"Well, perhaps Earthworm Jim wasn't the best example, since I haven't played it enough to see if it has nearly as many jumping challenges as some other imprecise platformers I've played...but take something like Astal for example. I can't tell you how frusterating it was losing over and over again in the later levels because it looked like I was landing on the opposing ledge, when in fact I was not. These are the sorts of things where you would have to know right where the platform ends and the other one begins in order to adequately make the jump. I've had similar problems with parts of Donkey Kong Country/2/3, the first one in particular -- especially on that horrid frog, suddenly you have to land in the middle of anything to have any hopes of it registering a collision. It's games that rely on basic platforming for the challenge, yet take the imprecise approach, that I'm really wondering about.
Oh yeah, and the enemy thing is moreso an issue with, say, Donkey Kong Country. Blasting through those barrels at the bees or onto the vultures, it's a good thing to know just where the bee/vulture will register a collision with you -- sometimes it comes down to a mere handful of pixels."
Oh, yeah now that you mention it DKC 1 and 2 were terrible with this. I remember landing on ledges and sliding off. I didn't have any problems with enemy collisions, but ledges were terrible. I guess remembering these games puts this subject in a different light. With all of DKC's beautiful prerendered graphics the curved edges had you side off whereas in SMW there weren't any curved edges to slide on.
"However they are good, so obviously the initial assumption is flawed. Graphics are graphics and the game works provided it is designed to work with those graphics. If edges aren't 100% clear then make sure the player doesn't need to know exactly where the edge is and the game will work. Mario games are great and so were the Earthworm Jim games* - they are just great for different reasons."
Of course in most games this is true, in DKC however there were some pretty long jumps and it would have been nice to know exactly where I can and can't land. They're still great games, it's just one of the few problems they have.
2D Platformers: Precise vs. Imprecise
Author
Quote:Original post by Captain P
Oh, and are you familiar with shmups, or whatever they're called? Those Japanese bullet shower games? Now that's 'imprecise'... ;)
When movement isn't critically important, sure, impreciseness can work fine. 2D fighters don't need to be precise, graphic adventures neither. Heck, like you said, the Japanese bullet shower games use impreciseness to actually help the player out. It's simply in 2D platformers with jumping challenges that things get lame.
And yeah, I agree, gamers today don't like difficult games quite as much back then, but even back then I felt a bit jiffed when I'd die due to a game's deceptive graphics.
Quote:Original post by Obscure
If edges aren't 100% clear then make sure the player doesn't need to know exactly where the edge is and the game will work.
That's just my gripe. These games often do have challenges that should rely on accurate graphical representation;
Quote:Original post by Kulor
Well, perhaps Earthworm Jim wasn't the best example, since I haven't played it enough to see if it has nearly as many jumping challenges as some other imprecise platformers I've played...but take something like Astal for example.
Or, as I was comparing it to as well, the Donkey Kong Country series. Granted, I wouldn't think of them as bad games, necessarily; I think the level design is wonderful in those games, and they (except for the third maybe) are all worth playing. I think that the choice of graphics, however, held down the game from it's true potential; they could've easily kept a realistic look while remaining precise.
Don't take me for a graphics hater, in fact I think a perfect example of a 2D platformer using graphics to actually enhance the fun of the game is Yoshi's Island. The cactus enemies that bounce here and there, the rows of Shy Guys that drop their bombs and shake their heads at you when you ground pound...all graphical flares, but it wouldn't be quite as fun of a game without.
I prefer the Super Mario type. I like to think of my games as a series of rules and objects that behave according to rules.
I love N, for instance, but I get mad at it when my guy's on a curved surface and I'm not sure whether he's treating it as a wall or a floor.
It's important to know that sort of thing, so you can predict the results of your actions and make confident decisions.
I love N, for instance, but I get mad at it when my guy's on a curved surface and I'm not sure whether he's treating it as a wall or a floor.
It's important to know that sort of thing, so you can predict the results of your actions and make confident decisions.
I see your point.
It would definitely frustrate me if I wasn't able to improve my playing technique because some platforms' graphical presentation are accurate and some aren't.
The player would have to guess or memorize specific platforms' properties - can add the element of surprise but it takes away the feeling of control. Sure, less control is more realistic becuase we don't have total control over our lives, but that's not something I'd like to see in this type of game; that's overrding control and skill with luck.
Could you imagine in a first person shooter, a missile shot not hitting a wall but exploding because of bad collision? "The missile was very close to the wall, next time give the wall some space..."
And concerning REAL physics, when standing on a ledge you begin to fall in a rotational manner - not straight down. This means you can still make a jump based on your angle while begining to fall.
This leaves Earthworm Jim imprecise in both perspectives.
It would definitely frustrate me if I wasn't able to improve my playing technique because some platforms' graphical presentation are accurate and some aren't.
The player would have to guess or memorize specific platforms' properties - can add the element of surprise but it takes away the feeling of control. Sure, less control is more realistic becuase we don't have total control over our lives, but that's not something I'd like to see in this type of game; that's overrding control and skill with luck.
Could you imagine in a first person shooter, a missile shot not hitting a wall but exploding because of bad collision? "The missile was very close to the wall, next time give the wall some space..."
And concerning REAL physics, when standing on a ledge you begin to fall in a rotational manner - not straight down. This means you can still make a jump based on your angle while begining to fall.
This leaves Earthworm Jim imprecise in both perspectives.
The difference is that earthworm jim require those graphics as one of main characteristics is the cartoonish nice graphics. But, mario does require precice tilesets because the gameplay is most about jumping over holes (used to be called jumpman). Earthworm jim is very different because it is a platform-shooter, the character doesnt accelerate and often shoot ennemies instead of jumping gaps.
It doesnt mean earthworm jim doesnt have nice physics, or mario doesnt have cool graphics. Depens of if the game requires good collisions. For example, I think the remake of megaman1 on psp is very bad and I'm a fan of the original nes games. Could be because of a bad game desing, but I didnt like the 3d collisions and the nes engine had better jumping feeling and especially the gap jumpings.
It doesnt mean earthworm jim doesnt have nice physics, or mario doesnt have cool graphics. Depens of if the game requires good collisions. For example, I think the remake of megaman1 on psp is very bad and I'm a fan of the original nes games. Could be because of a bad game desing, but I didnt like the 3d collisions and the nes engine had better jumping feeling and especially the gap jumpings.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
