Print

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

[Torak]

What would the object that need graphics be, are we using ASCII or graphics, or a Mix?

[Dark]

Well while ASCII is awesome in its own unique way, I think we would be using some kind of isometric, tile based pixel art. We'll need a tile for every terrain type as well as tiles for where different terrain meet. Then I think we would add objects on top of that, like trees and rocks. How I have no idea, but the base of trees would be impassable, while the tops of trees would cover other tiles while being passable, but objects under them would be hidden behind the graphic. Or something like that anyway, I should find some kind of reference picture...

[ March 08, 2008: Message edited by: Dark ]

[Fenrir]

quote:Originally posted by Boksi:
<STRONG>I took a course in game design. In fact, today was the day I finished said course.</STRONG>

Awesome. Have you any wisdom to share?

[Kagus]

I would like to point out that 2D graphics can look quite nice.  From what I've seen of Illarion, the graphics are just fine (and looking at some of the spells, most certainly tile based).  The only missing component would be the animations, something which I feel is particularly needed.

I'd rather have a junky looking character that moved around and interacted with his environment than a really cool looking one that stayed in the exact same pose for eternity.

However, graphics on the scale of Illarion would require full-scale graphical artists, not just knights of the pixel.  I don't know if we have anyone of that type around here.

Illarion has changing terrain (thus allowing the placing of crop fields and the construction of buildings/statues), and at least a rudimentary elevation system (might just be a trick of the eye thanks to some well-made isometric graphics), but I don't think you can actually dig into the ground.  I haven't played Wurm Online, so I don't know what it looked like or acted like when you dug into a hill or a mountain.

[Boksi]

C# is okay with me. Never liked that note, though.

And when you speak of isometric, dost thou speaketh of this?

The tunnel is terrible, but the rest is decent.

And remember, elevation is just another variable, although it makes some things like projectiles more difficult.

[qwertyuiopas]

Wurm has 2 heightmaps, one above ground, and one below.
C# is not as much C as .net, and that is just confusing, and it puts it's own window code in, slowing everything down, but it has the code for premade components so it is more a simple personal choice.

[Kagus]

It also has a built-in stupidity deflection system.  You can't program a suicidal doomsday device as easily in C# as you can in C++.

[Dark]

Boski thats pretty much it, except more detailed. But for the sake of simplicity I think we should stick with + shapes rather than x shapes, otherwise movement would be kind of tricky and hard to get used to. The deeper people can dig the better, so if we can have a tonne of elevations I think we should.

[Kagus]

X shapes would work better in an isometric view than + shapes, I think.  And it won't take people that long to get used to.  Hell, Diablo worked on an X grid, and you didn't see that deter people!

But if we're going for a top-down view instead, + shapes would indeed be better.

[Dark]

Well I would like to get a mix between form and function, but if people are alright with X grids then theres no reason why not. We could probably use the keypad for controls.

[ March 09, 2008: Message edited by: Dark ]

[Kagus]

Well, I'm currently running on a laptop, which doesn't have a keypad.  I had to switch the numpad secondary menu keys around so that I could play DF, so it would be nice if you at least provided the functionality for shifting controls over to the main keyboard.

[Dark]

We'll be sure to do that. If we ever get started that is.  

[Soulwynd]

I thought of making a DF mud sort of thing. Not exactly a mud, since it would need its own client to be more decentralized. I don't think the programming would be hard, but then I didn't think of adding all the details toady puts in his own game. I've done things like that before, it's not hard, I just don't have the patience or dedication anymore.

I can give a hand if people start a project like this tho. I don't mind coordinating projects or giving programming hints, since I've done it before.

[Dark]

Well I reckon we should do something. If everyone agrees with C# then maybe we could go through this tutorial that I miraculously found: http://www.publicjoe.f9.co.uk/csharp/tut/tut.html

Then once we're novice programmers rather than simply dabbling, we can try and organise outselves better. Then maybe we'll experiment with the code a bit to see if we can create any remotely game-like program. Then after a while we might become even become programmers rather than simple novices.

Then we coordinate our efforts and put what we learned to the test, or we fail and give up, if we havent given up earlier on.

If we dont all agree on C# we can try using C++ or something, but whatever we do we should do it soon. Talk doesnt give experience or get any work done. Once we get started it should get easier, or harder then easier. Or just harder, but easier to progress! Or perhaps not, who knows...

[Fenrir]

quote:Originally posted by Dark:
<STRONG>Talk doesnt give experience</STRONG>

Sure it can! It can even make you superdwarvenly strong!