Hello,

I am making a game and suddenly realized a big mistake I made during the creation of the map : corners are, ugly I guess ?

Indeed, you can see on the picture, at the center of the image, the little “difference" between the two sides, making the corner, that is in my opinion very ugly and I'm scared that the player will make a focus on a little thing like that. Do you think it is an important thing to fix, and if yes, how?

Thank you

@BloodAlibi I don't think it looks too bad. My advice: Can you use a tileable texure to have the texture on one side of the center column be a mirror image of the other side? Then the bricks would line up perfectly.

-Scott

Alright, thank you. I will also try to line up the tiles

I think that I would be inclined to adjust the UV-mapping of the column such that the tiles line up, and such that there isn't a thin strip of tile at the corner. (Noting that I would likely consider it to be fine to have such a strip where the edges of the column meet with the walls.)

BloodAlibi said:
Alright, thank you. I will also try to line up the tiles

Walls are strong when the bricks are lined up horizontally. You have them lined up vertically; in an earthquake, the stacks could just fall singly. /picky :p

Yeah, I was thinking the same: the vertical columns of stones is much more jarring than the stones not meeting perfectly in the corner.

That being said, you should offset the UV so they do match up. Don't mirror textures – normal maps generally don't work well with mirrored texture coordinates. Just make sure they actually meet up, in your UV mapper tool.

But, yeah, the vertical stone columns are the bigger problem.

Tom Sloper said:
Walls are strong when the bricks are lined up horizontally. You have them lined up vertically; in an earthquake, the stacks could just fall singly. /picky :p

I was thinking about that, too--but I don't know what the original poster is going for with them. Perhaps what we see are just cladding tiles, rather than the actual bricks or blocks within?

There would be also a need to work on the rounded arcs, if we want authentic bricks. Bricks would align to the arcs in reality.
Or you avoid bricks, and use some concrete texture without a dominant pattern. If your setting allows, you can save a lot of tedious work on details this way.

Personally, i did not notice any texture details or flaws at all from the image. It's the lighting which catches my eye first.
There is an exaggerated AO effect. I would hope we are past the days where we throw black corners everywhere, just because we are finally able to fake some AO at all ; )
I would tone this down to some subtle amount, but setup lighting in a way it creates more low frequency variation. The left wall should not look like a mirror of the right, but it should be overall brighter or darker. Helps with navigation in the game too.

I will try all of that, but I guess I will follow the advice of changing the material. The bricks pattern doesn't really help.

I will also work on the lighting! Thank you a lot for your help!

At first sight, I thought the textures represented tiles, not bricks or stone blocks, because of the highly visible central edge of the pillar that makes sense only with tiles separately applied to the two sides.

But tiles are neither curved (left intrados) nor cut in fancy concave shapes (upper walls), they are usually aligned or staggered along the major axis, not the minor one (walls and pillar), and they are usually all the same size (not three or more: walls, pillar, upper walls, variants).

Imagine how this structure would be made with normal bricks or stone blocks, using historical buildings as reference. Your geometry and textures could become far more complex (individual shaped blocks, curved bands of rectangular bricks with wedge-shaped mortar layers between them, etc.) but plausible.

JoeJ's suggestion to literally plaster over these complications is both effective and realistic: you can keep simple geometry (up to a point; some decorations should be expected) and paint walls ornamentally.