seriously? a weapon more powerful than a nuke hit's a small area and you guys expect buildings and life?
it looked exactly like i imagined...

Yeah, that reasoning would actually hold some water if a) you could explain why the landscape is occasionally dotted with relatively intact structures, b) you could explain where all the debris from everything else went, and c) you could prove that the story behind what happened to San Francisco wasn't born from the developers desire to take the easy route out on portraying San Francisco in-game.

You're making the assumption that the lore was developed first and the map was the result of that lore. It is just as likely that the lore was the result of someone saying "SF is going to be a nightmare amount of work. What can we build easily, and how can we justify it through lore?". That would be what we refer to as "a cop out".

But, like I said earlier.. I would love for a developer to hop in here and say "No no no. We wanted to do San Francisco right. The art guys were chomping at the bit to design an urban ruin. But the fate of SF had been built into the lore from the start and worked into the TV show, and it was too late to do anything about it. We were all really disappointed. That's why we intend on making Oakland look as ridiculously awesome as possible. You guys are going to have your minds blown.".

Unfortunately, without that it feels like a cop out.

sometimes reality is boring...

It's a good thing we have games, isn't it? Oh.. wait.

[Space_Monky]

Yeah, that reasoning would actually hold some water if a) you could explain why the landscape is occasionally dotted with relatively intact structures, b) you could explain where all the debris from everything else went, and c) you could prove that the story behind what happened to San Francisco wasn't born from the developers desire to take the easy route out on portraying San Francisco in-game.

You're making the assumption that the lore was developed first and the map was the result of that lore. It is just as likely that the lore was the result of someone saying "SF is going to be a nightmare amount of work. What can we build easily, and how can we justify it through lore?". That would be what we refer to as "a cop out".

But, like I said earlier.. I would love for a developer to hop in here and say "No no no. We wanted to do San Francisco right. The art guys were chomping at the bit to design an urban ruin. But the fate of SF had been built into the lore from the start and worked into the TV show, and it was too late to do anything about it. We were all really disappointed. That's why we intend on making Oakland look as ridiculously awesome as possible. You guys are going to have your minds blown.".

Unfortunately, without that it feels like a cop out.



It's a good thing we have games, isn't it? Oh.. wait.

talk about assumptions...
at least i have something tangible to compare it to. you just assume they are lazy.

here is a video of 15 kilotons. key word "kilo". 0.015 of a megaton. the largest nuke ever tested was 80+ megatons. now take that and make it advanced alien technology. you actually believe it wouldn't lay waste to almost everything in it's path?

"we want buildings and life" sorry, no. just no.

[EdgeTW]

talk about assumptions...
at least i have something tangible to compare it to. you just assume they are lazy.

here is a video of 15 kilotons. key word "kilo". 0.015 of a megaton. the largest nuke ever tested was 80+ megatons. now take that and make it advanced alien technology. you actually believe it wouldn't lay waste to almost everything in it's path?

"we want buildings and life" sorry, no. just no.

Why are you linking videos of explosions? This is your tangible evidence? Evidence of what, exactly? That explosions do damage? I think everyone knows that.

And that you think there is no evidence that developers cut corners on game development is just ridiculously naive. Are you new to gaming?

I can just point to the San Francisco map for your evidence.

[Kitten Mittons]

Yeah, that reasoning would actually hold some water if a) you could explain why the landscape is occasionally dotted with relatively intact structures, b) you could explain where all the debris from everything else went, and c) you could prove that the story behind what happened to San Francisco wasn't born from the developers desire to take the easy route out on portraying San Francisco in-game.

You're making the assumption that the lore was developed first and the map was the result of that lore. It is just as likely that the lore was the result of someone saying "SF is going to be a nightmare amount of work. What can we build easily, and how can we justify it through lore?". That would be what we refer to as "a cop out".

But, like I said earlier.. I would love for a developer to hop in here and say "No no no. We wanted to do San Francisco right. The art guys were chomping at the bit to design an urban ruin. But the fate of SF had been built into the lore from the start and worked into the TV show, and it was too late to do anything about it. We were all really disappointed. That's why we intend on making Oakland look as ridiculously awesome as possible. You guys are going to have your minds blown.".

Unfortunately, without that it feels like a cop out.

Points A and B might have an explanation, but even then it would eventually all come down to point C, which is your suspicion that they made up the lore to avoid making a detailed cityscape. But why does the assumption that they would do that seem to win out over the assumption that they didn't? Is it written anywhere that they WANTED just a ruined city? Maybe they just wanted something akin to a strange alien landscape to reflect the idea of terraformation?

We can't say, because it's speculation either way. The ones who ultimately get the benefit of the doubt, though, are the devs/art designers. It seems to me that people are only second guessing it so much because, as many of these posts make very evident, they came into the situation with their own hopes and preconceived notions of what they were SUPPOSED to find. When they didn't find what they wanted, surely it meant there was a flaw, right? Well, it is what it is. I'd like to see a full ruined city as well, and hell maybe we will eventually, but that doesn't mean that San Francisco is a 'cop out'. Even if you don't like it.

[TH3STEVE]

After some fairly uninspiring map designs in the areas before San Francisco, I must say that the area south of the Golden Gate Bridge turned out to be an even larger disappointment. I was hoping to see some serious three dimensional map design in the city.. densely packed ruins of large buildings, open facings where the various floors of structures were exposed like a cutaway view of ruined offices, combat across towering rooftops where our ridiculous jumping abilities could actually be put to some use.. something closer to the concepts in "I am Legend", expect mixed with strange alien flora instead of normal plant growth.

Instead, it's like the Defiance team went in exactly the opposite direction and used San Francisco as an opportunity to save some serious time on map creation. We have huge, wide open, bland spaces of mostly desolate hills, marked only with the occasional odd rock and the infrequent appearance of some residential ruin. Most of the buildings, ruins, and roads.. just gone. It's truly uninspiring and boring, and I'm sad that this.. the one area where a large urban area could be justified, was completely wasted. 5 years of development and the maps we ended up with.. I just don't get it.

My first thoughts were mostly the same. I was looking for recognizable locations and though they name several, you don't see very many. After playing in SF for awhile I began to love it over there because the driving has such a great feel. To me it is a totally different feel than outside of SF where your car seems to catch every little pebble. In SF I can jump off EVERYTHING like I am in an episode of The Dukes Of Hazzard and I love it! That said, I would rather drive like that everywhere and have a better looking SF!

[EdgeTW]

Points A and B might have an explanation, but even then it would eventually all come down to point C, which is your suspicion that they made up the lore to avoid making a detailed cityscape. But why does the assumption that they would do that seem to win out over the assumption that they didn't? Is it written anywhere that they WANTED just a ruined city? Maybe they just wanted something akin to a strange alien landscape to reflect the idea of terraformation?

We can't say, because it's speculation either way. The ones who ultimately get the benefit of the doubt, though, are the devs/art designers. It seems to me that people are only second guessing it so much because, as many of these posts make very evident, they came into the situation with their own hopes and preconceived notions of what they were SUPPOSED to find. When they didn't find what they wanted, surely it meant there was a flaw, right? Well, it is what it is. I'd like to see a full ruined city as well, and hell maybe we will eventually, but that doesn't mean that San Francisco is a 'cop out'. Even if you don't like it.

Yes, it absolutely is speculation either way. What is, perhaps, less speculation is this: lore aside, if you ask gamers what kind of map they would prefer to play on.. either the San Francisco we have in Defiance now, or the ruins of a city interwoven with alien flora as we've been discussing in this thread.. I feel pretty safe suggesting most would prefer the latter. And by most, I mean "pretty much everyone". Because, who is going to be the guy that says "I want San Francisco to look like the other maps I already played through, except less interesting, with less structures, and more barren, and gray.". I just don't see it happening.

Which leaves us with the team that has to do the work and make the map. And which way they blow on this really depends on the type of team they are, their love of the project, the time/resources they have to work with, and their managers.

Then we toss in the lore and things can get complicated. If the lore is set in stone, then the map has to be designed to match and we can focus our disappointment on the fellow who had the bright idea of turning San Francisco into a very uninspiring crater (and maybe a little on the art/map team for not taking the concept and presenting it in a more interesting manner).

If the lore wasn't set in stone, but was instead influenced by the desire to cut corners on the design of San Francisco.. then we can focus our frustrations on whoever made that call instead.

Take your pick, because it's one of those.

[kyxsune]

underground St loius looks exactly what i expected San Fran to look like. If only If only

[chefwhitey]

I am surprised that some people are not flaming this thread saying how great San Fran is! Finally some truth brought to the forums!