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.'
Well, that's world design.
You get an editor, the art assets and start to lay down all the pieces so that they make sense, so that the scene is cohesive and immersive. Of course this is one side of the work, because then world design is also about gameplay.
I see world design as the middle ground between the artists and designers.
The artists come up with the concept of a zone and then build the art assets to be used. The quest designers give the zone its own story and personality and start to organize the quests so that they carry on the story and so that they are fun to play. The world designers take all these elements and preliminary work and build the zone concretely. The roles blur together.
As if you were building a map for an RTS. From a side you would try to make it pretty. From the other you would try to make it tactically interesting.
In a mmorpg this is slightly less important as the terrain is there more to give atmosphere, but the way a zone is built also determines it's flow. This is also important even if rather invisible for the average player.
Re: More on Vanguard and world design
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.'
Well, that's world design.
You get an editor, the art assets and start to lay down all the pieces so that they make sense, so that the scene is cohesive and immersive. Of course this is one side of the work, because then world design is also about gameplay.
I see world design as the middle ground between the artists and designers.
The artists come up with the concept of a zone and then build the art assets to be used. The quest designers give the zone its own story and personality and start to organize the quests so that they carry on the story and so that they are fun to play. The world designers take all these elements and preliminary work and build the zone concretely. The roles blur together.
As if you were building a map for an RTS. From a side you would try to make it pretty. From the other you would try to make it tactically interesting.
In a mmorpg this is slightly less important as the terrain is there more to give atmosphere, but the way a zone is built also determines it's flow. This is also important even if rather invisible for the average player.