A Realistic World Map WIP. Is everything geologically plausible? Critique!
I've been into worldbuilding for a long while, but I've never properly dove in because I would always get bogged down by the details: star size, planet size, mass, gravity, geology. As I'm not fantastic at science, this would quickly overwhelm me and I'd just give up and forget about ever finishing it.
This time, I'm not planning on doing that.
So, here is the WIP of my first world map. I'm going for an Earth-like world; much less water (only 54% or so coverage), which is slightly larger and slightly older than our planet. Water is black, landmasses are grey.
Stupidly, I created the map before even thinking about tectonics, because I wanted to dive into actual worldbuilding before getting bogged down like I usually do. So I had to try and work around it and make up a hopefully realistic (though still very rough) guide as to where the plate boundaries are. Note: I'm not a good geologist, and the most I know of tectonics is gleaned from the Internet and my dull memory. Nevertheless, I hope I've done okay.
Mustard shading is continental plates, blue shading is oceanic plates. Red arrows are directional movements, green highlights are mid-oceanic rifts and brown highlights are mountainous areas. How's that look?
Please, do critique it. I'm very very very open to suggestions. If I have gotten something totally wrong, I want to change it.
Thank you!
EDIT: Actually I do have a couple of questions before we even begin. There are quite a few inland seas. How are they created in the first place? Again, I suck at geology and should really have thought that up before I drew it in.
Secondly; is it realistic for almost all the land to be in the top half of the planet? I tried to work through this by having the oceanic plates in the middle between two continental plates, as if its been recently formed due to a vast split between the Northern and Southern plates. Is that realistic?
Reply With Quote
