38 replies to this topic

[Avaro]

What do you think of the classic tileset?

I'll be honest. In the past, I used to hate all quests that used the classic tileset. Why do you ask? I honestly don't know, now. Was it because it looks so aged? Was it because it was just too simple? Was it because of all the NES styled quests? Or was it just because I was jealous of how easy it is to produce quests in it?

Well, the classic tileset is now one of my favourite tilesets and I really enjoy making screens and stuff in it! Screendesigning is alot faster than in tilesets like Pure or DoR, and it's still possible to make it look good very easily.

I began to realise this, when one day I opened up ZQ and started to make a few random overworld screens. I really liked the look of what I just made and then I began to think up plans for a quest to make with it. This is how Ganon's Curse started.


The Classic Tileset. It's not that bad!

My plans soon developed into a real project and that's what we have today. Ganon's Curse changed my opinion about the Classic tileset entirely and I can't believe how much I enjoy using it over other tilesets. I was worried about the look of the dungeons in classic, mainly because I didn't like the palettes and then I started to learn how to make palettes, so I can have dungeons that look different from most other quests that use the classic tileset. I have a passion for dungeons, so that was really important for me.


Some pretty sick palettes, if you ask me.

The classic tileset is really simple to use and it's simple to make new tiles for. It's a clean looking tileset, while not very detailed, still kind of pleasing to the eye if used right. Of course a quest won't work if you don't show any effort at all. The tileset reduces the effort needed to create something good, but effort is still needed if you want your quest to shine. This can be said about any tileset.

I've played a lot of good classic tileset quests now and I'm looking forward to future quests, I really encourage people to use the set!

So what is your opinion on the classic tileset?

[KingPridenia]

Thing is Avataro, many gamers these days act as if bad graphics = bad game automatically. Graphics to me are completely overrated. You could have a game that looks like Skyrim but makes Action 52 look like the freaking Ocarina of Time! I personally feel tile sets such as DoR and Pure are overrated and hyped. Don't get me wrong, they do look nice. However, graphics don't mean anything in the hands of an amateur game designer. Again, look at the likes of Hookshot 2. That's mostly in the classic tileset and it's among the highest rated quests on the database. Gameplay > graphics. Who cares if the game is eye candy if it's so bad games like Action 52 are comparable to Super Mario Bros 3?

[UZF]

I've always liked the Classic Tileset. Not once did I ever think it looked bad, it is very easy to make quests with. It's very useful for people who are just starting making quests, and for advanced quest makers alike. 

 

Zelda 1 was the very Zelda game, have the graphics aged a bit? Yes. But it has aged well enough to know what things look like and to build solid quests. The Classic Tileset gets the job done, and if you're good enough with it. You can make some beautiful quests with it. *Cough* Cough* Triforce.qst

[Air Luigi]

Classic is freaking good. Don't confuse "old" with "bad". Classic style is undetailed, but coherent.

Tilesets like pure, dor... have more variety, but they have a lot of clash style and the overall feel suffers from that.

The best graphics in ZC are the Lost Isle interiors, LTTS tileset, Golvellius and The Hero's memory. And obviously Link's Awakening tiles.

[DragonDePlatino]

As anyone would figure, I'm not a big fan of classic at all. It's an antiquated set of graphics from the very early NES days, from when pixel artists probably had to manually type (yes, type) in their graphics. All things considered, the graphics were incredible for their time but they have really shown their age. Classic's perspective is quite poor if not nonexistent, and the graphics kind of have that dopey early-NES feel to them, like Devil World or Super Mario Bros.

 

Now with that being said, there are a lot of redeeming factors with using Classic. Adding to what you said, Classic puts an incredible amount of stress on functionality over beauty. You can clearly see where everything is and it's hard to get lost in details when there practically are none.

 

But if there was one thing I would change about Classic, just one thing, it's those dang dungeon walls! They're clunky, take up a huge amount of screen space and really limit your creativity as far as screen transitions go. My suggestion to anyone making a Classic quest is to chunk those walls and go for some smaller GB walls, or rip something from an NES Final Fantasy.

[Avaro]

In gaming, graphics are extremely advanced today and they amaze everyone. Old-school gaming is still a great pleasure though. To the eye of a true zelda / adventure game fan, classic quests can look even better than high detail tileset quests, when the gameplay is superior. Gameplay is surely not all that matters, but it's the most important thing in games. The classic tileset has grown up to me over the months and I hope that my quest will be a good addition to the pool of classic tileset quests to choose from.

 

When you can focus less on graphics, there is more room to think about gameplay .

[TheLegend_njf]

Often when most people think of Classic, they think of Zelda 1. Zelda 1 looked like shit.

But Classic has come a long way... If that makes any sense.

[Jamian]

Classic is clean, readable, to the point... what's not to like? It embodies the "good gameplay over good graphics" spirit of retrogaming. Sure, it comes with flaws, perspective issues for example. But as long as the screen is readable, I personally don't care. Zelda 1's palettes do look aged nowadays but ZC allows you to edit your palettes and add a lot of variety.

[JetBox]

The Classic tileset is hands down my favorite. When it comes to making screens, looking at them, or playing them, Classic always looks the best to me. I don't think it's nostalgia, too. I just like the 8-bit feel. Pure and DoR look good, but honestly, games with that tile-set tend to bore me. I'm not sure if it is the tileset, but they do. I don't think I have ever beat a game that doesn't use the Classic Tileset, besides Bikdips Adventure 1 & 2. I just get bored too easily. The other thing about classic is that the mountain tiles are WAY easier. I have tried other tilesets, especially Pure, DoR, EZGBZ, and BS(a long time ago) and I could never, and I mean never, get the mountains right. There was always something odd about the. The Classic Mountains are a bit plain, but if you use them right, like in TRIFORCE, they look like a masterpiece. Classic is definitely underrated. 

[anikom15]

Classic is easy to use and professional.

It's very easy to make it clash though. All too often I see terrible, clashing styles due to custom/imported graphics, and it is forgiven by the majority simply because it's Classic. Classic does, in fact, have a style and you can't just mix it with tiles willy-nilly from other 8-bit games.

Classic is best suited for simple quests. It can be unwieldly for anything complex unless you know what you're doing (i.e. you're a good artist). EZGBZ and Pure are better tilesets for beginners and non-artists looking to do story-driven quests or complex dungeon rompers. Unfortunately, I learned this the hard way.

Edited by anikom15, 20 May 2014 - 06:29 PM.

[Demonlink]

 Pure and DoR look good, but honestly, games with that tile-set tend to bore me. 

*Changes Tileset for Hylian Legacy *

 

Going back to topic, I used to not play any Classic quest, that is, until I saw it's potential like NJF's and Avataro's TRIFORCE in the makes. I don't actually believe a tileset can define the rating of any quest anymore. Heck, I can end up making the best set ever, make my quest and get a 2 star rating.  What actually defines a good quest is the heart and faith one has in it. Like the famous quote says: Hard work pays off and it does

 

As for the Classic set, it's a bit confusing to me when it comes to terms of quest developing every once and a while, but after I get the hang of it, (and use a few tricks ), I can actually make a screen or two. The best part I love about it are the bright colors and just the nostalgic style and feel about it that makes me want to try it. And what else can help you touch it up a bit? Go like me. New palettes, tiles, etc, etc, all that keep that classicy feel

[Old-Skool]

 *laughs* I don't know if people have been anxiously waiting for me to chime in on this or not, all things considered, but I'm going to go ahead and talk a little bit about the relationship between myself and this tileset. 

Most of my qu-... no, all of them now that I think of it, use classic tileset (or a modification of) for pretty much the same reason throughout: While I like pretty graphics and can draw them, they have a tendency to overcomplicate things. Why should I go through the trouble of drawing a 2x2 table or tree, making combos of each tile, and placing them in a room if they only serve as unwalkable tiles? I'm not saying I think it is stupid, my mind just focuses on things besides graphics when I make a quest. You will not see someone use Newfirst and make forests of one-tile trees just pasted on and carved through like you would in classic. That is easy but unacceptable in most tilesets. In Classic, nobody cares because Zelda 1 did it.

 Similarly, most tilesets have very complicated mountain tiles, designed to help promote the illusion of height and depth with cliff faces and edges in different perspectives. Classic only uses a small handful of rock wall tiles with an ambiguous design. The exact same combo can be used for straight cliffs, diagonal, sides, Northern edges, etc and nobody will bat an eye. I see a lot of people try to do the same with rock wall tiles in Newfirst (the gateway to non-classic I guess) ...Guys, it really isn't working. If you don't want to wrestle with complicated mountain tiles, you should just use classic. 

 

Edited by King Aquamentus, 20 May 2014 - 08:14 PM.

[MabusTheDark]

The Classic tileset is a wonderful set that also happens to help a budding quest designer understand how some things work... but please, PLEASE take the time to make everything not the same color.  Purists can yell at me all they want, but seeing green mountains mixed with green trees and green sand just makes me want to stare at paint drying on the wall, instead.  At least make the mountains or sand slightly different, lol.  

 

Other than my little outburst, I like the Classic Tileset.  

[anikom15]

Z1 mixed CSets freely, so purism isn't a factor there.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

I think the whole discussion about gameplay over graphics is completely irrelevant, and it doesn't help that the word graphics itself isn't being understood in this topic.

 

Graphics is a very wide term. It's also a technical term. When you say that a game has bad graphics, you're not making any sense. What's 'bad graphics'? It depends. It might be bad texture work, poor modeling, ugly lighting or even stuff like frame rate and screen tearing are all things that goes under the 'graphics' umbrella. It's like saying a car has a bad motor. It doesn't make any sense, because there are so many different parts that there might be something wrong with. There's no proper definition of graphics when it comes to gaming either, so the word could mean everything from the image file that makes up the HUD-elements in a game, to mechanics that works behind the scenes - elements you as a player never actually get to 'see', but that affects the visuals in one way or another. Either way, when you're talking about stuff like tilesets, I think words like visuals fit a whole lot better. But that's just me nitpicking.

 

When it comes to the classic set, I have no problem with it. I think it's silly to focus on one thing over another when it comes to making games, and if you pick Classic because you think that it's somehow going to make your end product any better, then you're going at it the wrong way. See, the way I look at this, is rather simple. I don't bother making a decision to focus on visuals before stuff like challenging puzzles and scenarios or plot - because I don't think there's much point to making a game if you're not going to do your very best to make sure that all elements that make up said game get the same treatment.

 

If I release a quest, I don't want players to feel like it only exists to satisfy one specific emotion or interest. I'm not trying to say that it doesn't matter what tileset you pick, because the visuals of a game will absolutely change the way people perceive it. But pick the set that's right for the game you're making, and the only person who knows the answer to this question is yourself - I honestly don't believe that doing it any other way is going to be a benefit to anyone.