Maps walk a fine line sometimes: The line between depiction and abstraction.
In the real world a map is always an abstraction - either of a real thing or of an imagined world (like the Tolkien maps of Middleearth). It can also be a depiction at the same time.
In games there exist several types of maps as we already pointed out and they also can look quiet different. The radar map in Defender is a good example as it shows you the abstraction directly above the game world.
As for Pac-Man:
A maze can of course be a map - and there are certainly maps of mazes...
Another perspective is the technical side I tried to mention in my lengthy post above: For a programmer maps begin with the computer platform itself: There are memory maps and register maps that "cartograph" the hardware world he has to work with. These maps should be so detailed and error-free that we can call them a depiction - an abstraction is usually not good enough.
If the programmer creates a game he is probably thinking about creating data structures to build his game world. Most modern 3D games use list-like structures while older 2D games almost always use maps in the form of x/y-arrays.
As 2D games usually work with a memory mapped screen (using tiles for the fields/cells) a translation of the array to the screen can range from utterly primitive to sophisticated.
In modern 3D games it's usually much harder to create a 2D representation from the list data in memory - sometimes the map is simply just another rendering with the camera pointing downwards (Duke Nukem 3D).
When 3D maps get more depictive we talk about full 3D automaps, that can be rotated and magnified. These aren't exactly new either: The Descent series offered very nice ones many years ago and several other games come to mind, starting roughly in the 68k-era (Atari ST, Amiga).
Maybe one should examine the map in question to consider it's kind - by analyzing it's goals.
Does it contain practically everything (depiction) or are only certain landmarks drawn into it (abstraction)?
Is this selection random or willfull (more likely, isn't it?) and what does this tell the player?
Is the main purpose to show the player his location or are there elements that show him his "work" (enemies, waypoints, secrets, treasures...)?
If the map is depicting everything the player has to decide what he has to do - but a more abstract map is already showing the direction: To the next goal. Here the programmer has already decided about the level of abstraction (to make playing the game easier, perhaps).
There are games where the player moves his (party) icon on something that even looks exactly like a map (King's Bounty series) or a board game like surface (Archon) - when the player enters combat he is shown in a playfield arena that suddenly looks a bit more realistic.
What's the game world now? The board game like map or the combat arena?
Maps walk a fine line sometimes: The line between depiction and abstraction.
In the real world a map is always an abstraction - either of a real thing or of an imagined world (like the Tolkien maps of Middleearth). It can also be a depiction at the same time.
In games there exist several types of maps as we already pointed out and they also can look quiet different. The radar map in Defender is a good example as it shows you the abstraction directly above the game world.
As for Pac-Man:
A maze can of course be a map - and there are certainly maps of mazes...
Another perspective is the technical side I tried to mention in my lengthy post above: For a programmer maps begin with the computer platform itself: There are memory maps and register maps that "cartograph" the hardware world he has to work with. These maps should be so detailed and error-free that we can call them a depiction - an abstraction is usually not good enough.
If the programmer creates a game he is probably thinking about creating data structures to build his game world. Most modern 3D games use list-like structures while older 2D games almost always use maps in the form of x/y-arrays.
As 2D games usually work with a memory mapped screen (using tiles for the fields/cells) a translation of the array to the screen can range from utterly primitive to sophisticated.
In modern 3D games it's usually much harder to create a 2D representation from the list data in memory - sometimes the map is simply just another rendering with the camera pointing downwards (Duke Nukem 3D).
When 3D maps get more depictive we talk about full 3D automaps, that can be rotated and magnified. These aren't exactly new either: The Descent series offered very nice ones many years ago and several other games come to mind, starting roughly in the 68k-era (Atari ST, Amiga).
Maybe one should examine the map in question to consider it's kind - by analyzing it's goals.
Does it contain practically everything (depiction) or are only certain landmarks drawn into it (abstraction)?
Is this selection random or willfull (more likely, isn't it?) and what does this tell the player?
Is the main purpose to show the player his location or are there elements that show him his "work" (enemies, waypoints, secrets, treasures...)?
If the map is depicting everything the player has to decide what he has to do - but a more abstract map is already showing the direction: To the next goal. Here the programmer has already decided about the level of abstraction (to make playing the game easier, perhaps).
There are games where the player moves his (party) icon on something that even looks exactly like a map (King's Bounty series) or a board game like surface (Archon) - when the player enters combat he is shown in a playfield arena that suddenly looks a bit more realistic.
What's the game world now? The board game like map or the combat arena?
Many shades of gray here it seems...
take care,
Calibrator
take care,
Calibrator