Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
SCREENSHOT SURVIVAL 20XX
Posts
Frogge
View playlists
CloseI made some changes to the contrast and saturation as suggested. Here's a side by side comparison. Do you guys think it's better now?
(I'm also planning to make the grass a little more blue for the beaches only)
Edit: A little test of colors.
(I'm also planning to make the grass a little more blue for the beaches only)
Edit: A little test of colors.
I like the original. But the newer one looks good too. I just think it's a little harsh. I actually like the "muted" look.
I don't think "muted" describes it at all because although it is low in light variance, it is very heavily saturated. (for something that low in luminosity contrast)
I like the edit to the green!
I like the edit to the green!
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Thanks to feedback on my latest blog cautioning me about swamping players in too much math, I took a look at the other ways I convey info to try and simplify it a bit. This resulted in the change to the resistances window you see here, with text replacing % counts for each element. Now the eye is immediately drawn to the relevant information for easier reading.
While I still miss showing exactly how strong or weak some elements are against enemies, I think this is an overall better look.
I do think it looks better that way. The player doesn't necessarily need to know the ins and outs of the battle system haha. I totally didn't mind it before though.
That definitely looks a lot more clear and easily comprehensible now, Red. Especially the fact that now there is no longer a whole list of "100%" entries that draw the player's attention away from the important information helps a lot.
I do think that perhaps it would be more fair to the player to either add the exact numbers for weaknesses or resistances in brackets after the words (you might have to abbreviate "resist" to "res"), or to make sure that none of them are misleadingly insignificant. If a 90% defense against an element uses the same description as a 50% defense, that's too intransparent to still be considered good design.
I do think that perhaps it would be more fair to the player to either add the exact numbers for weaknesses or resistances in brackets after the words (you might have to abbreviate "resist" to "res"), or to make sure that none of them are misleadingly insignificant. If a 90% defense against an element uses the same description as a 50% defense, that's too intransparent to still be considered good design.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
I get what you're saying, NS, but I definitely disagree that not divulging every exact detail is bad design. I could try adding some extra terms like "HIGH RESIST" or "VERY WEAK" if enough people think it's necessary, but the numbers very likely won't be coming back.
I showed a few people outside RMN the layout before the change to get their opinions. These people, despite being fans of RPGs, have never played an RM game, let alone know about how this script works. None of them liked the % values. Not a single one. I think an undivided dislike from RPG fans like that is worth serious consideration.
Plus, not giving exact values opens up the field for experimentation. The game is already heavy on party customization, so withholding the answer key will encourage players to think about their character loadouts & strategies more, rather than "Oh, pierce damage is nearly doubled on this enemy, I'll just do pierce attacks." and stop thinking beyond that.
There's a certain satisfaction that comes with uncovering an extreme weakness by yourself. That feeling just doesn't happen when the game literally hands you the answer key. Now, you're given some general guidance and it's up to you discover the intricacies for yourself. The feeling of individual accomplishment is what games are all about.
EDIT: Wow. I wanted to explain why I changed a simple display element and ended up soapboxing about the nature of games. UIs are serious business, people.
I showed a few people outside RMN the layout before the change to get their opinions. These people, despite being fans of RPGs, have never played an RM game, let alone know about how this script works. None of them liked the % values. Not a single one. I think an undivided dislike from RPG fans like that is worth serious consideration.
Plus, not giving exact values opens up the field for experimentation. The game is already heavy on party customization, so withholding the answer key will encourage players to think about their character loadouts & strategies more, rather than "Oh, pierce damage is nearly doubled on this enemy, I'll just do pierce attacks." and stop thinking beyond that.
There's a certain satisfaction that comes with uncovering an extreme weakness by yourself. That feeling just doesn't happen when the game literally hands you the answer key. Now, you're given some general guidance and it's up to you discover the intricacies for yourself. The feeling of individual accomplishment is what games are all about.
EDIT: Wow. I wanted to explain why I changed a simple display element and ended up soapboxing about the nature of games. UIs are serious business, people.
Well, don't worry then, because I never intended to argue that not divulging every exact detail is bad design. Your points make a lot of sense, but I don't think I was saying anything different to begin with.
What I meant to say is not that it's wrong to keep information from the player. But when you do give them information, it's important to make sure it's not misleading. Anyone who hasn't played previous versions of PotF before will see that it uses a certain terminalogy (Resist, Weak, and Null), and will make the very reasonable assumption that those words will mean the same thing every time they are used. If you introduce gameplay-related vocabulary like that, people will simply expect that it's used consistently.
That's not to say you can't keep things as they are and have occasions where the same word can indicate very different (hidden) values. But if that is a possibility in your game, you need to make players aware of it. How are players supposed to know that one and the same word can mean different things, after all?
In short, if you want the exact numbers to stay hidden, that's fine. Just make sure that at some point early on, the player is made aware of this fact. Leaving it up to the player to experiment and discover the hidden variances in resistances can certainly be fun, but in order for that to work and feel fair, you will at least have to let them know those variances exist in the first place.
That's how I see it, anyway.
What I meant to say is not that it's wrong to keep information from the player. But when you do give them information, it's important to make sure it's not misleading. Anyone who hasn't played previous versions of PotF before will see that it uses a certain terminalogy (Resist, Weak, and Null), and will make the very reasonable assumption that those words will mean the same thing every time they are used. If you introduce gameplay-related vocabulary like that, people will simply expect that it's used consistently.
That's not to say you can't keep things as they are and have occasions where the same word can indicate very different (hidden) values. But if that is a possibility in your game, you need to make players aware of it. How are players supposed to know that one and the same word can mean different things, after all?
In short, if you want the exact numbers to stay hidden, that's fine. Just make sure that at some point early on, the player is made aware of this fact. Leaving it up to the player to experiment and discover the hidden variances in resistances can certainly be fun, but in order for that to work and feel fair, you will at least have to let them know those variances exist in the first place.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Some new(er) shots of game. I'm having difficulty finding an ambience that suits the weather. For instance, in the first shot I hued the screen a bit to give it a little greener feel- the same goes for the snow shot with blue. Too much?
Finally, making some good progress on my attempt at meshing the RTP and my own style. Still have alot of work to do on blending the trails and grass tiles.
Kaempfer
1932
@loathableone:
I have a pretty strong bias against all tints, but I like the underlying mapping, especially for the snow town. The green tint seems a bit strong, maybe? The blueish white seems more fitting to me. With the first shot, that's a river, right? I might widen a bit so that the bridge doesn't sit so close to the edge to make the bridge seem more useful. Also, I'm not much a stickler for this sort of thing, but the bridge and the ground beside it is a different height, since the bridge/walkway has those half-tile supports.
@Sevens_Ace:
I have no idea what the RTP looks like by itself, but that looks pretty good! You went a bit crazy with repeating those bush tiles, though.
I have a pretty strong bias against all tints, but I like the underlying mapping, especially for the snow town. The green tint seems a bit strong, maybe? The blueish white seems more fitting to me. With the first shot, that's a river, right? I might widen a bit so that the bridge doesn't sit so close to the edge to make the bridge seem more useful. Also, I'm not much a stickler for this sort of thing, but the bridge and the ground beside it is a different height, since the bridge/walkway has those half-tile supports.
@Sevens_Ace:
I have no idea what the RTP looks like by itself, but that looks pretty good! You went a bit crazy with repeating those bush tiles, though.
Thanks alot, yea maybe if I edit the black line work a little they might be more subtle in a way. Those purple shadows are going for sure, I tried to get RMXP's transparency feature to work with it but I got nothing.
@Kaemfer
The river ends at a lake one more tile down, but, yeah, I see what you mean. What should I do about the forest. There were a couple overlays that I made that looked pretty good - everyone seems to hate those, though. I'm glad you like'em :).
@Sevens_ace
Looks pretty nice. I agree about the shadows, and the grass on the north side of the river in that straight horizontal row looks funky to me (nitpick). I've never used RMXP before, but how come none of those other trees get shadows?
The river ends at a lake one more tile down, but, yeah, I see what you mean. What should I do about the forest. There were a couple overlays that I made that looked pretty good - everyone seems to hate those, though. I'm glad you like'em :).
@Sevens_ace
Looks pretty nice. I agree about the shadows, and the grass on the north side of the river in that straight horizontal row looks funky to me (nitpick). I've never used RMXP before, but how come none of those other trees get shadows?
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
In RMXP don't bother with the engine's transparency feature. Just make the shadows transparent in your image editor.
Also make sure you're using black shadows, not gray or purple. You can see in your screenshot that the gray shadows are actually lighter than the ground. Making them transparent won't make that look any less bizarre.
Also make sure you're using black shadows, not gray or purple. You can see in your screenshot that the gray shadows are actually lighter than the ground. Making them transparent won't make that look any less bizarre.
Blind
2262
Sevens_Ace: Stylistically, everything meshes together for the most part, so nice job with that. Some of the objects, such as the shrubs and flowers, have a much thicker/darker "border" than everything else. It makes them appear more cartoonish and retro, whereas the RTP trees are smooth and rendered.
This might be a nitpick, but I've never been a fan of using more than 2-3 distinct trees on any particular map. It can break the illusion of a "forest" and just look like different objects plastered together on a map. Maybe keeping the shadows consistent could help with that?
This might be a nitpick, but I've never been a fan of using more than 2-3 distinct trees on any particular map. It can break the illusion of a "forest" and just look like different objects plastered together on a map. Maybe keeping the shadows consistent could help with that?
@theloathableone nice environments, I'm a fan of this style also. The green grass looks fine to me. Rainy atmosphere can produce brighter colors like you used, all depends on the level of sun.
NanakyTim
58
Wow, there's a lot of pretty graphics !
Sevens_Ace: I particularly like that fence. I couldn't agree more concerning the shadows though. I'd add that giving shadows to only one type of tree looks pretty weird too, it should either be all of them or none.
As for me, there's one screenshot from my latest project:
Sevens_Ace: I particularly like that fence. I couldn't agree more concerning the shadows though. I'd add that giving shadows to only one type of tree looks pretty weird too, it should either be all of them or none.
As for me, there's one screenshot from my latest project:
