4 replies to this topic

[kurt91]

Probably not the best way to word the title of the thread, but I couldn't think of a better way to summarize it. Anyways...

 

I tend to go on multiple sites regarding game design (although I'm only really active on this one). I kind of noticed that different communities tend to have different ideals when it comes to designing their game, and what qualifies for good design. For example, let's compare RPG Maker and Zelda Classic.

 

Taking the most popular overworld screens and maps on this site, they seem to focus on the large landmasses. The idea seems to be to build something that looks somewhat natural with the mountain shapes before using a minimal amount of smaller objects to add the more detailed structures. Decoration is mainly variation on visual patterns, such as multiple grass tiles and other decorations that don't affect walkability.

 

Now, looking at some random screens from the screenshot thread from an RPG Maker site (rpgmakerweb), they tend to make large sprawling areas with random rocks and trees scattered around to fill in empty-looking areas. Visual appeal for its own sake is restricted to either parallax mapping (using a massive photoshopped picture as a background, with invisible walkability laid on top), overlays for lighting, and just general hand-adjustments to the mountain tiles to erase mistakes that the auto-tile tool makes when putting them together.

 

Why is there such a huge difference between the two? Yes, I know that the top-quality RPG Maker games look really beautiful, but a huge majority of them appear to be a general lower quality than the majority of screenshots and maps that I've seen on this site. Is it just a difference in quality standards between the two communities, or could the engine itself have something to do with it?

 

The game window is much larger in an RPG Maker game, and in the editor, you're shown the entire map at once instead of one screen's worth of content at a time. Is the issue that they're given too much space to mentally wrap their mind around at once? That their minimal map size is still too large to work with for things like house interiors, because a majority of them are spaced out enough to look ridiculous.

 

Keep in mind, this isn't me trying to put down the RPG Maker community or the engine or anything. I actually have several versions on Steam that I fiddle with on a somewhat regular basis. However, the differences in standards seem a bit odd for such similar types of games. Also, a common request for new versions of ZC is screen-scrolling. If we ever get that as a new feature, will we have the same problem, having to suddenly design for a new standard type of viewpoint, and having to learn new design techniques to compensate?

[Mani Kanina]

RPGmaker generally has free-roaming scrolling and map sizes can be as large as the creator wants them to be. In contrast to ZCs strict screen size this changes how you need to tackle level design. Furthermore, most RPGmaker games generally has turned based battles, so you'd not need to design around space for combat to take place either.


Another point worth noting is that just because a place has a certain design philosophy, that does not mean it's a good one. Certain design ideas can be heavily embed into a community to a point where everyone keeps parroting it and claiming it's good because that's what the community generally accepts, regardless of how it actually holds up.

[Anthus]

Kind of what Lunaria said, I think screen size, and combat space have more to do with how, and why people make ZC screens a certain way. RM games can have free scrolling, and since you don't fight on the actual maps, you don't have to worry about having obstacles, or lack thereof. You can still make great RPG environments with those rules though. I think when the average person opens up RM, they basically just put down graphics so you have something to walk on, and it is pretty basic at first. If they're not the best game designer by nature, then it might not occur to them that they should add more character or detail. But ZC is not without some empty screen though. There's lots of first attempts that are very open, and plain.

 

I'm not sure how ZC having scrolling would effect the way people make screens and maps. It would allow sets like DoR, ALTTP, PTUX, and even the MC set to have more elaborate layouts within a space. Mountains could flow differently, cause you don't have to be immediately worried about how it is lining up 11 tiles away, or if it looks good "by itself". Scrolling generally makes areas feel more open, cause, well, they are literally just that. I also think if ZC had scrolling, it might make a lot of sets with smaller tiles (GB, Classic, BS, basically any other set) look more empty. You are seeing more at once when you're moving, and the camera follows you, clearly showing the relationship of those tiles over a larger space. You are paying more attention to the big picture than you are just one screen. These sets are meant to work on small, non-scrolling displays. Interestingly though, the GB games did have scrolling in dungeons, it was only about half a screen, iirc. The rooms in LA the Oracle Games are the same amount of tiles as the rooms in the NES game(16x11), but the GB screen only shows like 10x10 tiles, and with the HUD, LA's actual screen was only 10x9 tiles (160x144). For that reason, the GB set looks more like ALTTP's art style on a smaller screen cause the tiles appear bigger. Now I'm rambling.

 

ALTTP is a good example of screen size and combat space mattering. Everything is drawn bigger, cause the camera can follow Link for up to two screen widths before scrolling. Combat space is built in around this, and everything is designed to feel right in that particular space. That's also why using vanilla ALTTP graphics in ZC can look "empty" even if there are still a lot of tiles making up the mountains.

[MarinaraSauce]

Interestingly though, the GB games did have scrolling in dungeons, it was only about half a screen, iirc. The rooms in LA are the same amount of tiles as the rooms in the NES game(16x11), but the GB screen only shows like 10x10 tiles, and with the HUD, LA's actual screen was only 10x9 tiles (160x144). For that reason, the GB set looks more like ALTTP's art style on a smaller screen cause the tiles appear bigger. Now I'm rambling.

LA didn't have this, it was the Oracle games, since Seasons was originally intended to be a remake of Z1 before it became a multi-game project.

 

Anyway, I do agree with the idea that ZC screen design would differ a lot if scrolling were introduced. In more elaborate tilesets like DoR Hybrid it's sometimes difficult to convey everything you want to in the space that ZC provides without having to worry about walkability issues between screens and having each screen be unique. That's probably also the reason why deserts in ZC are so small; there are only so many ways you can spin an open screen filled with sand and some green cacti.

[Anthus]

Yeah, you're right. I just looked at a map from that game to confirm. I forgot it was only the GBC games that had dungeon scrolling. I still kind of wish they did do a Z1 remake with those graphics for the GBC though.