Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[voodooattack]

Well, I'm still waiting for more input from others before I decide if I want to keep this.

Reposting for new page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQbD_krM_Uo
Another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZSMrU1z4c

Too bad YouTube ruins the video quality. I'll be posting WebM videos on Dropbox from now on.

Now I need to put a description of how to look at it..

Imagine a top-down view, level with character's head where the character occupies two z-levels simultaneously (everything from the waist-down is shaded a bit darker), up ramps on the left, down ramps on the right and in the middle is the ground, the lighter layer is level with the head (1 z-level up), the slightly darker one in the middle is the ground, the much darker layer on the right is what lies below. (1 z-level down)

Just struggling to describe it like this alone is making me anxious.

That actually works really well for me. It's a little harder to tell what's going on than I imagine it will be in the full game, simply because all of the terrain is the exact same shade and you don't have any other entities or shrubs or anything to give your eyes a reference point. Plus, yellow is about the ugliest shade progression you can get in an ascii game. But I think it'll work really really well when you have more stuff on screen to work with.

Not sure about other people, so hopefully they'll come in and give their opinions soon.

Well, I agree about the yellow shade. But in the full game it might also look more confusing when it's full of details. I guess we'll have to wait and see for ourselves. I'll try to add foliage next to check, items can wait for now.

Seems decipherable to me. It'll be nice to play, it seems.

It does look really nice to me.

Thanks for the input guys! I'm feeling a bit more confident about it now.

[voodooattack]

Edit: oops, double post.

[Sheb]

Maybe use minecraft as an analogy? After all, there too the character occupy 2 voxels.

[voodooattack]

Maybe use minecraft as an analogy? After all, there too the character occupy 2 voxels.

Minecraft doesn't have ramps though.

[Sheb]

Do you need ramps though? Why not get rid of ramps altogether?

[voodooattack]

Do you need ramps though? Why not get rid of ramps altogether?

How else would you distinguish a scalable slope from a sheer cliff face in a top-down view?

[Sheb]

Well, if players can climb 1 z-levels, since you display one z-level above and below player can walk on anything the see and nothing else.


Edit: Also, entities could have a value stating how much they can climb in one goes, letting giant and mammoth step over stuff the player can't.

[voodooattack]

Removing ramps is quite the daring move though, I'm not ready to take such a leap just yet. I'm not even sure if that would make things look less confusing to begin with.

Entities will have their movement controlled by scripts. They can leap if the scripts allow them do so for all I know. Same goes for multi-cell entities, although I assume those will move differently.

[Sheb]

The more I think about it, the less I think ramps are a good idea. They add a lot of complexity (places where liquid is not at full depth for exemple. Then can you build on ramps? What about rolling items?

Going the minecraft way seems simpler to me. But hey, your call.

[voodooattack]

So this is better?

[Sappho]

I like that. It's my favorite so far.

[Gamerlord]

How do we tell where the ramps are?

[Sappho]

I think there are no more ramps. The player can cross 1 z-level, like steps.

[Gamerlord]

Ah, makes sense.

[voodooattack]

Yes, no ramps, just edges you can step over to the next level. Kind of like Minecraft. (although I don't play it myself)
The concept will need lots of work to flesh it out. I wouldn't choose it personally but if people like it I'll just have to work with it. So please post your opinion!