Oh sure, he's back on the discussion board for one day and already wanting to change things around. . .
I would like to suggest a separate forum for 3D first person levels.
Pros:
For this format to develop there will need to be a lot of experimentation, feedback, discussion and sharing of ideas.
Not everyone likes playing them, while other people are really looking for them
Cons:
It may be that interest will fade off and there will be a forum with little activity.
If people feel they don't like 3D they may never visit the forum to see what is happening, and these are the people whose comments may be most helpful.
What do you think?[/quote]
3D discussion (renamed, prev. "New Forum needed?")
Moderators: ~xpr'd~, tyteen4a03, Stinky, Emerald141, Qloof234, jdl
3D discussion (renamed, prev. "New Forum needed?")
Last edited by sfseaman on Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:01 am, edited 3 times in total.
Steve
I quite like the 3D format for levels that don't require quick reflexes. It's also good for getting a better view of certain things. One drawback is that if you go inside anything, a house for instance, you can't see the other side of it cos they are one sided, and it can be disorienting. Another thing is that the sounds don't transfer, so you can't judge things by the noises you hear normally. Things can creep up on you without you knowing, and when spikes pop up in front of your eyes it can be a bit daunting.
I have been experimenting with making a house with internal walls too, and a floor and ceiling. Also when you look at the sky it is always black at that angle, which is fine if you want it to be night time, but not if you want any scenery. So I have also experimented with adding backdrops (environment maps), which is in effect a cylinder with the picture on the inside which encircles the whole playing area and a bit beyond.
The only problem with all this is the size of the file, 1.2MB at present and still not finished. Fine on my own pc but not ideal for uploading.
I did make a level just before Christmas - Who Stole Christmas - which has a 3D version just so that you could see the houses better.
I for one appreciate you wanting to experiment with this tool and see if something really good can come out of it.
I have been experimenting with making a house with internal walls too, and a floor and ceiling. Also when you look at the sky it is always black at that angle, which is fine if you want it to be night time, but not if you want any scenery. So I have also experimented with adding backdrops (environment maps), which is in effect a cylinder with the picture on the inside which encircles the whole playing area and a bit beyond.
The only problem with all this is the size of the file, 1.2MB at present and still not finished. Fine on my own pc but not ideal for uploading.
I did make a level just before Christmas - Who Stole Christmas - which has a 3D version just so that you could see the houses better.
I for one appreciate you wanting to experiment with this tool and see if something really good can come out of it.
Pauline
Superterv, Founder of the *K9 Carers*, -
wonderlandlover
- Rainbow MegaStar
- Posts: 3011
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 3:48 pm
It only took an afternoon to do. The house was ready made, but to be able to see the inside to I had to duplicate it and turn the duplicate inside out which is easier than it sounds. Then I had one house the right way and one house the wrong way so I could texture both of them separately. They both take up the same space so you just see them as one house. The only difference is that inside I put a rectangle as a ceiling so you couldn't see into the rafters, but if you Alt-X it you can go 'upstairs'. Then I put the model of the fireplace in and the picture on the wall. It could do with some furniture too but then it would be megabytes big.
The backdrop is just a very big cylinder with the scenery, which was also ready made, put onto it. It has to be massive otherwise you can see the top of it as you move around. The jpg for it has to be very big too or it gets to blurred so that makes it a big file.
It's a nice effect but not practical for making levels with.
The backdrop is just a very big cylinder with the scenery, which was also ready made, put onto it. It has to be massive otherwise you can see the top of it as you move around. The jpg for it has to be very big too or it gets to blurred so that makes it a big file.
It's a nice effect but not practical for making levels with.
Pauline
I definitely agree with SuperT on this one. Gives us the chance to look and see if we can handle the 3D.Superterv wrote:I still think that having the levels posted twice - 3D and non 3D would be a great way to go.
Popo - you are one awesome creator. I don't like the 3D, although I have played (and tried) a few.
If you start using models - if that's what you call them - like that, then I will look and try every level you make. They are totally awesome - Yes, I've used the same word twice, but that's what I think.
Awesome, awesome, awesome
And, a qualified Yes, to you too, Steve. I did think a separate 3D forum is an excellent idea, but the point you raise:
is a very valid argument for staying with one forum, but listing (3D) in the title.It may be that interest will fade off and there will be a forum with little activity.
If people feel they don't like 3D they may never visit the forum to see what is happening, and these are the people whose comments may be most helpful.
Mrs. Annie Purple Hat
-
Midnight Synergy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2587
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:39 am
- Contact:
I would rather not introduce a separate 3d forum at this point. The number of 3d levels is pretty low, so a simple labeling (3D) in the title should be enough to steer people toward or away such levels (depending on their preference).
As for posting levels both as 2d and 3d - that is certainly up to the level creators. I would say, though, that these levels need to be designed quite differently. Usually a 2d level that is simply converted into 3d is almost unplayable, while a 3d level converted into 2d might lose its main charm. So there might be little benefit to offer them in both varieties - only very few levels will actually remain fun in both version, I would think. Again, this is up to the individual level creators of course.
And popo - I have to echo what others have said, already. That looks beautiful!
As for posting levels both as 2d and 3d - that is certainly up to the level creators. I would say, though, that these levels need to be designed quite differently. Usually a 2d level that is simply converted into 3d is almost unplayable, while a 3d level converted into 2d might lose its main charm. So there might be little benefit to offer them in both varieties - only very few levels will actually remain fun in both version, I would think. Again, this is up to the individual level creators of course.
And popo - I have to echo what others have said, already. That looks beautiful!
I agree with SuperT and Ann on this one. As it is now, I will download a 3D level, try it, then go into to the editor and remove the 3D. I like the levels much better without 3D.Superterv wrote:I still think that having the levels posted twice - 3D and non 3D would be a great way to go.
Popo, those are really great! You really are very creative!
Pauline --
Stunning!!
Would it reduce the size of the file to create a box with a top, rather than a cylinder with no top. You might not have to go so high. Creating the box a bit bigger than the playable level, with some creative tiling of smaller jpg images and either the same or different for the "top" may reduce the size. As for doing all that, it is totally beyond me, but that is a strategy I have seen some game environments use so I wonder if that might be more efficient in terms of file size.
The house interiors are really cool
Stunning!!
Would it reduce the size of the file to create a box with a top, rather than a cylinder with no top. You might not have to go so high. Creating the box a bit bigger than the playable level, with some creative tiling of smaller jpg images and either the same or different for the "top" may reduce the size. As for doing all that, it is totally beyond me, but that is a strategy I have seen some game environments use so I wonder if that might be more efficient in terms of file size.
The house interiors are really cool
Steve
Yes I've seen it done like that too, but the environment maps I've got are just one rectangle like a strip of paper that wraps around and joins at the back. Each end matches so you shouldn't be able to see the join, although on this one you can just see it. The box ones have a sort of T shaped texture that wrap around to form a box.
I have tried doing it with flat sided ones but you can tell where it changes direction, the round ones look better from all directions. As long as you don't have it too big then you shouldn't be able to see the top edge of it, but the smaller the circle the lower the top because it has to be the same ratio or the picture goes wonky. You don't need to have a top on it cos you can't look upwards. If you did want a top on it you might be able to do it with a hemisphere instead of a cylinder, but then the mountains would look like they were hanging over you.
The size of the file is more in the jpg than the cylinder, and the house jpgs take up a lot too.
I have tried doing it with flat sided ones but you can tell where it changes direction, the round ones look better from all directions. As long as you don't have it too big then you shouldn't be able to see the top edge of it, but the smaller the circle the lower the top because it has to be the same ratio or the picture goes wonky. You don't need to have a top on it cos you can't look upwards. If you did want a top on it you might be able to do it with a hemisphere instead of a cylinder, but then the mountains would look like they were hanging over you.
The size of the file is more in the jpg than the cylinder, and the house jpgs take up a lot too.
Pauline
Oh well, just a thought. As usual you are way ahead of me. As I got part way through your posting I started thinking "hemisphere", but read on and saw the problem with that.
Hmm. . . I like what you are doing, I hope some the smart people (including you) can figure this out.
There has been a bit of a discussion about what makes 3D levels work in the "Puzzle/Action Level" forum, but I think I will try to gather my thoughts and put them here, so that we can see if this can develop into a legitimate independent genre of level, rather than a quirky "add on."
Hmm. . . I like what you are doing, I hope some the smart people (including you) can figure this out.
There has been a bit of a discussion about what makes 3D levels work in the "Puzzle/Action Level" forum, but I think I will try to gather my thoughts and put them here, so that we can see if this can develop into a legitimate independent genre of level, rather than a quirky "add on."
Steve
My thoughts about 3D at this point. . .
So here are my thoughts at this point about 3D (please share your thoughts as well. These are based upon my own limited experience in designing and playing these levels, as well as the many thoughtful comments and ideas of others.
1. There are a number of genres of traditional (non 3d) levels: puzzle, action (taking on and outwitting/defeating monsters); speed/dexterity; visual (beautiful looking); and exploration (maze, can you find everything, etc.). Any level can of course be a combination of any of these features. Some people have a preference for puzzle levels (I'm one of them). Others prefer action (I like the ones that call for outwitting rather than fast action, I'm too old and slow for that). Still others prefer speed/dexterity levels (I don't care for these, I'm too slow and get very frustrated. Visual levels, when done well are stunning (these usually call for custom content of some type). Some of these are so good, that mixing them with any of the other styles almost detracts from the beauty. These are not my strength in design, but I love looking at the really fine work done by others. In my opinion, traditional levels are not as well suited to exploration. They either need to be very large and tedious, use a lot of fake walls, which I find hard but unfair, or uninteresting. I hope I haven't offended anyone, but that is my reaction in spite of the fact that my nature would be to really like this type of level.
2. 3D first person levels do some of these better than others. Puzzle levels are much more difficult in 3D. In general it seems that the puzzles need to be more at a traditional kid level to be reasonably solvable in 3D. Some people have solved this by offering both versions of a level so that people can solve the puzzles in non-3D and then replay in 3D. I'm not sure that 3D really adds anything to the puzzle level, so if they are incorporated in the 3D level it should be done cautiously, and geared to be more simple than you might be used to.
3. Action level seem even less suited to 3D for the most part in my opinion. Outwitting the monsters may work better than those requiring fast action. Both seeing and responding to the monsters is generally more difficult in 3D.
4. I am unsure about the speed/dexterity type levels in 3D, as this is not my forte/interest. I will leave it to others to comment on how well these might work in 3D
5. If a really well done visual level is spectacular, a well done visual level in 3D is whatever is better than spectacular. 3D really shines here, as I think many people have commented. Popos work on interior spaces and skies may well take these to a whole new level.
6. It seems to me the strength of 3D may be in exploration type levels. In 3D these levels will challenge the player to develop in internal visual model based upon exploration (easier for some people rather than others) as there is no overview. In the regular levels, where there is an overview, these levels have to rely on tricks (fake walls), or very large size, but even then seem tedious.
7. I believe walls should be used sparingly and thoughtfully as they block not only movement, but vision as well. Overuse can turn a level into a very maze like level. Better to restrict movement by use of objects like flowers or skinny trees, or the very creative uses of transporters we see in the Venetian level.
8. When a maze is intended, it will be important to use a lot of visual clues to help people develop their internal map. Otherwise you will end up with the twisty maze with all the passages alike of Zork fame.
Other thoughts??
1. There are a number of genres of traditional (non 3d) levels: puzzle, action (taking on and outwitting/defeating monsters); speed/dexterity; visual (beautiful looking); and exploration (maze, can you find everything, etc.). Any level can of course be a combination of any of these features. Some people have a preference for puzzle levels (I'm one of them). Others prefer action (I like the ones that call for outwitting rather than fast action, I'm too old and slow for that). Still others prefer speed/dexterity levels (I don't care for these, I'm too slow and get very frustrated. Visual levels, when done well are stunning (these usually call for custom content of some type). Some of these are so good, that mixing them with any of the other styles almost detracts from the beauty. These are not my strength in design, but I love looking at the really fine work done by others. In my opinion, traditional levels are not as well suited to exploration. They either need to be very large and tedious, use a lot of fake walls, which I find hard but unfair, or uninteresting. I hope I haven't offended anyone, but that is my reaction in spite of the fact that my nature would be to really like this type of level.
2. 3D first person levels do some of these better than others. Puzzle levels are much more difficult in 3D. In general it seems that the puzzles need to be more at a traditional kid level to be reasonably solvable in 3D. Some people have solved this by offering both versions of a level so that people can solve the puzzles in non-3D and then replay in 3D. I'm not sure that 3D really adds anything to the puzzle level, so if they are incorporated in the 3D level it should be done cautiously, and geared to be more simple than you might be used to.
3. Action level seem even less suited to 3D for the most part in my opinion. Outwitting the monsters may work better than those requiring fast action. Both seeing and responding to the monsters is generally more difficult in 3D.
4. I am unsure about the speed/dexterity type levels in 3D, as this is not my forte/interest. I will leave it to others to comment on how well these might work in 3D
5. If a really well done visual level is spectacular, a well done visual level in 3D is whatever is better than spectacular. 3D really shines here, as I think many people have commented. Popos work on interior spaces and skies may well take these to a whole new level.
6. It seems to me the strength of 3D may be in exploration type levels. In 3D these levels will challenge the player to develop in internal visual model based upon exploration (easier for some people rather than others) as there is no overview. In the regular levels, where there is an overview, these levels have to rely on tricks (fake walls), or very large size, but even then seem tedious.
7. I believe walls should be used sparingly and thoughtfully as they block not only movement, but vision as well. Overuse can turn a level into a very maze like level. Better to restrict movement by use of objects like flowers or skinny trees, or the very creative uses of transporters we see in the Venetian level.
8. When a maze is intended, it will be important to use a lot of visual clues to help people develop their internal map. Otherwise you will end up with the twisty maze with all the passages alike of Zork fame.
Other thoughts??
Steve
-
Liz Mayhew
- Rainbow Spirit Master
- Posts: 9169
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:07 pm
Popo - those 3D views look stunning. Shame they're so big. Maybe you'll find a way round it one day.
Steve - I myself hate the 3D view in most levels, but there have been a few which used a more open aspect so you could see further and not feel claustrophobic. Most of the scenery doesn't work extremely close up anyway - it becomes too pixelated. I also don't like that when you use a trampoline you don't experience a jump. And you can't change direction quickly enough if there are dangers.
Perhaps I'll try some more 3D explorations, using scenery. I did try putting one of my earlier Coin Quest levels into 3D, which used arches. It did look good, but the level was unplayable.
Steve - I myself hate the 3D view in most levels, but there have been a few which used a more open aspect so you could see further and not feel claustrophobic. Most of the scenery doesn't work extremely close up anyway - it becomes too pixelated. I also don't like that when you use a trampoline you don't experience a jump. And you can't change direction quickly enough if there are dangers.
Perhaps I'll try some more 3D explorations, using scenery. I did try putting one of my earlier Coin Quest levels into 3D, which used arches. It did look good, but the level was unplayable.
Lizzie
To err is human,
To arr is pirate!
To err is human,
To arr is pirate!
I have to agree with you Liz, those arches would look stunning in 3D, and I agree things do look blurred when viewed up close. That's why I have made textures bigger, so they look sharper, but then the files are bigger too.
I think 3D is only any good for 'no brainer' levels where it's obvious what has to be done, or for mazes (even though it is closed in and is a bit claustrophobic, it does look like a real maze would), and for visual 'walk in the park' sort of things. You can't even have a look round in 3D like you can in normal mode, with Shift and arrow keys, which I keep forgetting and end up moving when I just wanted to see around me. It's a bit like having blinkers on, or having tunnel vision.
Having said that Janetgalle's Caveman level wouldn't have been half as amusing if it wasn't in 3D. When you turn around to see a fireball zooming towards you and your eyes go it's priceless.
I think 3D is only any good for 'no brainer' levels where it's obvious what has to be done, or for mazes (even though it is closed in and is a bit claustrophobic, it does look like a real maze would), and for visual 'walk in the park' sort of things. You can't even have a look round in 3D like you can in normal mode, with Shift and arrow keys, which I keep forgetting and end up moving when I just wanted to see around me. It's a bit like having blinkers on, or having tunnel vision.
Having said that Janetgalle's Caveman level wouldn't have been half as amusing if it wasn't in 3D. When you turn around to see a fireball zooming towards you and your eyes go
it's priceless. Pauline