Wow. You make your first topic (a really good one) and get this kind of respons. You must feel pleased with yourself.

From what we seen and the words from Todd, "after designing individual houses in SI we decided it was the way to go" (not word for word, and I can't spell) I think It's all good.

Fantastic map conversation a side I am really looking forward to having noticeable regions again! It was something that i always liked in Morrowind and something I never really felt like I got in Oblivion.
For example Morrowind had the mountain area the grass lands the arid sand area and the islands. Oblivion felt like one big forest except for up north.

No, they're not. For one other example, the Reach in that fanmade map have a river going all the way through right up to the other side. The one on the concept art video stops in the base and has a road leading up the rest of the way. And that map you posted was around before the one in the concept art video was, when only the blurry one was available. It's not an official map. I don't know what makes you think it is.

This is true.
However for the purpose of discussion regions and location most maps you find will work. But yes you are absolutely right when saying that the unofficial maps are less trustworthy.

For discussing regions that map is useless as the snow regions are the same colour as the pine forest gerions and there is no colour differentiation between the tundra marsh, the canyon one and volcanic tundra either. Nor does it say what the regions are.

I never said it was an official map. I said it is a reliable one. Which it is, for all extents and purposes. You could also argue that the lakes in Eastmarch are shaped slightly different but honestly, who cares? Every time someone draws a new map of Skyrim, it's gonna change a little bit.

This is my sentiment. At least until the game comes out or an official map is released.

But it's not reliable. You assumed Solitude was on an island because that map suggested it was, the regions are wrong as well, which is what we're discussing. There's 2 purposes it's not reliable for. Tha anolysis of the environments and locations of places in relation to geography.

When I first saw Oblivion, I was amazed. So beautiful graphics and landscape. Me and my friends were like WOOOW. But after years of playing it, I realised that landscape,cities,enviroment is just very boring. Mods helped alot to fix that.
Skyrim will be much much much more awesome, because it wont be just greenery, forests and plains. I can't wait to start playing it. And as you said, cities are very unique, while in Oblivion, they were not.

And I concluded I was wrong in viewing it as such but that doesn't change the other two maps I gave links to from having the same exact feature. Remember that stream I was talking about? The one that could be made of water, ice, or snow? It's still there on all three maps. You just can't see it on the third because the area is too dark. The regions are also exactly the same for the first two.

Edit: Look, all I'm saying is if I want to see Skyrim on a plain easy to read map, I'm going to have to go with the fan-made one over the "official" ones pinned to walls in studios. I don't see any apparent differences in those I have posted but that's just me.

I would really like to see uniqueness that identifies this as the home of the nords.

It's not the same island cutoff thing. On the concept art vid map, there is what appears to be a path running through the environment, along the coast and down into High Rock. On the fan map, they seem to have assumed that this is actually a whole seperate island, and made a shape out of it on the map. The regions are in the same locations, but not the same. Apart from not being labelled, the snowy and pine forest regions are the same colour, as are the volvanic tundra, tundra marsh and canyon regions, when they are clearly different colours on the original map, and have different names (save the canyon one which cannot be seen but is a different colour nonetheless).

Ok. That's one line. Colors and labels don't really factor into it being reliable or not unless the labels are in the wrong place or the colors have some significant meaning to the game itself, which they don't. As I said before, every map of Skyrim is going to be different every time someone draws a new one (fan or developer). It's just my humble opinion that a map doesn't have to be official to be reliable. If that's the issue at hand.

What are you talking about? They specify the environment type. Possibly because of the lack of clarity and misinformation here, you did not take into account that Windhelm is in a snow region. After all, going by that map, Windhelm and Solitude are in the same region type.

It is supposed to be hand-crafted and I think that will be great. OB was a bit boring, but then again, it was generated and not hand-crafted. I'm gonna spend some time finding the ruined head from the trailer

Did I miss the part where maps of Skyrims have keys? I see no color specification saying that tundras have to be this color and forests have to be that color...
And it wouldn't matter because the colors are the same anyway.

On a lot of the maps there is a key. Just not on the ones you posted.

Maybe the factthat all the different coloured areas have corresponding different environment types WRITTEN IN THEM. And the 2 green ones both say Pine Forest. Does that really suggest no correlation at all? Why else would they have these things in different colours?

They're the same anyway!
> http://i51.tinypic.com/2yxrds8.jpg
> http://i51.tinypic.com/2dhis0p.jpg

I see no difference in region colors. Myth Busted.

You don't have very good vision, do you?

Pine forest -Green
Fall forest - Orange
Snow - Blue (green on your map)
Tundra - Red
Tundra marsh - Purple
Volcanic Tundra - Grey (purple on your map)
Canyon - Maroon/brown (purple on your map EDIT: When zooming up really close, it can be seen to be a slightly different purple, but the difference is much less clear)

What are we discussing right now? Whether a map can be considered "reliable" or not? Or whether it really, truly matters how little differences they have? Because both seem to be a question of opinion and we both, obviously, have our own. All I know is I started talking about landscapes, we ending up debating something over maps, and now I feel like the guy who wanted to dual wield claymores.

I like this thread lets not lock it down...

I'm enjoying all the great feedback. Too bad I steered us way off topic for a moment there. :whistling:


Thanks. I'm not. It's been a long day...


I feel you. The Colovian Highlands were my favorite region just because it was a nice, wide open area. I'm sure The Pale in Skyrim will be an icy equivalent.


I was so caught up in that conversation, I didn't get to see these great posts. Everyone's afraid there will be no variety in enviroments but the truth is, Skyrim will have twice as much as Oblivion did. It was well and good for it's time, (actually it blew me away in '06 ), but it's not as beautiful five years later.


Exactly. That's what I'm thinking. Oblivion was enchanting even though most of the trees, bushes, and grasses were randomly spawned across the land so think about how much the hand-crafted enviroment of Skyrim will knock you off your feet. I will also search far and wide for this head. :ninja: