Print

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

[JohnieRWilkins]

Well if you only have one sprite, you'll have sliding/teleporting sprites that make no sense whatsoever.

[Align]

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc15/Domining/df2/gg.png
http://alcopop.org/games/7_ethereals.png

I dunno, Starcraft has very few walls, and I believe you can't move behind them anyway. And XCOM has only tall or hovering creatures, which are guaranteed to be partially visible above the edge of the wall.

[Mike Mayday]

That's right, dude. Keep on posting those screenshots.

Animations sure would be nice but in no way necessary.

[Tormy]

Well if you only have one sprite, you'll have sliding/teleporting sprites that make no sense whatsoever.

Well I've seen this 1 sprite method in many games...and I always liked it. However those were 2d games. I am not sure that how would it look like in iso/cavalier style.

[Granite26]

That's right, dude. Keep on posting those screenshots.

Animations sure would be nice but in no way necessary.

He does make a good point though.  The better the graphics get, the more disruptive the single sprite will be

[JohnieRWilkins]

I dunno, Starcraft has very few walls, and I believe you can't move behind them anyway. And XCOM has only tall or hovering creatures, which are guaranteed to be partially visible above the edge of the wall.

Yea, the gates that were in SC were only placeable in the 1,3,7,9 position. Here:


Mike Mayday, eat a big bagel.

[Mike Mayday]

Granite: Meh, considering the still minuscule size, it really won't be any different than what we have now. It will be like figures sliding across a chess board.
Want me to make an animated gif?

[Granite26]

nah, I don't think we're into 'problem' range yet... it's just... something to be aware of

[scribbler]

a basic set using what we have, as opposed to what we wish we had.

If it was doable in any way besides what has already been done, it would have been done already.

Bollocks. If Dwarf Fortress was at all doable it would have been done, but it wasn't, Toady was the first. There always has to be a first.
I merely felt to give my two cents, specifically, what can be done given not only what we have but what we're likely to have in the near future and what development on our part might be reciprocated by Toady. Something that could attain a tangible result. You felt that zooming might be useful, well a nice graphics to go along with that would give toady something to think about.
Being a Mac/Linux guy I hardly expect to get any use from the results anyway, but if we're going to talk fantasy why not go for the full 3D? Dungeon Keeper had 3D complexes. What about the Quake engine? 3D glasses and multitouch screens?
There is no need to be snarky and no need to tell me you weren't being such to myself or other posters. I'm going back to threads where people recognise a game is meant to be fun and discussion is for the purpose of discussing.
You can have your bridge. Good luck.

[Davion]

I like the top-down view, but I also like a bit of perspective, so I tried something really quick.

Maybe something like this so there's no obstruction, and you can see all the walls for engravings, etc:



A hallway connecting two rooms:

[Mike Mayday]

A hallway connecting two rooms:

Whoooooa.. now THAT looks confusing

[Davion]

Escher dwarves

[Mike Mayday]

Scribbler, first you say:

a basic set using what we have, as opposed to what we wish we had.

and then you're telling me that by that you meant

what can be done given not only what we have but what we're likely to have in the near future

Are you still surprised that I didn't understand you?
And, what's funny enough, I STILL don't understand what you're talking about! What would you like to see? A basic (but completed) tileset for a feature that has not been implemented? A coherent and complete mockup of one of the methods?

[Silverionmox]

A hallway connecting two rooms:

This one has without question the best visibility of the wall sides. A top-down view also has the advantage of architectural and strategical clarity.
On the down side, displaying multiple levels at once is kinda limited this way without sacrificing the simplicity of the graphics.

[Footkerchief]

Look at how you drew the corners for one room by itself -- you did proper convergence, i.e. there's a vanishing point.  However, you have a different vanishing point for each room, which makes it look like they're angled toward each other.  Not gonna work out.

Speaking of vanishing points, I saw curiously little discussion of this:

I particulerly support better handling of slices lower in elevation. Wasn't one idea just to scale progressivly every z-level beneath the current one and use a parallax? That could work wonders with things like towers and pits, depending on if we scale up or down the size of lower levels.

It really seems like the most promising approach to me.  The main issue is what to do about the vertical surfaces connecting z-levels, which of course don't actually exist in the game.