|
masterbooda
Swordmaster
277 Posts |
 Posted - Oct 13 2004 : 1:46:16 PM
|
Call me crazy and they will and do... but I have been rolling an idea around in my head during my hours of darkness... I want to create an engine with the old school console feel to it... but I am trying to get a feel for the vb community and how they would recieve such a thing... is there any call for such a thing or interest...
or do most wear the 3D goggles now?
I am going to use a hybrid of DX7 and DX8 for it...and the graphics will be DX7 based(ahh good ol' DirectDraw) so anyone can use it not just ones with heavy duty cards... I am basing the engine off a combination of all the classic 8bit and 16bit consoles... for DX8 was and is still good for making games, but it is a little to modern...
Any opinions?
DaBooda out... |
DaBooda Team is back: http://dabooda.789mb.com/ |
|
|
AutoAim
Squire
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - Oct 13 2004 : 2:56:02 PM
|
sounds good to me, myself havn't even touched 3D and probably won't for a long while. 2D will never die. directdraw may not have nice little features like alpha blending and realtime rotations without some outside libaray, but is 50x no make that 100x easier than dx3d to setup and use for 2D. about old computers, i know loads of ppl that dont have a cpu reaching above one ghz and ram no more than 256mb, with regualur onboard intel grahics cards, so why making a 2D game that can't be played on a onld end computer? :p
|
The WannaBe
http://wannabegames.com |
 |
|
|
Eric Coleman
Gladiator
USA
811 Posts |
Posted - Oct 13 2004 : 3:08:34 PM
|
There were "3D" games for the SNES console. F-Zero and the flight sim were 2 of the first three games ever relased for the SNES.
I think the best way to make a game seem like an old game from a console system is to use a low screen resolution, such as 320 x 240. Even 3D games played at that resolution have a "console" feel to them. Joystick support is another thing that's needed. If you really want a game to seem like it belonds on a console, then don't even use the mouse or keyboard for the game. A simple 4 or 6 button game pad is really cheap, so there is no excuse for anyone to not have one :-) |
|
|
|
AutoAim
Squire
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - Oct 13 2004 : 3:39:57 PM
|
beleive it or not, Xbox PS2 and GC are at a resolution of 640x480 sometimes 800x600. but the reasons for this is for price range, they can stick in low end parts with no more than 200mhz gpu and 500mhz cpu and very little ram of maybe 128mb and still out put 30-40 fps on eye poping candy. One of the great tings of old 2D games is you can FINISH the game no need for major collision, physics, or having to make that 512x512 textures and models. Has i see it 2D has been perfected and 3D is still around the research team, you got much less to worry about and you can put all that extra thinking to the gameplay unlike most current games don't do. now a days games are held down only becuase of that extra axis (z) no time to and more hours of play time, more in-deth story lines and etc. I only see 20-30 hrs of gameplay for 50 BUCKS! only crap $50 dollars is wasted after 20 hours of playing it :S
and they have been making that game for 2-5 years! and only 20hrs? WTF! now come on, you got those "RPGs" where you travel 500 thousands miles to get a key and the back? thats not gameplay thats trying to had more play time  . I see it has if you made a game in 2-5 years in 2D you probably got one awsome GAME! with more than 20-30 hrs of gameplay!
let alone the programmer didn't fall over and die from trying to figure out 3D Collsion
ok ill stop typing now  |
The WannaBe
http://wannabegames.com |
|
|
|
sdw
Warrior
USA
160 Posts |
Posted - Oct 13 2004 : 6:04:51 PM
|
I've never finished any 2D game project myself, but thats because I'm poorly motivated and don't have the proper education for doing it :D So to say that "One of the great tings of old 2D games is you can FINISH the game no need for major collision, physics, or having to make that 512x512 textures and models" doesn't make much sense. There's still collision detection, physics, and yes, you still need to make those textures, though they probably shoulnd't be as large as 512x512.
quote:
I only see 20-30 hrs of gameplay for 50 BUCKS! only crap $50 dollars is wasted after 20 hours of playing it :S
That $50 3D game is $50 because it required more work, time, and money to produce. 2D games are easy to come by, hell I'm even making one. Yes there are many crappy 3D games, but let's not forget that there are just as many, if not more, crappy 2D games.
quote:
Has i see it 2D has been perfected and 3D is still around the research team, you got much less to worry about and you can put all that extra thinking to the gameplay unlike most current games don't do.
And as I see it, 3D is everything 2D is and more :P
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy 2D games as well as 3D. I just don't think it's right to go knocking 3D games without anything to back it up. |
|
|
|
Iodiplin
Knave
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - Oct 13 2004 : 8:58:59 PM
|
I agree with sdw. I have an XBox and some pretty SWEET 3D games (Knights of the Old Republic, Thief 3...). I've played far more crappy 2D games than 3D, because there ARE more 2D games than 3D. I believe that 3D is now perfected. Look at a game like Thief 3: real-time shadowing, lighting, heck the torches make shadows flicker! YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND OTHER PEOPLE! That's definately mastery of graphics, so the game play has definately improved from old Heretic games (even though I'm a big fan of those :). Knights of the Old Republic has comparitively good graphics and is the most in-depth adventure game i've ever played.
However, I also LOVE 2D games. I'm almost done with my 2D engine (DX8) and I have very few intensions of ever making a 3D game. Why? Because 2D is just fine with me.
For old 2D console games, I like the idea. However, remember, there are a lot of old 2D console games that may bring back that nostalgia, but after 10 minutes you're thinking "This game is really stupid." Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, yes...but no-namers like "Ninja Turtles Strike Back" (made that up) can be pretty boring.
I personally couldn't care less if a game had 2D graphics, 3D graphics, or a hybrid between the two. There are good games in both categories and niether will die. I am using DX8 for my game because I found DD too hard to deal with and it had far too many limitations. Even some old console games had alpha blending. But no matter WHAT you make the console clone WITH, it's bound to bring back fond memories.
Just my 2c...again. |
Environment Makes All the Difference. |
|
|
|
Almar
Moderator
Netherlands
192 Posts |
Posted - Oct 14 2004 : 08:50:27 AM
|
I thought you meant 16bit resolutions , until I read your post 2 times :)
|
|
|
|
Scorpion_Blood
Warrior
Portugal
118 Posts |
Posted - Oct 14 2004 : 11:26:49 AM
|
well, the most known 16bit consoles are defenitly snes and genesis (megadrive in europe), both got some very impressive games, and the best ones for snes is from the superfamous RPG "style" games, SquareSoft the one behind all Final Fantasy series and that is a really good discussion... i mean square soft changed radicaly 2d games to 3d games and it still have the fun like the past! some good titles from Megadrive is Comic Zone, quackshot, FIFAS etc
there is game(MMORPG) that is very popular, and use very well the 2 sides (2d & 3d), that is Ragnarock Online... the map(background) is totaly in 3d and the power ups have the 3d feel, but the rest its complety 2D, players (sprites) everything :p its an fantastic game but i dont like it :P lol
In gunbound, a snes game, the place were u chose to go, the mark it looks a 3D square but now i have a question is that prerendered? or is real 3d?
another thing if u want create a 16bit game i think the first thing u have to do is a fullscreen resolution no more than the GBA screen (320*160) :D
|
Edited by - Scorpion_Blood on Oct 14 2004 11:36:00 AM |
|
|
|
masterbooda
Swordmaster
277 Posts |
Posted - Oct 14 2004 : 11:33:23 AM
|
I will admit I am a little biased against 3d for the simple fact that I haven't delved much into it... I am the proud owner of all 3 of the leading console systems xbox, ps2, and game cube(and I wonder why I am poor)... but I just can't help myself for wiring up the ole nes or super nes and spending hours on them... there is just some sort of appeal there for me... maybe because the snes was the height of 2d console systems in my opinion and there is something about seeing pixels that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling...
Here are some features of the engine...
-320 x 240( 256x224 viewing like the old snes)
-256 colors with full palette support
-joystick support and (key board just to emulate the joystick)
-full mapping support (up to four for overlaying and paralax scrolling)
-full sprite support( the number I am unsure of)
-and music( dynamic hopefully, not midi)
This may seem limited, but I have noticed games actually come easier in a limited environment, and this also means the programmer will have to be a little more creative in making the game... but of course I am a nut ball..
DaBooda out... |
DaBooda Team is back: http://dabooda.789mb.com/ |
|
|
|
Eric Coleman
Gladiator
USA
811 Posts |
Posted - Oct 14 2004 : 3:37:28 PM
|
I made a modification to Peter's Biohazard code to do parallax scrolling, but I never pursued it any further because I couldn't figure out why the ground was curved. Maybe someone can make some use of this.
Download Attachment:  Parallax.zip
213.44 KB
The red box on the ground graphic is there to show the distortion, otherise isn't not that easy to see depending on the parammaters to the parallax drawing function. |
|
|
|
masterbooda
Swordmaster
277 Posts |
Posted - Nov 02 2004 : 11:43:11 PM
|
I downloaded and ran the parallax demo, and it is a good effect, although I couldn't figure the distortion either, must be some sort of side effect of the math..
But answer me this, I always thought parallax scrolling was having a background behind the foreground, and these where able to move at different speeds... I could be wrong on this... the engine will support that feature too...(although I have yet to know how to incorporate it)
I know the snes had the capability of running 4 individual layers... What is this type of scrolling called? does anyone know?
also can anyone tell me where I can get my hands on the DX7 sdk, used to have it, but it was lost due to a hardrive crash, now I simply do not have a year to wait for 128 mbs to download, I just need the actual html help file... anybody know?
DaBooda out...
P.S. I am going through with this project, more info to come... thanks for the input... |
DaBooda Team is back: http://dabooda.789mb.com/ |
|
|
|
Eric Coleman
Gladiator
USA
811 Posts |
Posted - Nov 03 2004 : 09:54:18 AM
|
The "parallax" effect is the apparent change of position of objects due to a change in position of the observer. Have you ever played Street Fighter 2? The ground in that game is a good example of a parallax scrolling.
Another example is you vision. If you arrange some objects in front of you and then alternate closing your left and right eye, you'll see objects closer to you appear to shift left or right more than objects farther away from you. This is parallax.
The demo that I displayed is a continuous parallax example. Having different layers moving at different speeds can be considered parallax scrolling, but it's layered effect and isn't continuous. The "continuous" effect just looks more 3D. |
|
|
|
reindeer horns
Neophyte
Finland
9 Posts |
Posted - Nov 03 2004 : 10:33:28 AM
|
I thought "parallax scrolling" simply meant having multiple layers scrolling at different speeds.
For example if we have a side view, the mountains at the distance move real slow, woods in front of the mountains move a bit faster, the buildings in front of the woods still a bit faster etc. |
|
|
|
Eric Coleman
Gladiator
USA
811 Posts |
Posted - Nov 03 2004 : 1:51:40 PM
|
| That is, but it's a "layered" effect, which is a simple and easy way to fake it. It makes a game feel more 3D when you have different layers, but they can still seem like flat pieces of paper. |
|
|
|
Scorpion_Blood
Warrior
Portugal
118 Posts |
Posted - Nov 03 2004 : 2:01:13 PM
|
| well in final fantasy 6 for PS1 and SNES use the reall "parallax" effect when u move city to city |
|
|
|
maxhamner
Squire
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - Nov 04 2004 : 9:34:56 PM
|
My 2.5 cents worth (adjusted for inflation)
Closing the right/left eye and noticing object shift, and the differing speeds of scrolling layers are both good examples of parallax.
I believe the definition of parallax is something about an object appearing to be in a different location from a different perspective. (i.e. two people stand under a tree and look throught the branches at the moon... the one on the north edge of the tree looks up and sees the moon in the center of the sky, near the north edge of the tree - but the one on the south edge who will also see the moon in the center of the sky will see it being along the south edge of the tree.
The effect is the result of angular tracking based on distance.
An object that moves right to left 2 feet but only 2 feet from your face will require that you rotate your eyes or head nearly 45 degrees to track the object. (put your finger next to your eye - but not in it LOL - pointing at the pencil and note the starting and ending angle) The same object moving the same 2 feet, but 20 feet from your face can be tracked by moving your eyes only a few degrees. At 200 feet the angular difference is virtually 0 - a key part of the effect - objects at extreme distance appear to not move because the angular position change is near zero.
The effect tends to be interpreted subjectively. If you move towards a stationary object you tend to think of the "object getting closer" when in fact the object isn't moving but the viewer is getting closer. Thus one can walk around while looking up at the moon or a star and the star appears to "not move" (which in fact we know that walking won't make it move anyway - but we refer to the fact it doesn't appear to move due to our position - whereas walking and looking at a nearby tree you will have to 'track' the tree as your relative positions change) Therefore we think of it in terms of how much or little an object 'moves' based on distance.
Thus with two trees in a straight line in front of you, one fairly close, the other fairly far, if you move right to left the tree in the foreground requires greater angular adjustment to track - causing it to appear to 'move' faster than the tree farther away, and to change position relative to the other tree.. even though neither tree actually moves.
This is the effect simulated by games with multiple background layers, our eyes have been trained such that they interprit the slower moving layers of the image as being farther away, giving a feeling of 'depth' |
--
max
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't. |
|
|
Restoring the 16bit glory....opinions?
