These are chat archives for janek26/secretgamedev

23rd
Feb 2016
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 11:51 UTC
Funny thing, I just realised if our game is even going to be 3D or 2.5D
123p10
@123p10
Feb 23 2016 12:26 UTC
I thought we chose 3d but not sure
Janek Rahrt
@janek26
Feb 23 2016 12:33 UTC
you mean iso2d?
i like the 3d part as well
Florian Klaarenbeek
@FKDesign
Feb 23 2016 14:18 UTC
I created my introduction post..finally, sorry for the delay. But its there :)
123p10
@123p10
Feb 23 2016 14:34 UTC
Yeah i dont like 2.5D I would prefer 3d
123p10
@123p10
Feb 23 2016 15:05 UTC
the suffix for the website is :4567 right
?
Janek Rahrt
@janek26
Feb 23 2016 15:08 UTC
port y
123p10
@123p10
Feb 23 2016 15:10 UTC
yeah sorry I meant port
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 15:18 UTC
By 2.5D I mean a 2D game with 3D graphics
Janek Rahrt
@janek26
Feb 23 2016 15:19 UTC
bit why should We do so?
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 15:22 UTC
The question rather is: Why shouldn't we? We know nothing about what the game will be like/about, the only thing we know is we want 3D low-poly graphics, so we shouldn't throw the option out of the window just because through some general suggestion everybody thought about full 3D gameplay.
And if you want an argument for why we should do so, I could say that it's much easier to make... But it's not an argument before we even know the gameplay, sadly
Janek Rahrt
@janek26
Feb 23 2016 15:23 UTC
dont think so cause you need 3d models as well
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 15:25 UTC
It's much easier to make game mechanics when you're only operating with 2D vectors instead of 3 and 1 number for angles instead of 3. The collisions are also easier to make for the 3D models, it's easier to avoid glitches, the AI is also much easier to make, there's so many positives you could list.
JesseWalsh
@JesseWalsh
Feb 23 2016 15:48 UTC
I dont think anyone has expressed interest in making a platformer or a metroidvania style game, which fits well with 2.5d. Kube is right about it being easier to make though. I worked on the art for a bad 2.5d game about 5 years ago and you can crank that stuff out fast, especially if it is low poly.
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 15:49 UTC
There's other game styles that work with 2.5D
For example Warp
The game is great, the port is bad
It isn't low-poly, but it is 2D with 3D graphics
JesseWalsh
@JesseWalsh
Feb 23 2016 15:52 UTC
warp is isometric not 2.5 d
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 15:54 UTC
'scuse me?
First things first, isometric means a specific angle
Second thing, it assumes 2D graphics
Warp is neither
I played all the way through, I know it
JesseWalsh
@JesseWalsh
Feb 23 2016 15:55 UTC
incorrect
2.5d is something like unravel or shadowcomplex
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 15:55 UTC
Not only
JesseWalsh
@JesseWalsh
Feb 23 2016 15:55 UTC
warp is considered isometric
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 15:55 UTC
The definition is broad, it can be both ways too
JesseWalsh
@JesseWalsh
Feb 23 2016 15:55 UTC
because it is using an isometric camera
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 15:55 UTC
no, not really
It's a perspective camera
JesseWalsh
@JesseWalsh
Feb 23 2016 15:56 UTC
no it is not
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 15:56 UTC
It freaking is :P
Look at screenshots or videos
You can see the sides of the walls
Both of them, depending on where you stand
And they change visual shape depending on where you stand
That clearly means it has perspective
JesseWalsh
@JesseWalsh
Feb 23 2016 15:57 UTC
if it is not fully isometric it has a very very shallow fov
JesseWalsh
@JesseWalsh
Feb 23 2016 16:02 UTC
but to the point
that style has advantages and disadvantages
sense of expoloration is limited
(you can't really see far off vistas)
but combat could be cool
like Diablo
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 16:22 UTC
It's not a very shallow FOV even tbh
Watch a video of it or something
It has a strong perspective
Also, is this even going to be a fighting game? Was the decision made?
Florian Klaarenbeek
@FKDesign
Feb 23 2016 16:25 UTC
On our first meeting (saturday march 5) everyone has their time to throw in their ideas, explain etc. Then we will decide unanimously on the style, genre, etc.
Then we will really have something to work on
As of now, its pure ideas.
Make a thread and throw in your ideal look/playstyle of the game etc.
123p10
@123p10
Feb 23 2016 16:26 UTC
gipfel5.eu:4567
JesseWalsh
@JesseWalsh
Feb 23 2016 16:28 UTC
@kubinator4321 I did watch a video before I first commented on it. You are still incorrect
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 16:28 UTC
How am I incorrect?
I gave a simple argument as to why the camera isn't ortographic:
You can see perspective clearly
Janek Rahrt
@janek26
Feb 23 2016 16:29 UTC
@kubinator4321 not even one decision was made, we will take decisions at the 5th march 19:00 CET at teamspeak: gipfel5.eu hope you are fine with this
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 16:29 UTC
Yeah, you're going to send reminders before it, right? :>
Janek Rahrt
@janek26
Feb 23 2016 16:30 UTC
email? I will send a email to everybody one day before, just keep it in mind, keep it free
@kubinator4321 Maybe you should just use more emoticons, you seem to be toxic many times :P
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 16:32 UTC
Oh, I really dislike the graphical emotes
Florian Klaarenbeek
@FKDesign
Feb 23 2016 16:32 UTC
:worried:
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 16:32 UTC
They just feel dumb, so I fall back to ":>"
:>
Janek Rahrt
@janek26
Feb 23 2016 16:32 UTC
haha alright m8
:D
kubinator4321
@kubinator4321
Feb 23 2016 19:03 UTC
BTW, not exactly related but this is a good read from iquilezles: http://iquilezles.org/www/articles/multiresaocc/multiresaocc.htm