Not sure "world design" is the terminology I would use, but you are much clearer about your point anyway. I think it's more an issue of connectivity, between what you see and just how realistic a visual it is. Vanguard has an impressive world design: things to find, nice views here and there, cities etc. There is definitely a world there. It's just when you look at it things are at odds with the landscape. Not all the time.
Take your good looking Vanguard screenshot, and compare with this similiar warcraft scene (best I could manage at least)
Both have a dead sea creature, In WoW though - it actually looks dead. It's rotting, it's skin has dissapeared, it's half buried, even better... things are camped around it - it's interesting so things are interested in it. There are reeds growing where the water reaches the bank: they look held back by the sea and the fact that it's not a smooth curve hints that the tide might sometimes sweep upto that point. In the distance there are hut's that look a part of the landscape, like something actually is going to be at those huts. On top of that there's the debris scattered.
Looking at vanguard: just as good a *design* - dead creature, tents - but the connectivity is poor for whatever reason. It just doesn't feel as alive. The fence, gate's and tents look like they are about to fall down. The sea creature looks like it has just fallen out of the sky and landed on the ground rather than having led there for ages. Also someone could just swim round that fence. What's it defending against? No signs of it being a real barricade. WoW here would have supplies behind the fence, strong supports holding it up. On the other side there would be bits of broken wood, swords or corpses (like a fight has happened there so a fence is needed)
None of this is representative of anything but scenery of course. But there is easily a distinction. Personally I like the 'organic vs constructed' or 'scene management' terms rather than 'world design.'
Re: More on Vanguard and world design
Not sure "world design" is the terminology I would use, but you are much clearer about your point anyway. I think it's more an issue of connectivity, between what you see and just how realistic a visual it is. Vanguard has an impressive world design: things to find, nice views here and there, cities etc. There is definitely a world there. It's just when you look at it things are at odds with the landscape. Not all the time.
Take your good looking Vanguard screenshot, and compare with this similiar warcraft scene (best I could manage at least)
Both have a dead sea creature, In WoW though - it actually looks dead. It's rotting, it's skin has dissapeared, it's half buried, even better... things are camped around it - it's interesting so things are interested in it. There are reeds growing where the water reaches the bank: they look held back by the sea and the fact that it's not a smooth curve hints that the tide might sometimes sweep upto that point. In the distance there are hut's that look a part of the landscape, like something actually is going to be at those huts. On top of that there's the debris scattered.
Looking at vanguard: just as good a *design* - dead creature, tents - but the connectivity is poor for whatever reason. It just doesn't feel as alive. The fence, gate's and tents look like they are about to fall down. The sea creature looks like it has just fallen out of the sky and landed on the ground rather than having led there for ages. Also someone could just swim round that fence. What's it defending against? No signs of it being a real barricade. WoW here would have supplies behind the fence, strong supports holding it up. On the other side there would be bits of broken wood, swords or corpses (like a fight has happened there so a fence is needed)
None of this is representative of anything but scenery of course. But there is easily a distinction. Personally I like the 'organic vs constructed' or 'scene management' terms rather than 'world design.'