next »

[Stij]

Wait, are we using maps the exact size of the screen, or am I just misunderstanding?
I always assumed that the map could be huge and the camera would follow.
Fixed camera kind of blows

See, the game is meant to be 4-player though, so having people offscreen would be a pain. I guess you could have a scaling camera, e.g. smash bros, but that wouldn't work so well with pixel graphics.

[kyn]

I don't really know what's the lesser evil here, tiny maps or scaling pixel goodness, I mean, graphic issues should never overlap gameplay, I think.

Just trying to get the ball rolling here, has this issue been discussed yet?

[Soulliard]

having those REALLY skinny platforms is out of place in the cave story world because the smallest platform is as big as quote himself.

The platforms are really skinny to indicate that you can jump through them. My biggest worry about your mockup is that it isn't clear which platforms are solid and which are one-way. Otherwise, it looks great - although I think Kovski's map is more interesting from a gameplay perspective. We should try combining Kovski's layout with Annabelle's sprites.

Just trying to get the ball rolling here, has this issue been discussed yet?

It has. I can add scaling if it's necessary, but it's not implemented yet. I'd try to keep the levels on a single screen if possible.

Alternately, if there's enough support for it, I can increase the size of the game window, although that means making levels will take longer.

[Annabelle Kennedy]

Fixed camera kind of blows

i was actually really worried about this!! i hope it isnt fixed i will cry....
fixed camera is so bad... one of the things that makes smash so excellent is the dynamic camera that like.. moves around and pulls back and shakes and keeps the action going..

one screen and it dies.

[Soulliard]

The problem with scaling back is that it makes the pixel art look less good.


Also, this:

[shig]

The stage looks... Crumped.

Too many small blocks and walls.

I'll wait 'till I can play in that stage, but I'm almost sure it will need some editing/tweaking later.

[Soulliard]

It looks smaller than it is because of the thick platforms. The scale is easier to see with the versions on the first page.

[Fifth]

I think it looks pretty good like that, but then I really have no idea how the game will ultimately play, so...

[Annabelle Kennedy]

The problem with scaling back is that it makes the pixel art look less good.

well.. something should stil be done..

fixed camera will probably kill the game for me.

[Soulliard]

Does it really make that big a difference?

[Annabelle Kennedy]

yes a huge difference it will severely disable my enjoyment of it.. its my only complaint about the demos.

for a game that's supposed to be centered around frenetic action and exciting battles.. it will feel stale..

also tiny levels!

but the camera movement is infinitely more important to me.  feel free to ignore this though, its not my project.

[Stij]

I was pondering about the scaling issue, and I remember one pixel game that has scaling camera: Star Control 2. There's just a different sprite for each level of "zoom". Of course, SC2's sprites are static ships, so I'd imagine they were much easier to make then detailed, animated fighter sprites.

Still, something to think about.

[Melly]

If all of this game looks anything like this it'll make my eyes weep out of pure joy.

[Xion]

Thought it'd be cool if Outer Wall was a vertically scrolling level, travelling up, slowing down, stopping at the top, and then beginning to scroll back down again, slowing, stopping, and beginning again from the start.

edit: also, could a gauntlet-esque camera work, where the view sort of lies at the average of all players' coordinates, and if they get too far away from one another, they go outside of the view and die? No scaling, larger levels, happy people. Offscreen items could be represented by an icon at the edge of the screen. (Just an exclamation point or something, to reduce the sprite requirement)

Also also, AWESOME TILE AND LAYOUT IS AWESOME.

[Soulliard]

edit: also, could a gauntlet-esque camera work, where the view sort of lies at the average of all players' coordinates, and if they get too far away from one another, they go outside of the view and die? No scaling, larger levels, happy people. Offscreen items could be represented by an icon at the edge of the screen. (Just an exclamation point or something, to reduce the sprite requirement)

That's what I was thinking would work best, only I think the camera should zoom out if the characters are too far apart. Zoomed out pixel art is ugly, but random deaths are just not fun.

[Lucaz]

What of having empty areas at the sides of the level, filled with wall or nothing at all, so th camera can move slightly, without leaving player outside the screen? If the player are all on the left, the camera centers on them, and some of the right part of the level is out of the screen, and if they disperse, it centers back on the whole level.

[Zaphos]

That's what I was thinking would work best, only I think the camera should zoom out if the characters are too far apart. Zoomed out pixel art is ugly, but random deaths are just not fun.

If we zoom relatively quickly between integer zoom levels (1x, 2x, & 3x?) and assume a decent screen resolution (say, 1280x960 ish) to allow the 3x zoom to still show a decent amount of the level, then it might be okay visually?  Provided the transitions can be done without being too jarring.

[battlerager]

Yes, scrolling and then zooming out if the characters are too far away from each other.

We should at least TRY that. 

[Hideous]

That's what I was thinking would work best, only I think the camera should zoom out if the characters are too far apart. Zoomed out pixel art is ugly, but random deaths are just not fun.

If we zoom relatively quickly between integer zoom levels (1x, 2x, & 3x?) and assume a decent screen resolution (say, 1280x960 ish) to allow the 3x zoom to still show a decent amount of the level, then it might be okay visually?  Provided the transitions can be done without being too jarring.

You can't assume a resolution like that. I have 1280x800, for example. And not everyone has widescreen, either.

[Zaphos]

You can't assume a resolution like that. I have 1280x800, for example. And not everyone has widescreen, either.

Er, I didn't mean 'assume exactly that,' just assume something large enough.  Could also assume 'at least 1024x768' and just don't offer the third zoom level unless the screen resolution is large enough to make it useful.  The main thing is that the resolution needs to be large enough that 1x zoom is enough to show the full stage, 'cause you can't really go below that nicely.