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)
THE SCREENSHOT TOPIC RETURNS
Posts
slash
View playlists
Close
ubon
66
you know what, I think the onus is on the short-stairs crew now to take some pictures. find a staircase next to a wall, take a picture from on top of a stepladder, and then come back here and tell us how sorry you are for wasting our time.
You know what assumptions do.
I'll hide tag this so as to not bump the screens to death with rambling.
No, it's not fair to assume the view point is around 45 degrees at all, the abstraction is trying to portray something like that (as in - "that is exactly what you're supposed to think") but it does it in a manner that is only possible on a two-dimensional display (sort of an inverse of AE's take). You will never encounter infinite parallels in any viewpoint that could be taken by any real-world observer, so it is futile to work within the framework that the observer in a parallel projection is viewing anything akin to what a disembodied 45-degree angled observer would see in any known real-world frame of reference.
The abstraction is there to facilitate a moving vantage point as you correctly said (Mawk, I mean). However you can't make the leap to using rules based on a hypothetical observer that would be viewing the scene "as if it were real"
My point, if I have one, is that because it is a total abstraction there are areas where it breaks down entirely and leads to contradictory yet simultaneously correct possibilities. The error isn't in any of your arguments but in your attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies in a fundamentally limited abstraction in the first place - In other words I'm saying you're correct in identifying the problems raised by RM's POV but incorrect in your efforts to reconcile them to make sense in real world way. (and @Mawk again, Judging by your picasso remark I'll assume you're just as familiar with the sort of impossible/contradictory yet internally consistent images Escher managed to create by playing with the limitations of projections of 3d within a 2d medium).
tis a blivet.
End of ramble.
I'll hide tag this so as to not bump the screens to death with rambling.
No, it's not fair to assume the view point is around 45 degrees at all, the abstraction is trying to portray something like that (as in - "that is exactly what you're supposed to think") but it does it in a manner that is only possible on a two-dimensional display (sort of an inverse of AE's take). You will never encounter infinite parallels in any viewpoint that could be taken by any real-world observer, so it is futile to work within the framework that the observer in a parallel projection is viewing anything akin to what a disembodied 45-degree angled observer would see in any known real-world frame of reference.
The abstraction is there to facilitate a moving vantage point as you correctly said (Mawk, I mean). However you can't make the leap to using rules based on a hypothetical observer that would be viewing the scene "as if it were real"
My point, if I have one, is that because it is a total abstraction there are areas where it breaks down entirely and leads to contradictory yet simultaneously correct possibilities. The error isn't in any of your arguments but in your attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies in a fundamentally limited abstraction in the first place - In other words I'm saying you're correct in identifying the problems raised by RM's POV but incorrect in your efforts to reconcile them to make sense in real world way. (and @Mawk again, Judging by your picasso remark I'll assume you're just as familiar with the sort of impossible/contradictory yet internally consistent images Escher managed to create by playing with the limitations of projections of 3d within a 2d medium).
tis a blivet.
End of ramble.
ubon
66
but what does any of that have to do with the issue of stairs
this generic-ass jrpg map is not an Escher print. it is trying to represent the real world. and a sloped surface, viewed with the slope head-on, will appear longer to the viewer than nearby un-angled surfaces representing only its length or depth. this is very easy to represent given the tools he has. representing simple real-world geometry is not an incredible mystery.
besides, an RPG map is only about as abstracted as, say, a structural blueprint. blueprints will generally omit vanishing points from everything except promotional images of the completed work, and they can nevertheless be used to represent something that exists (or can be built to exist) in physical space.
p.s. they make an ass of umption???
this generic-ass jrpg map is not an Escher print. it is trying to represent the real world. and a sloped surface, viewed with the slope head-on, will appear longer to the viewer than nearby un-angled surfaces representing only its length or depth. this is very easy to represent given the tools he has. representing simple real-world geometry is not an incredible mystery.
besides, an RPG map is only about as abstracted as, say, a structural blueprint. blueprints will generally omit vanishing points from everything except promotional images of the completed work, and they can nevertheless be used to represent something that exists (or can be built to exist) in physical space.
p.s. they make an ass of umption???
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
author=NBHere's a pro tip for you:
No, it's not fair to assume the view point is around 45 degrees at all, the abstraction is trying to portray something like that (as in - "that is exactly what you're supposed to think") but it does it in a manner that is only possible on a two-dimensional display (sort of an inverse of AE's take). You will never encounter infinite parallels in any viewpoint that could be taken by any real-world observer, so it is futile to work within the framework that the observer in a parallel projection is viewing anything akin to what a disembodied 45-degree angled observer would see in any known real-world frame of reference.
1) open up google earth, or any other satellite view of the earth
2) zoom in as close as possible
3) there is no discernable vanishing point, because the distance between the camera and the subject is so great
4) holy shit that's actually possible after all then
5) holy shit that means you're full of shit
More hide tags.
Well, At least to my eyes, Lockez's attempt to reconcile the issue lead to a result that looks more "wrong" than the original. For the record I do tend to extend my staircases but most often only by a single tile, Lockez's imposition of correct real-world logic on an impossible-in-real-life projection made it look far worse as far as I am concerned (and by far worse I mean having far less real world verisimilitude). Also I wouldn't say the original example "looked wrong" and if we're going by your standards then "looking wrong" is the only significant factor here (and the reason it doesn't look wrong despite actually being incorrect by real-world standards is precisely because of the effects of the abstraction).
You can represent 3d in a 2d medium, obviously. But all projections are abstractions and you have to play by the rules of the abstraction rather than the rules of reality in order to achieve a satisfying visual semblance of reality. What you said about "extend a little" is right in my books, Lockez extended it too much in the service of applying assumptions derived from reality which were incompatible with the representation and thus made it look worse.
Well, At least to my eyes, Lockez's attempt to reconcile the issue lead to a result that looks more "wrong" than the original. For the record I do tend to extend my staircases but most often only by a single tile, Lockez's imposition of correct real-world logic on an impossible-in-real-life projection made it look far worse as far as I am concerned (and by far worse I mean having far less real world verisimilitude). Also I wouldn't say the original example "looked wrong" and if we're going by your standards then "looking wrong" is the only significant factor here (and the reason it doesn't look wrong despite actually being incorrect by real-world standards is precisely because of the effects of the abstraction).
You can represent 3d in a 2d medium, obviously. But all projections are abstractions and you have to play by the rules of the abstraction rather than the rules of reality in order to achieve a satisfying visual semblance of reality. What you said about "extend a little" is right in my books, Lockez extended it too much in the service of applying assumptions derived from reality which were incompatible with the representation and thus made it look worse.
ubon
66
shut up.
here's a screenshot.
shamelessly co-opting DE's tiles while I work on a thing. my own graphics'll come in once I've got this working the way I want -- right now, it's just a matter of getting a help window to show up at the bottom so I can be more descriptive and add pictures of the things in question.
the things in question are just things I came up with for filler and probably will not be around in the actual game to solve puzzles.
the palette is something I'll probably be carrying over into the finished product. it's the nicest four-colour Game Boy scheme I've seen, and it's been a huge amount of fun to work with so far. Akropolis has been one of my big inspirations since small times, so it's only appropriate.
old as shit, but not a bad example of what I'm trying to do here
here's a screenshot.
shamelessly co-opting DE's tiles while I work on a thing. my own graphics'll come in once I've got this working the way I want -- right now, it's just a matter of getting a help window to show up at the bottom so I can be more descriptive and add pictures of the things in question.
the things in question are just things I came up with for filler and probably will not be around in the actual game to solve puzzles.
the palette is something I'll probably be carrying over into the finished product. it's the nicest four-colour Game Boy scheme I've seen, and it's been a huge amount of fun to work with so far. Akropolis has been one of my big inspirations since small times, so it's only appropriate.
old as shit, but not a bad example of what I'm trying to do here
@mawk:
I really like the soft blue. Has a good vibe to the tileset, and matches the text window nicely.
@off-topic:
You can't argue that "It may not be 45degrees, therefore the stairs can be w/e height I want".
Drop the geometry and stop tryin' to calculate it so clinically and just use your fucking eyes. If you have a wall (that we all know and accept is entirely vertical) and stairs beginning at the bottom of the wall, and ending at the top of the wall, then the stairs are vertical. The angle of the camera is entirely irrelevant by this point. We have a comparison point, we have perspective: the stairs cannot be the same tile-height as the walls or they will be vertical.
And again, artistry, geometry and all that shit aside: having vertical stairs looks balls-out stupid. There's no two ways about it; it just does not look right.
I accept that having a 5 tile high wall looks awful with ten tile high stairs becasue it takes up so much of the map, but there's a reason that no decent mapper does that. In these situations, stairs are spread out in smaller chunks or are side-view specifically for the sake of avoiding big staircases that take up the map.
Either use smaller walls so that the correct stair heights don't look weird; spread your steps out to the sides and make it more of a zig-zag climb; or just use side-view. Vertical stairs are stupid. Get over it.
I really like the soft blue. Has a good vibe to the tileset, and matches the text window nicely.
@off-topic:
You can't argue that "It may not be 45degrees, therefore the stairs can be w/e height I want".
Drop the geometry and stop tryin' to calculate it so clinically and just use your fucking eyes. If you have a wall (that we all know and accept is entirely vertical) and stairs beginning at the bottom of the wall, and ending at the top of the wall, then the stairs are vertical. The angle of the camera is entirely irrelevant by this point. We have a comparison point, we have perspective: the stairs cannot be the same tile-height as the walls or they will be vertical.
And again, artistry, geometry and all that shit aside: having vertical stairs looks balls-out stupid. There's no two ways about it; it just does not look right.
I accept that having a 5 tile high wall looks awful with ten tile high stairs becasue it takes up so much of the map, but there's a reason that no decent mapper does that. In these situations, stairs are spread out in smaller chunks or are side-view specifically for the sake of avoiding big staircases that take up the map.
Either use smaller walls so that the correct stair heights don't look weird; spread your steps out to the sides and make it more of a zig-zag climb; or just use side-view. Vertical stairs are stupid. Get over it.
ubon
66
stop.
there have been so many "last word"s on the subject that I don't think people are ever going to get it. it's useless to try, because then they feel like they have something to prove.
the windowskin, tiles, and palette were all made by DE! I agree they're lovely, but I can hardly take credit for that.
there have been so many "last word"s on the subject that I don't think people are ever going to get it. it's useless to try, because then they feel like they have something to prove.
the windowskin, tiles, and palette were all made by DE! I agree they're lovely, but I can hardly take credit for that.
author=mawk
stop.
there have been so many "last word"s on the subject that I don't think people are ever going to get it. it's useless to try, because then they feel like they have something to prove.
the windowskin, tiles, and palette were all made by DE! I agree they're lovely, but I can hardly take credit for that.
Hammertime.
author=Ratty524
@Pizza: Looks nice. Is it supposed to be melted iron, though? I almost thought it looked like a global view of a continent at first.
It's a really bad low-orbit view of some cities, yeah. I could have spent like three times as much time on it and made it look good, but as a mockup it's doing its job just fine. Really, I shouldn't even be working on NL right now, so I'm glad I just threw it together.
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
I was going to demonstrate an 8-step proof for the elongated stair theorem (you have been brainwashed, indoctrinated, educated stupid and cannot comprehend nature's harmonic simultaneous 4-day perpetual stair cube creation) but then remembered to take my medication.
So instead here is my third dungeon, in its entirety, now fully mapped as of today, though enemies are not yet placed in most maps. Note that each of the three floors is actually several maps, but I combined them into one big map here for the sake of convenience/readability.
Floor 1:
Floor 2:
Floor 3:
At this rate I am completing one dungeon per year and should have my game finished by 2035.
So instead here is my third dungeon, in its entirety, now fully mapped as of today, though enemies are not yet placed in most maps. Note that each of the three floors is actually several maps, but I combined them into one big map here for the sake of convenience/readability.
Floor 1:
Floor 2:
Floor 3:
At this rate I am completing one dungeon per year and should have my game finished by 2035.
author=Brady
Drop the geometry and stop tryin' to calculate it so clinically and just use your fucking eyes. If you have a wall (that we all know and accept is entirely vertical) and stairs beginning at the bottom of the wall, and ending at the top of the wall, then the stairs are vertical. The angle of the camera is entirely irrelevant by this point. We have a comparison point, we have perspective: the stairs cannot be the same tile-height as the walls or they will be vertical.
And again, artistry, geometry and all that shit aside: having vertical stairs looks balls-out stupid. There's no two ways about it; it just does not look right.
I accept that having a 5 tile high wall looks awful with ten tile high stairs becasue it takes up so much of the map, but there's a reason that no decent mapper does that. In these situations, stairs are spread out in smaller chunks or are side-view specifically for the sake of avoiding big staircases that take up the map.
Either use smaller walls so that the correct stair heights don't look weird; spread your steps out to the sides and make it more of a zig-zag climb; or just use side-view. Vertical stairs are stupid. Get over it.
...They are not vertical stairs. Okay, look people, it's very simple math.
author=LockeZauthor=LibertyI'd love to see a screenshot of this, because although I know Minecraft has the worst 3D of any video game in existance, I was pretty sure it was at least geometrically plausible. We just had this argument about another map and you were being equally dumb then. If it's cutting into the mountain then the top of the stairs should actually cut into the mountain, and end a tile or two north of where they start. Not end directly vertically above where they start.
Actually... If Minecraft does anything it validates the height of stairs=height of tiles. So no, forget making it one tile further down. It's in 3/4 view. It's fine. You can 'read' that map that it cuts into the mountain instead, if you prefer.
For the jury:
Exhibit A: A vertical wall. The top pixel of this red indicator is vertically directly above the bottom pixel. It is not a single inch further north.
Exhibit B: The same screen area as the vertical wall. If the stairs were exactly this big on the screen, they would be a wall.
Exhibit C: The difference between exhibit B and the total visible screen space taken up by the stairs. This is horizontal distance that the player has walked north while walking up the stairs.
The perspective is assumed to be approximately 3/4 - that is, we're looking down at a 45 degree angle. Therefore, because B is five times bigger than C, these stairs are five times as steep as a 45 degree set of stairs. This would be unascendable without at least handholds; it would rise at an 81 degree angle.
I will grant, however, that in this particular map, the problem is not nearly as noticable as it was in Mr_Detective's shitty wall map. This is mostly because the irregular cliffs obfuscate and distract from the impossible geometry.
However, if you want to fix it, here is how the stairs should look:
These stairs are 45 degrees. They go as far horizontally as they do vertically. (Stairs are sometimes a shallower incline than 45 degrees, but they're almost never steeper than 45 degrees.)
This... is wrong. By extending this back, not only do you create some stupid ass blockage all to get it to look square, but it doesn't work, because the eye interprets it as added slope. That is, rather than that being the wall, as it looks like to you, by lengthing it without accord to the crest of the hill, rather than a ledge you have a crag, and rather than typical 15-45 stairs these are "high" stairs instead of "long" ones.
author=NewBlackJust some thinks.
This... is right. Look, I just played Tales of Legendia today, and looked at some hillside stairs. They were exactly as tall as the top of the hill. Then I looked at these angle models, and it clicked.
If you have a hill 3ft tall, then the stairs extends 3ft in. Which is exactly the the top of the hill. This is a 45 degree angle, with the length at equal to height (in other words, a right angle at the back end).
If that weren't enough, I tested this model on our outside porch steps. It works (the stairs stop at, duh, the top. Maybe with a slight indent of a foot or two. But never 2x the top length, making picture A's slight indent actually the correct one). The longer the stairs, the higher the stairs. Unless you can somehow manage to make the terrain itself look flat.
LockeZ, you're certainly one of the best mappers out there, if we could actually end up having a game...(I really liked your first one, Vindication, by the way, the title screen is really stuck in my head).
ubon
66
@bulmabriefs144, make a topic about stairs or drop the subject completely. this isn't getting dragged back out every time someone new stumbles on that wreck.
@LockeZ, the top of... pretty much everything cylindrical looks a little too narrow for the perspective. If you look at the bottom-center in the first shot, where the trash can and the water heater are about side by side, you should see what I mean.
I'm not sure how much at liberty you are to change that, though, since a lot of these tiles look like they were rendered in 3D or converted from photographs. oh, well.
(no multi-page derail about cylinder perspective, please.)
@LockeZ, the top of... pretty much everything cylindrical looks a little too narrow for the perspective. If you look at the bottom-center in the first shot, where the trash can and the water heater are about side by side, you should see what I mean.
I'm not sure how much at liberty you are to change that, though, since a lot of these tiles look like they were rendered in 3D or converted from photographs. oh, well.
(no multi-page derail about cylinder perspective, please.)
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
@bulmabriefs:
A) Everyone else gave up already please stop
B) Tales of Legendia is THREE DEE how is that even the tiniest fraction worth of relevant
@mawk: noted, some are worse than others, I can see that the water heater is really bad, I had a similar and much more noticable problem with the giant vats in my first dungeon so you'd think I'd have learned by now. In this case the problem was due to me just taking a water heater photo from google image search and going "yeah that looks about right" without bothering to actually compare it, haha
A) Everyone else gave up already please stop
B) Tales of Legendia is THREE DEE how is that even the tiniest fraction worth of relevant
@mawk: noted, some are worse than others, I can see that the water heater is really bad, I had a similar and much more noticable problem with the giant vats in my first dungeon so you'd think I'd have learned by now. In this case the problem was due to me just taking a water heater photo from google image search and going "yeah that looks about right" without bothering to actually compare it, haha
author=mawk
(no multi-page derail about cylinder perspective, please.)
Don't worry, this stairway argument is nowhere near finished.
@LockeZ: Besides the cylinder problem the only thing I could pick on in those screens is a part of that dialogue. Saying "my life" twice in a row like that sounds kind of odd. Saying something like "I'll regret it forever" would maybe read a little better. I don't know shit about dialogue however, so feel free to ignore me on this.
The topic wasn't really about stairs, anyway.
It's about... look, people give me (and probably others) a hard time about perspective. But you gotta understand that the dimensions of an RPG (especially on made with rpgmaker where all the dimensions are scrunched) are not based on vanishing points, and so are based on trying to make a (rough) comparison to the real world rather than art school perspective.
Sometimes you have trees exactly the same size, despite what perspective says. Why? Because trees of the same type are the same size except when they're not due to being a different age. Sometimes you have stairs at the top of a hill instead of extending and sweeping around. Because you know what? Stairs end at the top of a hill. Despite what might look better, it really is impossible for them to go onward on a flat plane. Perspective is based on vision (based on looking "straight" using the Earth's curves). But this isn't how things actually are.
Also, now I have to fix all the times I've done it wrong, so I'll quit talking about stairs.
Also, what the hell is that he's standing on?
It's about... look, people give me (and probably others) a hard time about perspective. But you gotta understand that the dimensions of an RPG (especially on made with rpgmaker where all the dimensions are scrunched) are not based on vanishing points, and so are based on trying to make a (rough) comparison to the real world rather than art school perspective.
Sometimes you have trees exactly the same size, despite what perspective says. Why? Because trees of the same type are the same size except when they're not due to being a different age. Sometimes you have stairs at the top of a hill instead of extending and sweeping around. Because you know what? Stairs end at the top of a hill. Despite what might look better, it really is impossible for them to go onward on a flat plane. Perspective is based on vision (based on looking "straight" using the Earth's curves). But this isn't how things actually are.
Also, now I have to fix all the times I've done it wrong, so I'll quit talking about stairs.
Also, what the hell is that he's standing on?
