is tiny maps a good idea[resolved]
- Thread starter valdred
- Start date
Personally I am a fan of both. I like large maps for the exploration value, but as you say they often get empty or boring.
My last game I had every map as 20x15 - no scrolling - and it seemed to work really well. It actually made areas seem larger even though they were much, much smaller.
You can better convey atmosphere, and have changes between maps which you can't necessarily do with large areas.
Plus, tileset sizes are smaller, which means less to load, less lag, etc.
My last game I had every map as 20x15 - no scrolling - and it seemed to work really well. It actually made areas seem larger even though they were much, much smaller.
You can better convey atmosphere, and have changes between maps which you can't necessarily do with large areas.
Plus, tileset sizes are smaller, which means less to load, less lag, etc.
Here we go again... someone asking for the general design answer. If you're being serious about the question - which I think you are, or otherwise, you wouldn't have asked - then read through this post attentively. If you're the generic advice-resistant guy who looks for the golden answer solving all problems for all projects coming up, than take either solution - your game will most likely suck anyway.
So, it's not as easy as saying "Don't use Comic Sans wen designing any media"... there's lots of possible ways your (and everyone else's) game is set up, and with no information given, this is impossible to judge. However, there's usually some cases you can tell that won't work likely. Let's have some...
1) A skating game wouldn't work with small areas, as you have to be able to move quite a bit.
2) A Sokoban-styled game would be more annoying than interesting with giant, unnavigateable maps.
As for the points you've given... small maps don't have to be annoying, they have to be utilized correctly. Take a look at games like Zelda 3 (LttP) and 4 (LA), which only consist of screen-sized maps, yet scroll in a way that makes you think of them as larger areas, which actually adds to the gameplay, as the action is kept to the current screen - the player never looses the view over what's happening at the current area.
The other thing are empty maps... while you clearly talk about a RPG-Maker-typical problem, there actually are a few games out there who were basically empty, yet interesting. Take most of the early vertical scrollers - noone complaned about emptiness back then, because it was the gameplay that counted (sad that it seems to be different nowadays). And of course, there's newer games like Shadow of the Colossus, which had that giant worldmap that had NOTHING in it, yet was cool to travel through, because that was your objective, and the world was designed beautifully (being my opinion, I know there's different ones out there).
Bottom line: Analyze your game, and try to figure out what mapping style suits it best. Thinking of what the player might feel like when he plays it is a very good start (considering how some "professional" game designers don't even think of it...), but annoyingness vs boredom won't get you a good solution anyway, so you have to figure out a way to eliminate both cases.
Good luck!
So, it's not as easy as saying "Don't use Comic Sans wen designing any media"... there's lots of possible ways your (and everyone else's) game is set up, and with no information given, this is impossible to judge. However, there's usually some cases you can tell that won't work likely. Let's have some...
1) A skating game wouldn't work with small areas, as you have to be able to move quite a bit.
2) A Sokoban-styled game would be more annoying than interesting with giant, unnavigateable maps.
As for the points you've given... small maps don't have to be annoying, they have to be utilized correctly. Take a look at games like Zelda 3 (LttP) and 4 (LA), which only consist of screen-sized maps, yet scroll in a way that makes you think of them as larger areas, which actually adds to the gameplay, as the action is kept to the current screen - the player never looses the view over what's happening at the current area.
The other thing are empty maps... while you clearly talk about a RPG-Maker-typical problem, there actually are a few games out there who were basically empty, yet interesting. Take most of the early vertical scrollers - noone complaned about emptiness back then, because it was the gameplay that counted (sad that it seems to be different nowadays). And of course, there's newer games like Shadow of the Colossus, which had that giant worldmap that had NOTHING in it, yet was cool to travel through, because that was your objective, and the world was designed beautifully (being my opinion, I know there's different ones out there).
Bottom line: Analyze your game, and try to figure out what mapping style suits it best. Thinking of what the player might feel like when he plays it is a very good start (considering how some "professional" game designers don't even think of it...), but annoyingness vs boredom won't get you a good solution anyway, so you have to figure out a way to eliminate both cases.
Good luck!
I usually stick with something like 40x40 or something aroung that. I personally think that its a nnoyinh to be tranported and have a load screem every minute or so. Large maps do tend to lag, so they are more suited for things such as wilderness themes that take less events. Also, a big map does not tend to be boring unless ou make it borings, and this is also true for smaller maps as well. o:
Oh Noes! Opinion Input Time! Alright, aw yeah. Ok, so heres the deal, heres the news:Bluescope was EXTREAMELY informtive and very right in just about everything he said. You have to think of it this way. Are you working with many people to make your game? Cause I really can not think of any Game out there in the world sold and bought and played by people around the world and was made by one person. The truth is, people using RMXP; there are rarly any games that are going to be pumped out and when those games are, you can bet there not doen by one person. THEY HAVE CREDITS AT THE END! Don't take it the wrong way, it's kinda just a bit of fact. Not to mention you know, Bluescope could of gotten up on the wrong side of the bed, but most likely he was just trying to be helpful and truthful.
BUT, back to what you asked. Something to take to heart and hasn't been said is: Events. Look man, those big maps are only laging cause you don't know how to manage that lag and or you got to big fro your briches. There are alot of things you can do to cut back on lag. It depends on how you Event. I've learned alot of tricks the past year and they've really cut back on Lag.
And an other thing. Small maps are or can be as great as Big maps.
That is a good point. Small maps are great for buildings and inside things. Big maps are good for exploring, but this is not new news, this is old news to you. I tend to stick to small maps for just about everything, though. WITH that, I'm done. I hope I was helpful. Peace Out!
BUT, back to what you asked. Something to take to heart and hasn't been said is: Events. Look man, those big maps are only laging cause you don't know how to manage that lag and or you got to big fro your briches. There are alot of things you can do to cut back on lag. It depends on how you Event. I've learned alot of tricks the past year and they've really cut back on Lag.
And an other thing. Small maps are or can be as great as Big maps.
That is a good point. Small maps are great for buildings and inside things. Big maps are good for exploring, but this is not new news, this is old news to you. I tend to stick to small maps for just about everything, though. WITH that, I'm done. I hope I was helpful. Peace Out!
i am working alone, and i am 100% aware of the fact that max 30 people will ever know about my game. the word "suck" though, is relative like everything else. by saying that an rpg-maker game sucks, you most likely mean that it sucks even more than other rpg-maker games, not that it sucks in comparison to comercial games like GTA, final fantasy and Assassins creed. the first one of those two meanings, is an insult when the person who says it not even know the game. the second one is simply a fact (as you pointed out).
i cannot know for sure which of these bluescope meant, but considering that this is an rpg maker forum (and other makers but you get my point) then i would guess that he meant to say that my game's quality is even lower than the rpg-maker average.
i hate being a complete bastard and writing all this shit, but at least i didn't use offensive language. :smile:
i have gotten my answer by the way.
i cannot know for sure which of these bluescope meant, but considering that this is an rpg maker forum (and other makers but you get my point) then i would guess that he meant to say that my game's quality is even lower than the rpg-maker average.
i hate being a complete bastard and writing all this shit, but at least i didn't use offensive language. :smile:
i have gotten my answer by the way.
Its all good man. I understand what your saying. I was also seeing bluescopes side, if you will. He never said his games didn't suck. And i'm not going to lie, my trys at a game have all sucked. I take them as a working point, stepping stones. Something we all have to go through. And if your asking the question you asked (which is a fair question and by no means should you be ashamed to ask it) then it might be safe to assume that you have some stepping stones to yet have. Which again is fine. I'm glad you got your answer. I hope we were helpful, as always you might want to check out some of the Mapping Tutorials here on the site or others. They're great, even if you don't think you need them, they'll keep you sharp and may give you a new view on things. Thought i'd add that. Also, you may want to change the topic to resolved. Peace out man!
Just to set things straight: I meant your game will most likely suck anyway if you're just looking for answers instead of solutions. From what you posted by now, like I said in my previous post, I don't think you're one of these people, so sorry for the misunderstanding of me trying to be an idiot. It's just that especially in hobby gamemaking, there's a lot of people who only care about the 'game' in 'game design'. But yeah... if I would've thought you're one of these, I wouldn't have invested time in my replyvaldred":s0y9k6xi said:
.So, I hope it's all cool between us.
@kidfox: Now aren't you an undiscovered fan of mine... expect the free member card via postal service within a few days