Oh lawwwdy >.<

This, is just... shocking really... no other words for it.

Bad kids... bad.

~Sol

Hehehe awesome

Nothing wrong with using placeholder graphics until you build the engine. A lot of more experienced people do the same thing so you can work out the entire play mechanics before making everything look pretty.

Also, sometimes the simplest ideas are often the best...

Remember, if you need help with something, or want to get an idea of how something might work if you are stuck figuring things out... ask someone! Everyone here pretty much is generally very helpful and will be more than happy to point you in the right direction or even post examples.

Welcome to the boards!

~Sol

Wow I remember this too. Looks awesome and really professionally built!

Can't wait to see a video of it in action also.

Sweet!

~Sol

Wow Steven that looks GREAT O.O

Kind of reminds me of Flashback or something along those lines. That would look awesome in action with those lighting effects etc. Just spectacular!

~Sol

Heh neat

I guess the only thing that would make it better would be a "ghost" or something that moves along showing you where you will land.

Pretty cool idea though... we could remake World of Warcraft xD

Damn mages... xD

~Sol

I think they look cool.

The only things I can suggest are to (like newt mentioned) get rid of the white between the leafy chunks and make them alpha transparent... and maybe reduce the amount of movement (unless it's supposed to be really really windy) because they move around a little too much. Other than that, they look pretty cool!

Maybe, if you plan on having loads of trees you could work on making a random tree generator event sheet which will randomly pick a trunk, and place random branches on it. Shouldn't be hard to do... a little time consuming perhaps, but not hard.

~Sol

> Well go buy an Ati card and find a second hand aegia physx card... only costs three times the amount and runs slower, but if you really don't like nvidia that much, it's an option?

>

>

I don't think they make 'em anymore, support is probably non-existent.

I have an ATI

And I'd rather have OpenCL physics

if Physx does an OpenCL implementation and goes head-to-head against Havok, all will be good. No monopolies, consumers win.

Monopolies can be good as long as the product is superior... unlike Microsoft. PhysX is extermely good, very scalable, high powered, and easy to implement... In fact, PhysX is probably easier than OpenCL for physics motion anyway. :/

~Sol

when i get my project off the ground i'll probably make a resolution changer plugin if it's possible. i'll have a look into the sdk

if anyone has experience with the problem of differing resolutions, what needs to be taken into account? as in zoom, layer scaling, image sizes, behaviors, etc? assuming you want your game to be identically sized, just with higher or lower res,

so i can figure out whether its even plausible

I did this with a very early version of Chamber. You have to scale the layout and the layer scaling so you still see the same amount of play area around your character. You could get away with just zoom if you didn't care about the visible area to the player. In some games I guess this wouldn't really matter, but in other games (especially multiplayer games) this could give players an advantage if they could see more of the play area.

Making a plugin for this would rock, but it would have to take into consideration the native resolution that the graphics were drawn in, and the aspect ratio (4:3, 16:9, 16:10).

~Sol

OH LOL! xD

I think we have a winner folks

~Sol

>

> Get with the times! 1024x768 in my opinion is the current day standard minimum. Depending on the style of game you are making, this resolution may be excessive, but in most cases it's not. In fact, most of the games made by a large number of indie developers are, in my opinion, too low of a resolution. Why reduce something that could look awesome into a garble of barely recognisable pixels... especially this day in age.

>

>

it takes a very very long time to make nice graphics for that res, and making hi res graphics clogs up most low end gfx cards. simple graphics can tell a story just as well as hi res ones, except without needing expensive hardware to be run at a decent framerate.

Yeah the main valid point in regards to the deabte, is yes... it DOES take a lot longer to make hi resolution artwork to go with your game. Low-fi graphics are always easier to create... and in some cases the retro style fits the game a lot better than higher res, more modern graphics, while in others it really limits a great idea to being merely an OK idea.

Tonks is being made in 1024x768... I know it's fairly simple in terms of the art library, (IE not hundreds of sprites) but I'm thinking I should have designed it in a higher resolution already.

Anyway, everyone will make the style they are most comfortable with and that is within their abilities as a creator. I just prefer a higher resolution as my personal thing.

~Sol

Wow mate lookin great

I like the sine behaviour for the grass, it's subtle enough to look nice and gives a slightly more modern look to the retro graphic style

Keep it up! It looks like you guys have done a fair amount of work so far. Can't wait to see a demo or something.

~Sol