Big map, small character, big moves
Diablo sized... Starcraft Marine sized... or your typical 3rd person, 1000+ poly view sized character...
How far back do you think you can zoom the view for an isometric 3/4 view cRPG before the game becomes undesirable to play?
I''m especially interested in a character that can do a bunch of special moves (kicks, blocks); navigate the environment (tightrope walking, mantling); and interact with the environment (switches, people, etc.)
Obviously, you''ve got to be able to distinguish what''s what. But recently I''ve been waking up to how important it is to some people to be able to see their character in detail and see that detail change. (Oddly enough, me-- I want to see as much of the screen as possible, so I can practically be a speck as long as I can see what''s what).
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...
For a gun oriented game (running around shooting things) I think you can pull back far, ie. Starcraft marine. Basic interaction (switches, etc) are still possible as long as you make the activation area forgiving. For anything that involves close combat (swords, fists) you need to be close or the game is impossible to play well.
If I were to design an RPG I''d set a roughly Starcraft-sized view. My reasoning is that at times I''d have large creatures or many of them near the player at once and big spells that affect large areas. My good friend likes just the opposite. He likes to see facial expressions and detail on everything.
Power to the players! Auto-camera should ALWAYS be somewhat customizable, even if the only camera options are "Favor Close-ups" and "Wide-View".
If it isn''t too much, there should also be some way to zoom in/out (if you''re using a mouse interface, maybe you could put the slider in the middle of the buttons on most modern mice to good use) so that when the camera glitches (as it will at least once in a while if you''re not one of the Gods of Programming), the player can fix it.
If it isn''t too much, there should also be some way to zoom in/out (if you''re using a mouse interface, maybe you could put the slider in the middle of the buttons on most modern mice to good use) so that when the camera glitches (as it will at least once in a while if you''re not one of the Gods of Programming), the player can fix it.
I swear, this is going to become my answer to everything. "It depends"
You can get further out by making the character''s status relatively unimportant compared to the position within the environment. Altering the interface (clicks and mouse driven) to do that even more. With annotations and automated character actions to many things, you can have a lot of the game be pretty far out. So, as long as you can see clearly where your character is, what to react to, and what to interact with, it''ll work. Oh, and what''s the monitor size on the target person''s computer?
I''d guess that you could get to around a 8 point o on 1024x768 if not a smaller size.
You can get further out by making the character''s status relatively unimportant compared to the position within the environment. Altering the interface (clicks and mouse driven) to do that even more. With annotations and automated character actions to many things, you can have a lot of the game be pretty far out. So, as long as you can see clearly where your character is, what to react to, and what to interact with, it''ll work. Oh, and what''s the monitor size on the target person''s computer?
I''d guess that you could get to around a 8 point o on 1024x768 if not a smaller size.
Read the game development postmortem article on Tropico. Here''s a quote under ''What went wrong'' :
=========
3. Fun factor versus gee-whiz factor. Because we started with an existing engine, one of the errors that we made during development was to see how far we could push the envelope with the engine, working on "gee whiz" enhancements that would improve the look and the technology of the game instead of features that would enhance gameplay.
The biggest example of this was what we dubbed "Zoom 0." As the graphics in Tropico were much more detailed than RT2''s, we looked for ways to show off these gorgeous images in the game. Allowing the engine to zoom in one level closer than it had previously been able to (Zoom 1) was one of the ways that we did this. In Tropico, players can zoom in very close and get very detailed views of the people and the buildings.
Unfortunately, Zoom 0 is not very useful for gameplay, as it is almost impossible to see enough of the map at that zoom level to get a feeling for how you should play. The majority of players tend to stay zoomed out about two levels, occasionally zooming in or out one level as the situation warrants.
O.K., so we added a feature that allowed us to show off the graphics even if it didn''t help gameplay. What''s the big deal? The deal is that we pre-scaled all of the images for the various zooms beforehand and stored them in the data file, so these high-resolution close-up graphics ate up as much space as all the other zoom levels'' graphics combined. We spent a full 50 percent of our graphics budget on this one feature. As we got deep into the project, it became apparent that memory and CD file space budgets were going to be tight, but we had invested too much into this feature to be comfortable with cutting it. Ultimately, we had to cut other features to create space, features which would have improved the game. Rotatable buildings, more unit animations, and repeating animations on the buildings (such as blinking lights and moving machinery) all had to be cut to make room.
Looking back, it is apparent that tossing out Zoom 0 and putting in more gameplay-friendly features would have been a big net improvement to the overall game.
=========
It''s at http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20011010/smith_03.htm
=========
3. Fun factor versus gee-whiz factor. Because we started with an existing engine, one of the errors that we made during development was to see how far we could push the envelope with the engine, working on "gee whiz" enhancements that would improve the look and the technology of the game instead of features that would enhance gameplay.
The biggest example of this was what we dubbed "Zoom 0." As the graphics in Tropico were much more detailed than RT2''s, we looked for ways to show off these gorgeous images in the game. Allowing the engine to zoom in one level closer than it had previously been able to (Zoom 1) was one of the ways that we did this. In Tropico, players can zoom in very close and get very detailed views of the people and the buildings.
Unfortunately, Zoom 0 is not very useful for gameplay, as it is almost impossible to see enough of the map at that zoom level to get a feeling for how you should play. The majority of players tend to stay zoomed out about two levels, occasionally zooming in or out one level as the situation warrants.
O.K., so we added a feature that allowed us to show off the graphics even if it didn''t help gameplay. What''s the big deal? The deal is that we pre-scaled all of the images for the various zooms beforehand and stored them in the data file, so these high-resolution close-up graphics ate up as much space as all the other zoom levels'' graphics combined. We spent a full 50 percent of our graphics budget on this one feature. As we got deep into the project, it became apparent that memory and CD file space budgets were going to be tight, but we had invested too much into this feature to be comfortable with cutting it. Ultimately, we had to cut other features to create space, features which would have improved the game. Rotatable buildings, more unit animations, and repeating animations on the buildings (such as blinking lights and moving machinery) all had to be cut to make room.
Looking back, it is apparent that tossing out Zoom 0 and putting in more gameplay-friendly features would have been a big net improvement to the overall game.
=========
It''s at http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20011010/smith_03.htm
I would like the character to be no less than 1/5 the screen height at anytime, prolly not even less than 1/4.
Depends if I need to use wide ranged weapons, I would hate to be unable to target something into the weapon range because of a max unzooming level.
The size of the character on screen depends on the emphasize of the game.
If the game evolve around my character I would expect it to be fairly big and detailed, if the game is much more about exploring wide areas, then my character can be smaller and less detailed. (but still follow previously mentionned sizes)
Obvioulsy if my character can do subtle actions, some which I can see within some range, I wouldn''t expect the camera to let me go out of that range (what''s the point in having facial animation if I only see the face as 5*5 pixels ?).
(but still follow the ranged weapon rule above, or provide an alternate viewing mode/targetting mode)
I think that everyone agrees it depends on the game style and gameplay.
RPG : big size, detailed character.
Exploration : medium size, detailed character
Hack&Slash : medium size, medium detail character.
RTS : small size, low detail character.
The thing is don''t let the player unzoom if it removes all your great work, a game is a piece of art, no matter what some thinks, and it would be a shame all the time you spent in coding those littles extras and making those details is wasted because the player unzoom too much.
(BTW the player shouldn''t have to unzoom that much, revise your gameplay if he does and you don''t want)
-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-
Depends if I need to use wide ranged weapons, I would hate to be unable to target something into the weapon range because of a max unzooming level.
The size of the character on screen depends on the emphasize of the game.
If the game evolve around my character I would expect it to be fairly big and detailed, if the game is much more about exploring wide areas, then my character can be smaller and less detailed. (but still follow previously mentionned sizes)
Obvioulsy if my character can do subtle actions, some which I can see within some range, I wouldn''t expect the camera to let me go out of that range (what''s the point in having facial animation if I only see the face as 5*5 pixels ?).
(but still follow the ranged weapon rule above, or provide an alternate viewing mode/targetting mode)
I think that everyone agrees it depends on the game style and gameplay.
RPG : big size, detailed character.
Exploration : medium size, detailed character
Hack&Slash : medium size, medium detail character.
RTS : small size, low detail character.
The thing is don''t let the player unzoom if it removes all your great work, a game is a piece of art, no matter what some thinks, and it would be a shame all the time you spent in coding those littles extras and making those details is wasted because the player unzoom too much.
(BTW the player shouldn''t have to unzoom that much, revise your gameplay if he does and you don''t want)
-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-
Small! Even the characters on Baldur''s Gate are too big for me; I forever find myself clicking, moving the window, clicking, moving the window... tedious. I could cope with Starcraft marine size, as long as they were distinctive. That could come down to resolution as much as anything. 32x32 characters on a 1024x768 screen is probably my preferred scale... just big enough for you to be able to make out different armour and weapons on a character, yet small enough to be able to pack a lot into one screen. You may want to be able to zoom in for those tricky tasks such as the balancing and so on, but that''s not just about zooming in - it''s about having useful visual cues that make it worth zooming in for. You might also want to zoom in for in-game cutscenes and dialogue too, to make it more intimate.
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]
Personally I like to see whats coming, problem is though, seeing that button on the wall, etc. You would need to make them either big, or bright and flashing (or some other ghastly attention grabbing effect).
One option would be to have the main screen as a small map, and the have a "close-up" window in one courner of the screen so you can see you character "in action" and prehaps spot that badly hidden trigger in front of you.
NightWraith
One option would be to have the main screen as a small map, and the have a "close-up" window in one courner of the screen so you can see you character "in action" and prehaps spot that badly hidden trigger in front of you.
NightWraith
NightWraith
A bit off topic:
Assuming you use a point&click interface to move the character, kylotan is right.
Although NWN have a view centered on the character and it works well.
What about a Resident Evil interface ?
[up is in front of the character, it''s not related to the viewpoint at all]
-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-
Assuming you use a point&click interface to move the character, kylotan is right.
Although NWN have a view centered on the character and it works well.
What about a Resident Evil interface ?
[up is in front of the character, it''s not related to the viewpoint at all]
-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement