Thaumaturge said:
Regarding content, one can likely get at least some models from free (or cheap) collections, which should remove much of the time constraint otherwise involved in such things.

I agree that as long as you are using something where it is nice and easy to import models, etc… they can serve as placeholders instead of primitives.

Thaumaturge said:
Someone did actually start making such a thing, as I recall. It looks like the project has seen slow updates over a fairly long period.

Yup, I saw this years ago, and I looked today to see it still seems to have little to no progress. I'll get on it soon enough though(maybe in a year or two, and I don't plan on taking 10 years to finish. I won't be able to make it AAA quality though, but I should be able to make it good enough to satisfy nostalgia.

kburkhart84 said:
I agree that as long as you are using something where it is nice and easy to import models, etc… they can serve as placeholders instead of primitives.

Honestly, I think that they can be more than placeholders--the better items can be final assets, I do think.

JoeJ said:
It lacks other NPCs, so the strategic part …

In all fairness, it is still a work-in-progress, I gather.

kburkhart84 said:
Yup, I saw this years ago, and I looked today to see it still seems to have little to no progress.

Indeed; before going back yesterday I thought that the project was abandoned, as I recall.

Still, the Steam page does indicate that it has had relatively-recent updates, so perhaps it's just moving slowly.

Thaumaturge said:
Honestly, I think that they can be more than placeholders--the better items can be final assets, I do think.

This is true, but just for the purpose of learning how to make 3d games I don't think it is worth worrying about the best assets, as despite some of the quality that is out there it still often takes tweaks to get styles matching. Even if not, it still takes time to find what you need. For a production quality game however, I agree that there are plenty of freely available assets that can make the cut, just some will need tweaking, some won't.

Thaumaturge said:
Still, the Steam page does indicate that it has had relatively-recent updates, so perhaps it's just moving slowly.

I saw that as well, which surprised me because I too thought it had been abandoned. Even so, I still have full intention on making such a thing eventually. I think UE4/5 would be a good fit for the game, though it requires either coding in some destructable terrain that isn't in UE4 yet(that I know of), or skipping that part of the game. I personally didn't think it was a big deal(for gameplay purposes I mean), but some people seem to swear that it was a really important part.

kburkhart84 said:
This is true, but just for the purpose of learning how to make 3d games I don't think it is worth worrying about the best assets, as despite some of the quality that is out there it still often takes tweaks to get styles matching. Even if not, it still takes time to find what you need. For a production quality game however, I agree that there are plenty of freely available assets that can make the cut, just some will need tweaking, some won't.

Very much agreed, on all points, I believe!

I suppose that I just don't want new devs to think that any third-party assets will necessarily need to be replaced; that if they get third-party assets, and their game takes off, that they'll have to somehow deal with making or contracting out custom assets.

kburkhart84 said:
Even so, I still have full intention on making such a thing eventually.

I mean, I see no reason that we shouldn't have more than one such revival! ^_^ For one thing, I daresay that there are a variety of directions in which it could be taken!

kburkhart84 said:
I personally didn't think it was a big deal(for gameplay purposes I mean …

I'm inclined to agree, myself. It was a neat feature, and one occasionally relevant to the progression of the levels, but not a major one.

Thaumaturge said:
I'm inclined to agree, myself. It was a neat feature, and one occasionally relevant to the progression of the levels, but not a major one.

There was only 2 places I remember you actually needing the terrain deformation spells.

1. In Magic Carpet, one level had you start with ONLY the one weaker terrain spell(crater I think), so it was really turned into a weapon. This use case was forced and one of the things I didn't like that much. In fact I'm not sure if my revival will have that whole spell loss thing like the original, and if I do, I doubt it will be as extreme as some of the original's levels were in that regard.
2. In Magic Carpet 2, one level, which happens to be where you pick up the “canyon” spell I think it is, also requires you to use it to get out of the level to the exit.

I don't remember anywhere else where those spells really mattered for anything, but maybe I forget.

Thaumaturge said:
I suppose that I just don't want new devs to think that any third-party assets will necessarily need to be replaced; that if they get third-party assets, and their game takes off, that they'll have to somehow deal with making or contracting out custom assets.

Seems we agree…some assets would likely be better replaced though if they don't fit the style, etc… and if they are simply not what is wanted for the thing. But not everything has to be replaced, unless simply everything doesn't fit or is bad quality to the point of the dev wanting/needing better.

I had forgotten about the dynamic terrain, but i well remember the visually growing base. Both used the same dynamic heightmap tech i think. A game where terrain modification did matter a lot was the somewhat similar Populous - likely some kind of predecessor, and maybe nowadays one could pull more ideas from that.

What i did not like about Magic Carpet was the stress to switch spells. Although the GUI was a good solution to manage all complexity without a need to memorize many keys. Back then i thought it is some kind of waste to require one of the two mouse buttons to occupy Mana. Maybe this could be automated. In the early game colorizing Mana is fun and rewarding so i would not remove it, but maybe there could be some auto-colorize-mana-spell later, which then shoots at Mana in sight without player action.

kburkhart84 said:
I don't remember anywhere else where those spells really mattered for anything, but maybe I forget.

I don't think that I recall the spells being all that useful, but I do think that I recall terrain deformation being part of the levels themselves at times.

kburkhart84 said:
Seems we agree…

Indeed, I believe that we do. ^_^

JoeJ said:
What i did not like about Magic Carpet was the stress to switch spells.

For me, I think that what I disliked was the attrition on progress; I felt like I was clawing myself forward little by little as the enemies dragged me ever and strongly back. It's not a type of progression that I overmuch like, I fear.

That said, it may well simply be that I didn't find the tactics that would have given me a stronger advance over the challenges of the levels.

Funnily enough, the capturing of mana is part of that, arguably: the fact that enemies could re-capture mana, or prevent balloons from taking it, made progress a more difficult thing.

JoeJ said:
What i did not like about Magic Carpet was the stress to switch spells.

Indeed this was a thing, though it didn't bother me that much. You could actually set shortcut keys but you had to do it every level and I never messed with getting used to that. But bet when I make mine part of the leveling process for the mana capture could be something either like on site, or within range(assuming no evil wizard is in range).

Thaumaturge said:
I don't think that I recall the spells being all that useful, but I do think that I recall terrain deformation being part of the levels themselves at times.

This is true. All too often you would die to a sudden volcano or a spreading canyon happening under you. I'm not 100% how I'm going to do this(or even which engine I'll choose), so I don't know how feasible that part will be. It did certainly make gameplay more interesting but I'm not sure I like the insta-death simply due to going over some specific spot that wasn't marked or anything.

Thaumaturge said:
That said, it may well simply be that I didn't find the tactics that would have given me a stronger advance over the challenges of the levels.

I'd say I got pretty good at the game. There were a couple levels here and there that gave issues…like level 49(I always called it clusterf*ck), because there were TONS of the wyvern dragon things and you never get a chance to even build your castle, while Vodor starts with a full-sized castle. The only way to generally beat that is to get the dragon things, and the birds that shoot lightning, to go after Vodor's castle, and build yours close enough to steal the mana. There is so much activity that it isn't reliable, but at the least that same activity means that you don't have to worry about losing the mana itself(just the castle)…as long as you don't die.

Thaumaturge said:
Funnily enough, the capturing of mana is part of that, arguably: the fact that enemies could re-capture mana, or prevent balloons from taking it, made progress a more difficult thing.

I actually think this is kinda an important part of the gameplay. I don't think I would change the way that part is. The enemies couldn't take back mana(except the crabs that could eat it and get stronger), but they could fight your gathering balloons. It adds a bit more “stuff to do” which is a good thing in my opinion since it makes a certain sense.

kburkhart84 said:
It did certainly make gameplay more interesting but I'm not sure I like the insta-death simply due to going over some specific spot that wasn't marked or anything.

kburkhart84 said:
I actually think this is kinda an important part of the gameplay.

I would argue that other mechanics could likely be included in both cases, resulting in a game that retains the complexity of the original while nevertheless lacking those specific elements.

kburkhart84 said:
I don't think I would change the way that part is.

And that's fair! If I were remaking it, I might change that element (and others)--but we're discussing your project, and so I won't gainsay your making it to suit your preferences!

kburkhart84 said:
The enemies couldn't take back mana …

If I recall correctly, the enemy wizards could claim mana, just as the player could.

Thaumaturge said:
I would argue that other mechanics could likely be included in both cases, resulting in a game that retains the complexity of the original while nevertheless lacking those specific elements.

100% true. Or the mechanics could be changed to simply not be so fatal.

Thaumaturge said:
And that's fair! If I were remaking it, I might change that element (and others)--but we're discussing your project, and so I won't gainsay your making it to suit your preferences!

Of course, I just express opinion on it. As was said earlier there is space for more. And my opinion may not be the best way either so I'm always open to others.

Thaumaturge said:
If I recall correctly, the enemy wizards could claim mana, just as the player could.

You recall correctly of course. I actually was counting the wizards as separate from the enemies, though yes indeed they are still enemies. They were a pain sometimes too, like I just turn around to look and see if that black blip on the radar is a wyvern I can't handle yet and I turn back around to find the mana I just collected some color other than white.