[CF-Devel] Graphics & Derivative version

[Michael Toennies]

The gfx format the guy use is called often the "zelda style",
because this console game was one the first action rpgs, using this
style.

I had shown it to the list sometime ago, look here again, this guy using
somewhat
same.
     
     http://www.lostland.com/altimu/
     
     

Well, again: the perspective cames from the background... you got it.

One warning: Don't try to make things like "improve our tile set" or
something.

You can't get this kind of results without a careful designed and styled
set.

Redraw a new set from the bottom up or don't do it. All others is wasted
time.
I work in this for money for years, when you think i don't know where i
speaking from,
than you should not read on.

But you should think why other projects and people so often don't hit the
road.
Its not why they are not so smart as you...

Simple: ONE set, ONE style. Every tile depends on the others.

Thats why some part of the xbm/xpm sets looks as picture somewhat better
then many
png set pictures.

AND you need to rework some maps. You should never aspect that a new set
looks same good
with same maps. In fact, to create a game with same maps and 2 gfx set -
both looking good
with same maps/assemble is real hard. This will not work automatically. But
thats not a real
hard part. Changing some cosmetic parts of the map set will not be very
hard.

That why i don't like the way the gfx in CF goes yet.
We had 2 main sets yet (when i forget xpm).

Both png set looks bad! Sorry for that, they are also for open source
project bad.
Not single monsters - sone of them looks real good - but one bad tile can
destroy the
look of a whole screen.

Really, you can make when you draw a styled layered background set a much
much better looking gfx
then CF looking yet. You don't improve map gfx when you put in a new
monster.

The whyvern set is really not perfect, but its 2 levels better than the CF
set...

But it has major problems too!
The artist also don't really understand all aspects of his
work. When you remember my old mails you will see.

Look at this:
     
     http://www.cabochon.com/screenshots/client3.jpg
     
     

Here you see 3 (perhaps more?!!) perspectives giving a strange look.
The street/background tile are all total flat.. Look at the streets...
On a totla flat gfx stand the player on it (very nice objects, isn't it?
They also give
the monsters more work then the background... ).

then the ocean part... here the they fall in the trap
with vertical/horizontal structures. a vertical line is
a vertical line for the eye, even when its build from not
flat objects... and it destroys the iso feeling.

The city is funny too... TO iso for the rest of the gfx...
Looks like from a other game.

The trees are nice, but the flat background destroys
the look.

Well, if you give david G. iso demo a look, you will see
that his gfx is not "nice" as the whyvern one, but the
WHOLE picture looks better... more volume, more "3D".

Michael


>
     
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       Tyler Van Gorder brought up to me that the appears to be a
     
     >
     
      somewhat derived
     
     >
     
      version of crossfire out there at 
      
      http://www.cabochon.com/.
      
        Since its in
     
     >
     
      java, and a quick glance makes it appear a bit different, I don't
     
     >
     
      personally
     
     >
     
      think there is much to be done about it under the GPL (I've never been
     
     >
     
      one for much on look and feel, and to me that is probably the biggest
     
     >
     
      aspect that we could complain about).
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       But unrelated to that - take a look at the screenshots.  To be,
     
     >
     
      that shows that even with standard tile based drawing and placement based
     
     >
     
      on objects, the graphics can look really good.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      It appears their tile size is also 32x32 or so.  It also appears that
     
     >
     
      the viewport size is 13x13 (crossfire is currently 11x11)
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       I would personally think that it would be easier to get near that
     
     >
     
      form of graphics by taking what we currently have and improving it
     
     >
     
      vs going to a new form (isomorphic).  I think some of the screenshots
     
     >
     
      also provide good hints on making things look better - ie, shadowing,
     
     >
     
      45 degree angles for many of the terrain types to smooth things
     
     >
     
      out, and more variations (bunch of types of trees, flowers
     
     >
     
      and lighter shades in the grass, etc).
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       My other thought on graphics:
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      Good graphics will help a little bit in the first glance 'hey
     
     >
     
      this looks cool'
     
     >
     
      category of gamers.  But what will really keep the gamers playing is the
     
     >
     
      gameplay actually being good.  The prettiest game in the world
     
     >
     
      won't last long
     
     >
     
      if the gameplay behind it sucks.  Personally, I think crossfire has pretty
     
     >
     
      good gameplay, and what that will typically mean is that once you
     
     >
     
      can attract
     
     >
     
      the player, they will stick around (and probably tell their
     
     >
     
      friends about this
     
     >
     
      cool game).  Muds typically don't have any cool graphics, yet
     
     >
     
      they have quite
     
     >
     
      a following.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       I guess my main point being - while increasing graphic quality should
     
     >
     
      continue, I think it would be better to spend the effort making the
     
     >
     
      gameplay better than switching to isomorphic graphics.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       I've also lived through two big shifts in graphis (xbm -> xpm
     
     >
     
      and now xpm -> png), and I've seen how long it takes and how much
     
     >
     
      effort it takes to make that change.  There are like 2500+ images out
     
     >
     
      there - this is not a trivial process.  Process takes somewhere
     
     >
     
      between several months to years.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      _______________________________________________
     
     >
     
      crossfire-devel mailing list
     
     >
     
     
      crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com
      
      
     >
     
     
      https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel
      
      
     >