next »

[Strong]

It all depends on what kind of game you're working on. At one point, I tried making a game where you were able to jump as many times as you wanted in the air and had do dodge obstacles, so it required very small, precise jumps, but of course that wouldn't work for most games.

[Anthony Flack]

Right, but this only works in a game with absolutely zero instant kill traps. If you have pits, spikes, or anything even remotely dangerous to the protagonist, you can't have high inertia, or it will frustrate the player when they can't control where they're going and careen for the thousandth time into a pit of spikes.

More precisely, you need to avoid having any obstacle appear too unexpectedly. If it takes your character one second to turn around, it's unfair having things pop up with half a second's notice. Avoiding spike pits is fine (and after all the whole reason they are there is to present a challenge to avoid them), providing that you can see them coming in time to do something about it.

Otherwise you may as well say that all challenge should be removed in order to avoid frustrating the player. Remember that high inertia is not the same thing as "uncontrollable".

[Valter]

It is, though. That's the point. The longer it takes to switch directions, the harder it is to control characters, because it's harder to compensate for the time-lag between giving the command and the command being executed. And games with high inertia have a tendency to include things like trampolines and double jumps, which make it even harder to predict where exactly you're going to go when you press the jump button.

[Jad]

Right, but this only works in a game with absolutely zero instant kill traps. If you have pits, spikes, or anything even remotely dangerous to the protagonist, you can't have high inertia, or it will frustrate the player when they can't control where they're going and careen for the thousandth time into a pit of spikes.

More precisely, you need to avoid having any obstacle appear too unexpectedly. If it takes your character one second to turn around, it's unfair having things pop up with half a second's notice. Avoiding spike pits is fine (and after all the whole reason they are there is to present a challenge to avoid them), providing that you can see them coming in time to do something about it.

Haha, you do realize that the Sega Genesis Sonic games all had these insta-spike-traps and super high inertia? : D

And they made it work.

Or did they? = 3=;

[Anthony Flack]

I don't think they did. I always had a problem with the Sonic games because you ended up running flat-tack into something you couldn't anticipate. They just expected you to remember.

However I very much disagree that high inertia=uncontrollable. I mentioned Sega Rally before, a game with very high inertia, and yet the controls are extremely sensitive and capable of great finesse. You have to learn to drive the car well. That's the game.

[Candlejack]

What if the game gave you the ability to instantly reverse your inertia(or invert it on either its x or y axis)?

[Loren Schmidt]

Games with zero or low acceleration time are definitely valid. I'm making a game with low acceleration time myself. But there are plenty of games with a significant amount of acceleration time that still feel very responsive. I don't think arguing over which is "better" really makes a lot of sense. It's easy to make straw man arguments about either type of game, but I think it would be more productive to exchange ideas rather than trying to shoot down any one type of game on general principle.

I just put up the Super Mario demo. It's a relatively accurate clone with (thinly) redone art and sound. The first one lets you try to tune it yourself, while the second one has Mario tuning. If you fiddle around, you can get pretty close to SMW/Yoshi's Island tuning as well. 
http://www.game-feel.com/chapter-13-demo-super-scarfman-is-up/

These are neat, Steve. This is a really good exercise. In the model you use here, are you using a different value for gravity while the jump key is initially pressed, then changing it once the key is released?

[Anthony Flack]

Yes, I think the point is that high, low and in-between inertia are all valid, providing the game as a whole is set up to accomodate.

Shooters almost always have zero inertia, but there are exceptions (Defender, Juno First).

Racing games almost always have high inertia... I guess a zero-inertia racer would be something like those Irritating Stick games.

Platformers can go either way, from Sonic at one extreme to Miner Willy at the other.

[BMcC]

I like to think that game feel is one of my strengths, particularly for platformers.  I don't use any one particular system or set of rules, though -- I like to feel it out naturally and tweak as I go.  (You gotta feel it!)

That's what I did for BQ, anyway.  (Which reminds me... what do you think about the latest build, Steve?  I think it's at a pretty good place, feel-wise.  And it'll make more and more sense as new gameplay elements are added.)

[Kneecaps]

I was starting a platformer in Flash a few days ago, and after I found this thread, I made some changes in the basic movement of the main character dude to hopefully give it a better feel.  I know that Flash games are often criticized of having movement that doesn't feel just right, so I want to improve that in my games.  It'd be awesome if you could let me know how the movement feels and if I should make any changes to the movement so far.

link

[BMcC]

My first impression:  I think accelerating a bit slower and decelerating a bit faster would feel better.

[Kneecaps]

Here's a version with slower acceleration and higher friction.  Do you think I added too much?  Not enough?

Thanks for your input.  The movement in N was the main reason that I couldn't play the game, and I'm hoping that I can improve on that.

[salade]

I loved the movement in N! but each to his own...

Dude, if your gonna drop controls that have slow acceleration like that, than the game evironment can't be that cramped. anyway, this is kinkd of in direct disagreement with Brandon, but I thought the first one was better. the precise control made it easier to navigate the cramped environment, and although the higher friction is a good idea, the friction in the first one was good enough.

wouldn't be cool to have a game where you are supposed to adjust these things on the fly? there's already sparky's tool, and platformajigger, but what about where adjusting the gravity and friction are part of the game play? that way the controls would not have to be tailored to one gameplay style.

[Kneecaps]

Dude, if your gonna drop controls that have slow acceleration like that, than the game evironment can't be that cramped. anyway, this is kinkd of in direct disagreement with Brandon, but I thought the first one was better. the precise control made it easier to navigate the cramped environment, and although the higher friction is a good idea, the friction in the first one was good enough.

Actually, the final game is going to be much more open.  It's just that I didn't feel like making a full-sized map.  It's also not going to feature TOO much platforming, but I felt that what little platforming it had should be good anyways.

[salade]

Actually, the final game is going to be much more open. 

:handthumbsupL: Nice

[BMcC]

...
Dude, if your gonna drop controls that have slow acceleration like that, than the game evironment can't be that cramped. anyway, this is kinkd of in direct disagreement with Brandon, but I thought the first one was better. the precise control made it easier to navigate the cramped environment, and although the higher friction is a good idea, the friction in the first one was good enough.
...

Nah, I think I like the first one better too.  (I said "a bit." )

Then again, I'm on a different computer right now.  I remember the first one being a good bit less controllable than it seems now...  Is it possible that this is machine dependent?