/vr/ - Retro Games

>>3173983
Top down, mostly just because that's what I'm used to.

I find top-down easier to keep track of.

>>3173983
Depends on the game.

Top down is way easier for platformers and action games, where as the isometric perspective works better for like strategy games.

For instance: Landstalker is a good game, that is way more difficult to wrap your head around control wise than it should be.

>>3173983
Isometric, definitely

>>3173983
Am I the only who feels that, despite isometric being visually very pleasing, it also ends up being "exhausting" to look at / play in? Or maybe my brain is weird?

In find it much easier to immerse myself in a top down game and get myself comfy.

>>3173983
Isometric if the controls aren't fucking diagonal.

>>3174000
I've never really noticed that effect, but that makes sense. It might be why I tend to prefer 3/4.

>>3173983
3/4 is better in most cases. I only like iso when the controls are hands-off, menu or cursor driven. It's really awkward to move characters around in iso environments.

Controller-based and/or action games: 3/4
Mouse-based and-or turn-based games: Isometric

>>3174080
This guy gets it.

Isometric all the way.

>>3174210
how do you create tilesets for that?

>>3174219
Not sure how it would work on the NES specifically, but if you just use one sprite per object and draw everything from back to front there won't be any problems.

>>3174223
NES has harsh sprite limits, the image is very likely a tile grid

Visually I prefer isometric games, but top-down is easier for gameplay.

>>3174223
>>3174226
I took a cleaner screenshot and added an 8x8 tile grid over it, where I think the tile borders would be. What can be seen is how little sense the individual tiles make, they only work in groups. What can also be seen is that there are quite a few transitional tiles. For examples tiles that contain one half spikes, and the other half a column, or spikes and floor. In other words, the designers had to do these transitional tiles, either just in time (unlikely) or handmade (likely), and the level makers had to deal with the tile count, so they can't use transitions from any object to any other object.
Note that the colored objects are not part of the grid. They're actual sprites.

>>3174249
Those small blocks move at the pixel level though.

>>3174262
w8 that's what you said nvm

>>3174249
some video footage shows sprites can be moved behind objects like spikes or floating platforms and are partially obscured. I really wonder how that's done. Sprite overlays on the foreground objects? But they'd have to be only on the very object doing the covering, or it would be way too many sprites. Modifying the sprite of that object to cut off the parts that should be covered? That would take some pretty twisted logic, especially when doing it 60 times per second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScW77tAMOgE

>>3174249
>>3174285
So I found this
http://forums.nesdev.com/viewtopic.php?t=9078
>Masking in CHR-Ram
whatever that means
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=894_PNqBkx4

Pixel artist here. I don't understand the concerns you guys have about those two pics >>3174210 >>3174249. Pic related should clear things up.

>>3174301
I'm not concerned about the pics. The is though, your isometric grid there, still needs to be done using 8x8 rectangular tiles, at least on NES and similar platforms. So one "iso tile" is actually the combination of at least 4 real grid tiles. And even worse, these 4 tiles contain not just the iso tile, but also a quarter of each of the four neighboring tiles.
On a normal grid you can put any tile adjacent to any other tile. On an iso grid you can't, because a grid tile always contains two quarters of two different iso tiles. So for any "transition" you need a dedicated tile. That takes a shitload of planning

>>3174307
>So for any "transition" you need a dedicated tile.
Seems like this is not true, they just have square sprites and diagonal masks where needed. You can see the vid above, about halfway in, where they hadn´t implemented the masking yet.

>>3174295
Sounds like
>Modifying the sprite of that object to cut off the parts that should be covered
and doing it just in time. I'm very impressed.

>>3174315
I'm talking about the background grid, not the sprites

3D

>>3173983
I prefer voxels that can be rotated to view both styles.

Not retro, but that's where I'm at creatively

>>3174030
Like Solstice? Fuck I hated that. I don't care what the POV is if I press up I wanna go fucking UP relative to the POV unless it's tank controls (like Desert Strike).

>>3174506
show examples

>>3173983
Isometric looks way better, but it's a bitch to play on, specially if it needs precision.

>>3174295
Very interesting video

Isometric. It adds a layer of depth, and makes the world feel more involved. Allows graphic artists to slap on more details. With a 3/4 topdown, you can only do so much. But with an isometric view, you make a game look very nice.

I've seen both work fantastically. Can't say that I prefer it one way or the other.

>>3174693
It makes sense for games with isometric cameras and orthogonal (i.e., no diagonals) movement.

Perhaps that implies a design flaw inherent in combining the two, I don't know.

>>3175337
Not quite, but this is an aesthetic that's close to what I like.

https://youtu.be/xi7f1rSJvfY

>>3175579
that's just random cubes. Thought you had some voxel models that work in top down and iso on a pixel level, because that would be pretty rare and difficult

I prefer isometric aesthetically, 3/4 usually looks really primitive and flat. Isometric can get kind of confusing though.

>>3175741
you're one of many anons in this thread that pointed out the difficulty of navigating iso, and you're correct in doing so. I'd just like to add that it's a reason why strategy and sim games tend to go for iso more often. It is visually more capable, and there's no individual character or anything to navigate, so that drawback doesn't "exist" for these games. Just a viewport, and that's not concerned with top-down vs. iso.

oblique.

>>3173983
Isometric for cursor driven (mouse controlled/strategy etc) games, top down and 3/4 for keyboard controlled games.

I prefer top-down.

Isometric works for turn-based strategy games or RPGs, or anything that doesn't involve action like platforming or fighting, but top-down works for both, so I pick that.

>>3175993
What unit is that above Dancouga and next to Cybuster? Is it Goshogun?

>>3176020
Yes.

>>3173983
I prefer whatever the hell is this. Looks like the middle ground between top-down and iso.

>>3173983
Isometric with 8-direction control

>>3176095
It's the Cabinet Projection, a quick and cheap prospective used by the forniture industry.

>>3176095
It's called oblique projection.

>>3176963
But isn't oblique this one >>3175773 ?

>>3177239
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_projection#Oblique_projection

Interesting. I was ready to say they're all the same non-perspective projection from different angles, but apparently isometric and oblique are different major categories.

Cabinet is a specific type of oblique projection though apparently.

>>3175773
Mah nigga. Too bad they are so rare that anything with this kind of view is automatically seen as a ultima 6 or Tibia copy.

>>3174210
Speaking of Solstice, did anyone care for its sequel Equinox? I remember seeing ads for it and how long it was, but is it actually worth playing through?

>>3176095
Why weren't more games made like this?

>>3177829
because it's crappy visuals

>>3173983
What's the game on the right?

>>3177862
isometric

>>3173993
> Landstalker is a good game, that is way more difficult to wrap your head around control wise than it should be.
I will never understand why people have trouble with this. The Mega Drive D-pad is designed so that it's incredibly easy to push diagonally. How can it even occur to someone to press just left or just down when they really want to move left and down?

>>3175993
The best SRW were isometric and the map was a big part of that. Top down a shit for that series.

>>3177862
I think it's FF Tictacs Advance.

>>3177545

I love Equinox, although I prefer Solstice overall.

>>3173983
Some games mirror the directions for isometric, which ends up confusing. Does the up button go left-right or right-left?

>>3177941

Hot opinion, I profoundly disagree, SRW F/Final is my favorite entry in the series, but to each his own.

Anyway in the case of SRPGs, isometric/top-down is just an aesthetic thing, doesn't actually change anything about the gameplay.

>>3178057
>Anyway in the case of SRPGs, isometric/top-down is just an aesthetic thing, doesn't actually change anything about the gameplay.
that's why they do iso. It's capable of more detailed visuals, but annoying to navigate. If you don't have to navigate, you use it.

>>3178057
>doesn't actually change anything about the gameplay.
Ah, it doesn't have to but it can. Since we're talking about SRW, in the top down games they really wuss out in the map obsticles department. While in a isometric game there might be mountains in the middle of a map that you have to go around in the top down games they'll just have you go right over them with ground units.

I like F/Final as well but I think they would have easily been better games with Alpha's maps.

>>3178142
>in the top down games they'll just have you go right over them with ground units
that's a gameplay decision, unrelated to the perspective. They can have your ground units go right across the mountain in iso as well.

>>3178142
>While in a isometric game there might be mountains in the middle of a map that you have to go around in the top down games they'll just have you go right over them with ground units.

That's not how it is. On the top-down games you still can't go over certain places with ground units.

See >>3175993
Ground units can't just walk over the the terrain prominence, they have to go through the narrow path that's on the bottom-left part.

They work exactly the same way in both iso and top-down.

Anyway it's not that I don't like the isometric maps, I just said I prefer top-down in general because they're more versatile in terms of games genre, but there's nothing wrong with either when it comes to SRPG.

>secret gba thread

>>3177412
Or the original Sim City.

>>3173983
Isometric for the most part

>>3174210
>>3177545
Did anyone care about Altered Space?

>>3173983
>autism

>>3181054
we're not allowed to talk about common 2D drawing aesthetics on /vr/? Where's the list of approved subjects?

>>3177934

Because some people grew up with isometric platformers on home computers like Head over Heels and Knight Lore. Most of them default to unusual controls where e.g. pushing left sends you either left-up or left-down, depending on the game.

>>3173983
Proportions in top-down games are rather unrealistic.

>>3173983
The style of isometric graphics used by Japanese tactical RPGs, with variable height thing is for some reason extremely pleasing to me. I don't feel that way about most Western isometric graphics (i.e. Jagged Alliance 2, X-Com) because it seems they try to be overtly "realistic" and feature mostly flat maps - but the "stairway" look is probably my favorite aesthetic in a videogame.

Isometric is always prettier when done right, but it requires a little more work due to isometric art flaws. This kind of thing can be worked around but it's apparently not obvious enough, because floating platforms were a thing.

>>3177934
>>3177934
>I will never understand why people have trouble with this.

This. Landstalker is one of my favorite games of all time. I played it when it came out and don't recall having any problems with the controls back then, just as I don't have any problem with them now.

I just wished that one day we'd see a proper sequel, or at least a 3D classics port of the game.

>>3185687
Wouldn't something like this solve the problem? It could probably be achieved with some palette swapping.
>in case it's not clear, lighter the shadow - higher the object is

>>3185830

It would since you have a frame of reference, but oftentimes you'll be able to view only a portion of the screen, or you won't have a frame of reference like a shadow in the first place.

>>3175773
So ugly

>>3185830
works somewhat if your system supports alpha blending. Otherwise this eats into your tile count, badly

>palette swapping
remember that each iso tile is assembled with several grid tiles, and each grid tile contains parts of at least two iso tiles. So something as simple as changing the color of adjacent iso tiles takes a bit of planning, and a few tiles

X-Com, Sim City 2000, and Transport Tycoon seals the deal for isometric for me.

>>3175773
Ultima VI was pretty damn cool though, I wish there was a modern handheld/phone port.

I guess Jagged Alliance also had that top-down view too.

>>3185707
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkTjRc-6kAM

It didn't get released.

>>3188410
>It didn't get released.

I know ;_;.