[project1dev] Re: Project1 - SVN Update 270
- From: katie cook <ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
My bad E =P I have had no idea really how far/deep you guys were wanting to go
(hence me saying I wasn't for sure. I though I caught a while back you guys
mentioning launch on XBLA and I just got arcade in my head. Thanks for the
clarification E.
With my new understanding of the game =), I am on board with all the previously
mentioned scenarious on abilities for jumping/armor, etc. Not that I wasn't
before, I was just slightly concerned about overthinking simplistics.
--- On Wed, 6/24/09, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [project1dev] Re: Project1 - SVN Update 270
To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 6:27 AM
i want to explicitely thank chris, alan and katie for offering the counter
points to my original thought, i really think having alternate perspectives of
things will allow us to fully explore elements of game design like this and
that it will ultimately deliver a better, more intuitive and most importantly
more FUN gaming experience. I do not mind debating the points as I have done
below because frankly, if I cannot defend the game design philosophy then the
system we're discussing is probably broken and i need to work on it some
more. besides that, it has been my experience in designing the combat with
nick that when debating ideas like this it occasionally inspires great new
ideas. I actually consider this to be a vital part of "pre-testing" so please,
I encourage you to continue offering your insights and perspectives!
To give you a specific example, your idea about armor making you
slower and jump shorter will generally make players avoid doing that
in any instance they can. In action based games, skilled players will
go towards what is as fast and damaging as possible, and will avoid
things like that on purpose.
- this is by design, we want to encourage people who are exploring to use
lighter armor, it makes no sense to go on a journey into a mysterious temple
that is bound to have traps, puzzles, etc. in full plate armor. We want that
style of armor to be reserved for people who accept the penalty of
speed/jumping for the enhanced ability to take hits without getting damage.
this is a player choice.
Also, having injuries slow you down will make players feel like they
can't be damaged. For things like this you want to flip the tables,
and instead create armor that gives players more speed, but they take
more damage. It might seem like a small thing, but in the eyes of a
player it can make a huge difference in gameplay.
- also by design. We want players to feel like there are concequences to being
injured and it should be avoided as much as possible. There are penalties for
being injured or dying - that is a major part of the combat design here. We
are trying to break away from the constant healing/ressurection that has been
the common thread in most rpgs. we're trying to get away from the attrition
system. more info on this below
Basically ask yourself if you would play the game and have fun doing
the things you imagine.
- one of my favorite gaming experiences is america's army, and what makes it so
great and so immersive is that you are constantly in fear of your life so there
is actual tension on the battle field, its not like tf2 where you run out, spam
attacks and if you get killed, oh well, respawn. I love the idea of players
figuring out the best strategies to stay alive and learning tactics and skills
to do it. yes, it is a challenge - but that is what makes it so great! Another
game I love, as alan pointed out, is gemstone. Gemstone was ruthless with one
shot kills, getting your leg chopped off and not being able to climb stuff,
etc. like there's areas in the game you have to take your armor off and be
athletic enough to jump in order to make it over there. staying alive is a
major part of that game and everytime you got hit, you would bleed and feel the
effects of it. as a player you had to learn to adapt your skills and player
style to prevent
yourself from getting damaged as much as possible. this is a key element to
the game design we are trying to go with. so to answer your question - yes, i
think it'd be fun :P
Okay guys, this is just my opinion. =) For me when I play arcade-ish style
games like I the ones I think (if I understand correctly) that we are trying to
make, I think Chris has got a really good point. I like to take the easiest
route possible to get to the next step. Not that we should flake on stuff. But
we should make sure to not scrutinize/overthink things too much if that makes
sense.
- this is an rpg, not an arcade game! :P the emphasis is on exploration, not
just going as quickly as you can to get to the next level (although you can if
you so choose). what makes rpg's (and adventure games) fun for me is finding
all the little secrets that are hidden all over the world. also, everyone is
acting like 5 settings is so complex, really the first one is only for special
case scenarios and isn't meant to be used during actual gameplay, and the 5th
one is really only to serve as a special thing for use like spells, flying,
etc. there are only 3 main ones, a weak jump for heavily armored players, a
normal one for most people, and a long jump for people who choose to sacrifice
armor for speed and manueverability
I'd bet this jump level thing would more or less be invisible / automatic to
the player. Like when you were heavier you just dont jump as high or as far.
The player might not know there are 5 levels of jumping ability, they might
just realize "hey when i take off my armor i can make that jump to that cave i
couldnt get to before" (and of course maybe an NPC tips you off to that fact).
Or there are boots that have the description of "wear to be able to jump higher"
-right, this is all an under the hood system. its funny because when i write
stories, etc. i try to keep things as close to the vest because i like the
reader to be surprised, i like keeping a mystery and something for them to
discover for themselves. this is also true in my game design philosophy, give
players a ton of neat stuff they can find out for themselves if they want to...
the irony is, as a team we're ALL under the hood so i have to express all the
hidden things to you guys so it can get made/discussed, but then everyone is
like "oh that is overly complicated there's no reason for that!" without
putting themselves in the shoes of the player who doesn't even know the system
exists and that its just there for them to discover if they are curious and
interested.
5 different jumps will matter only as much as we design the game for
them to matter. In Diablo 2, the barb jump skill only let you cross
certain terrain that wasn't walkable, so having so many different jump
lengths was easily solved - just make the pits larger. If we can find
an easy solution in our game - an equivalent to "just making the pits
larger" - then we can add as many jumps as we want, and even make them
scale into flying!
I recently learned how to do the shinespark tricks in Metroid
Redesign, and if we could make our jumps in the game require a skill
curve somehow, that would reward the player for the ability to jump
higher... almost like how in 3d Mario games, you have to jump right as
you hit the ground again, within a certain amount of time, so you can
do the triple jump.
-i actually view it as a really simple system that allows for a lot of neat
versatility in game design and player strategy... something that allows for
more skill based movement if people are interested because i know some crazy
people (like nick) enjoy finding crazy challenges and trying to exploit
gameplay tools to get into areas, etc. i think that is fun and great and
should be part of our design. i picked 5 as the number so there would be
differences between teh playing styles while keeping things we needed to
design/test for to the minimum.
okay so lets get down to brass tacks here (how much for the monkey?) (3 adunai
points to whoever gets the reference)
IMO we have 2 options:
a) 2 jump system - 1 for armor too heavy for you (basically, non-jumping) and 1
for normal.
pros: easier to design for, easier to test for, no need to think about armor
choices for the player beyond "is it too heavy?"
cons: less versatile, no differences between wearing light/heavy/medium armor
for adventurers, no hidden areas only accessible by people who invest and
discover ways to jump farther.
b) 5 jump system - as illustrated above
pros: more for the player to discover, another "tool" in our tool box, gives
extra strengths/weaknesses when picking armor and character style
cons: harder to design/test, may baffle some characters.
now obviously i am biased towards B (the 5 jump system) so my pitch for it is,
it'll be simpler in practice for the player/designer than it may seem to you
right now, it's important for game balance between heavy/light armor, players
can really just make sure they are at level 3 (normal) and they will be able to
get through the entire game without worrying about the difference in jump so i
think there is zero bafflement chance, and it gives us another neat tool for
desiging exploration and hidden stuff in the game.
I am definitely open-minded and can be convinced to go with A) - so lets open
it up to the forum and take a little poll and if you want to post
comments/thoughts/ideas - then it'll give us more information to make a good
and intelligent decision.
:)
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:55 AM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
i didnt have time to read everythign yet but basically here is my take...
level 1 is basically a "your character is broken level" and doesnt need to be
designed for, its basically a penalty thing we can use. it is the extreme
level 2 is needed to differentiate heavy armor from light armor
level 3 is what we will design for, it is "normal"
level 4 is to sepparate quick characters with ultra light armor from people
wearing normal armor
level 5 is a special case scenario type of thing
we're basically just designing the game for level 3, with maybe a small amount
of special case scenario areas for level 4/5 (like under 2-3 per chapter)
i really don't think that it is overly complicated at all and this will be a
SUBTLE thing, i.e. again, most of the things like this are only designed for
people who want the bonus, but dont have to have it
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
yeah actually thats a good point, i remember playin zelda and you see objects
which are obviously repeated (ie black rocks in link to the past, or the docks
in zelda 1 etc) and knowing "there is something up with those" but you dont
know til you have the item. I forgot about that, that was kinda fun gameplay
:P
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yeah, that's part of the fun of Zelda and Metroid style games... getting those
items that make you able to do things you didn't predict were possible, so then
the player wonders what cool thing is gonna come out next :)
That's a pretty cool idea for introducing game mechanics.. the player doesn't
know about them at all in the game until they actually get the item for it.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
yeah totally i agree with you.
we were talkin about this before, we were saying having lots of optional things
to discover in a game makes it seem bigger because we don't advertise what the
"edges" are.
so yeah totally, if we advertise there are 5 jump levels it ruins the magic,
but if the player discovers "wtf i jump higher now?" they might try to see just
how high they can jump. Maybe they get to level 4 and never cap out at level
5, as far as they know the sky is the limit even though they are almost at the
cieling hehe.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Also, about the player not knowing there will be 5 jump levels, that
would trigger the "yay I discovered something" emotion. It's really
fun to learn how to do something to reach new places, you know?
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Chris Riccobono<crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I do believe simplicity brings about the most fun when done correctly!
> I think part of the fun of a game is learning how to use the system,
> too, so when you can learn it very easy at first, you are open to
> learning new mechanics as things go on.
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Alan Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> You deffinately have a good point. Our game isn't arcadey per se but it is
>> a game where you can go deeper if you want but don't have to.
>>
>> Like there will be lots to explore but it's all optional (Eric correct me if
>> im wrong lol).
>>
>> I'd bet this jump level thing would more or less be invisible / automatic to
>> the player. Like when you were heavier you just dont jump as high or as
>> far. The player might not know there are 5 levels of jumping ability, they
>> might just realize "hey when i take off my armor i can make that jump to
>> that cave i couldnt get to before" (and of course maybe an NPC tips you off
>> to that fact). Or there are boots that have the description of "wear to be
>> able to jump higher"
>>
>> But yeah there is deffinate wisdom to keeping it simple, especially keeping
>> the end result the player sees simple.
>>
>> Someone should be able to pick up the game and be able to play without
>> having to read some huge manual :P
>>
>> the old saying "easy to learn difficult to master" yadda yadda
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:13 PM, katie cook <ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay guys, this is just my opinion. =) For me when I play arcade-ish style
>>> games like I the ones I think (if I understand correctly) that we are trying
>>> to make, I think Chris has got a really good point. I like to take the
>>> easiest route possible to get to the next step. Not that we should flake on
>>> stuff. But we should make sure to not scrutinize/overthink things too much
>>> if that makes sense.
>>>
>>> I like the opportunity to get a little bit deeper with a game if I choose
>>> to at the time, but appreciate when I don't have to. Usually arcades games
>>> tend to be shorter in hours played. When I play a short game, I don't wanna
>>> have to invest a lot of time and deal with frivilous features. The easier
>>> the game the funner it is for me (for arcade/short games. I hope this makes
>>> sense.
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: [project1dev] Re: Project1 - SVN Update 270
>>> To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 9:46 PM
>>>
>>> 5 different jump levels is going to complicate things a bit more than
>>> we want. Try to keep in mind that the ideal is to make the game more
>>> fun. Ask yourself, will 5 different jumps enhance the game enough to
>>> warrant the amount of coding, designing, and bug testing they will
>>> require?
>>>
>>> To reiterate what I tried to stress early on, we want the game to be
>>> as fun as possible, as simply as possible. Having a complex game is
>>> great if it enhances the experience, but if it doesn't, it becomes a
>>> hinderance - just another game, in other words.
>>>
>>> To give you a specific example, your idea about armor making you
>>> slower and jump shorter will generally make players avoid doing that
>>> in any instance they can. In action based games, skilled players will
>>> go towards what is as fast and damaging as possible, and will avoid
>>> things like that on purpose.
>>>
>>> Also, having injuries slow you down will make players feel like they
>>> can't be damaged. For things like this you want to flip the tables,
>>> and instead create armor that gives players more speed, but they take
>>> more damage. It might seem like a small thing, but in the eyes of a
>>> player it can make a huge difference in gameplay.
>>>
>>> Basically ask yourself if you would play the game and have fun doing
>>> the things you imagine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Alan Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > you know the kind of cool thing about this too
>>> >
>>> > we could actually make situations that you couldn't escape from, and
>>> > have
>>> > things like pits that when you fall into them you die instantly and
>>> > return
>>> > to the void.
>>> >
>>> > those are really mean (literally!) features but if we use them sparingly
>>> > or
>>> > in some kind of "i told you not to look in the box" situations that
>>> > could be
>>> > actually pretty funny.
>>> >
>>> > im not sure if you are down with it, but it would bring a feeling of
>>> > mortality :P
>>> >
>>> > ps i'll add the previous ideas to the wiki once i get home if no one
>>> > else
>>> > has by then. I dont mind but just can't right now :P
>>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> yes - harsh but like i said, its an emergency only option to be as a
>>> >> last
>>> >> resort... i think any other way of doing it will allow too many holes
>>> >> for
>>> >> exploits (such as exp or item farming, etc)
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> so would you lose all exp, gold and items gained then?
>>> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> yeah i think that is what we';ll do, you can recall to the void at
>>> >>>> any
>>> >>>> time but it effectively just restores a saved game so you gain no
>>> >>>> benefit to
>>> >>>> it. We'll make this sort of a last ditch option, so we'll try to
>>> >>>> design it
>>> >>>> so people never have to use it under normal circumstances
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> no, im just here to poke holes in your ideas <g>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> jk but no im not sure... other than perhaps the player can return to
>>> >>>>> the void at any time, and the cost is that you've lost all the time
>>> >>>>> you've
>>> >>>>> taken to progress to where you are (ie you have to walk back)
>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> wait i take that back, i'll have to think of a real solution. any
>>> >>>>>> ideas?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> ok
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> is recall always going to be available?
>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> recall
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Alan Wolfe
>>> >>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> ok sounds good. the lax attitude and not needing perfection
>>> >>>>>>>>> will
>>> >>>>>>>>> make it alot easier to test and build. We'll just have to make
>>> >>>>>>>>> sure and
>>> >>>>>>>>> keep that in mind when designing things.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> actually i think we will probably still have to do a lot of
>>> >>>>>>>>> testing
>>> >>>>>>>>> with the various jumps to make sure people can't get somewhere
>>> >>>>>>>>> they arent
>>> >>>>>>>>> meant to be that they cant get out of - ie i can enter this
>>> >>>>>>>>> level 3 jump
>>> >>>>>>>>> area but i can't escape.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> what's your thoughts on that situation?
>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> well 2 things...
>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1 - i am comfortable with the testing, i think it'll add a lot
>>> >>>>>>>>>> to
>>> >>>>>>>>>> the game - what do you guys think?
>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2 - alan i would really say we'd only need to test for 2 things
>>> >>>>>>>>>> -
>>> >>>>>>>>>> the ability for level 2 to get past areas that have no
>>> >>>>>>>>>> non-jumping route
>>> >>>>>>>>>> through and to make sure tier 5 people can't exploit anything
>>> >>>>>>>>>> we don't want
>>> >>>>>>>>>> them too... i would say if a tier 3 person can find a way to
>>> >>>>>>>>>> get over
>>> >>>>>>>>>> something designed as a secret for level 4 people, then that is
>>> >>>>>>>>>> ok w/ me,
>>> >>>>>>>>>> and likewise with level 4 getting to level 5 areas. if they
>>> >>>>>>>>>> can find a way
>>> >>>>>>>>>> to overcome the handicap, i dont want to stop them :)
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Alan Wolfe
>>> >>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and of course another option is we just design it where fine
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> tuned details like that aren't important
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> like if you can jump it instead of having to get a rope and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> climb
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> up, who cares!
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but shrug just wanted to point out this aspect of the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> solution!
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Alan Wolfe
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I like the idea. It deffinately makes thigns more
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> exploration
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> based since we could put places that you can't get to while
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> starting out
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This isn't a deal breaker but i want to point out this will
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> increase testing and designing time:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * all maps will have to be played with the highest jump level
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> make sure they cant exploit anything they shouldn't be able
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * all maps will have to played with the lowest jump level to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> make sure the minimum we want passable is passable
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * for maps which have a specific jump requirement areas (ie
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> level 3 lets you get to this area) we'll have to play with
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that level as
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> well as the next level down to make sure the one below can't
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> get up too.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:11 PM, eric drewes
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> what do you guys think of that scale? that way we dont have
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> guess when we design and we have a baseline standard
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM, eric drewes
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a voice spoke from the mountain tops, "and let it be
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spoken, there shall be 5 different tiers of jumping
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability, one for hardly
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any jump at all, the next for between the current jump and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the previous
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels not-really-a-jump, the third is what is there now,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fourth for a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jump equal to 1.5x as high/far as the 3rd and a fifth that
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is triple the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal jump - this will be reserved for special facet,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> item boosts or a max
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100 quickness bonus.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically it is like this:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 1) barely a jump at all, this will be for incredibly
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fat characters (w/ the fat facet) people with super heavy
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> armor that they
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't strong enough to wear, incredibly injured people,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people with snake
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsos, etc :-P
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 2) this is what people wearing plate/heavy chain
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> armor,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or have relatively strong long injuries, etc. etc. will
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 3) most characters will have this jump, traps, etc.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be designed with this as the minimum - though
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically we want it to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a challenge for level 3 people. some areas can be
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed so it's
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccessible without level 4 though, but nothing vital to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passing the map -
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also, traps/jump areas that aren't accessible except
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through jumping should
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use level 2 as a minimum.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 4) super athletic character with light or no armor
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have this, they can reach special areas the other 3 levels
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't, jump
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> puzzles should be easier for level 4
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 5) these characters are magically imbued or have
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humanly agility, maybe they have little wings, etc. by
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passable traps, areas
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can only be reached via long distance travel, etc
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these characters have
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a big advantage on all jumping matters.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Kent Petersen
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man, that sounds awful. At least we have learned these
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lessons and now know how to prevent them
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Alan Wolfe
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw line rider had the same issues tee hee
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In line rider, people were exploiting a simple physics
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to do tricks like gravity wells and nose
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grinds and other stuff.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we made the commercial version of the game we had
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sure all the tricks were still possible and we
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brought in tech dawg to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play it and make sure everything was still kosher.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the parts that sucked - whenever we optomized something
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the game it would break all existing test maps we had
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made so we had to wait
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> til the very end of the game to make the puzzle maps.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also, since the DS, Wii and PC all have different
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> floating
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point math chips in them (and ds had diff code), maps
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't work the same
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on all the different platforms so we had to keep sharing
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be on the same
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform it was created on.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Alan Wolfe
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its ok man ::shakes you:: the wars over, nixon is outa
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office now
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Kent Petersen
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Kent is having megaman flashbacks*
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Alan Wolfe
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed! I'm going to re-iterate what you said Kent
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so people understand the importance
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we should figure out how high / far we want the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> player
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be able to jump and how strong gravity should be
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muey importante~!
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once we decide we can't change without having to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuild
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and rebalance any existing physics dependant maps (ie
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skill jumps, gaps that
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the player should or should not be able to jump over
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc) which is a total
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pain and could really be really really destructive to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our game having to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuild and rebalance a whole bunch of crap later.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, lookin at you Eric, we should talk about
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalizing.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything specifically you for sure want the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> player to be able to do? IE jump across a certain
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance, jump over a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain hight object etc
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Kent Petersen
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did you want to do for the first trap? I
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagined
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there would be 5 or so different looking tiles.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then there would be one
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct kind of tile (not the diamond). Then the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> player would have to jump
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about through the tiles to the correct ones. I
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figured it would work
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the ones that were on kenttest.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's your thoughts on that?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you get to into designing the temple I would
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly suggest that we nail down player control and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jumping physics. Let me
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warn you from experience, if we change how any of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that works your temple
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will become obsolete.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Kent Petersen
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Been really busy today and will probably be busy
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next couple days. I would suggest leaving the trap
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas open for now. If
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are willing to push on anyway and have specific
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions, send em my
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way and I will be happy to help out when I get a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Alan Wolfe
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man that's awesome
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Apache User
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dhapache@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> User:rorac
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message: Expanded a little on templemap, added
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> template code as per Kent's advisement.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Need a sign (next room is diamond path). Kent, I
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will need your help to help build that part and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begin putting traps in the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallway (first right = first trap area).
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Files Changed>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U Scripts/Maps/templemap.lua
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Scripts/Maps/templemap_geometry.lua
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> ;>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
