Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Dungeon Crawlers: first person Vs top-down

hrose

Educated
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
90
I spent the last couple of days looking into "classic" dungeon crawlers of a certain kind. So I looked up Demise, the two Labyrinth of Touhou, Elminage Gothic, Wizardry Empire 2, the one just done for the SNES and Stranger of Sword City.

I'm looking especially for mechanically complex and heavy on exploration and level features. (please suggest if you have more examples, any kind of mechanically complex RPGs, even pen&paper or tabletop, but I'll likely know them already)

Of course I don't have the time and endurance to go through all of this myself, but I spent a lot of time reading threads here and what other players had to say.

What I'm interested about is some kind of game design break down that analyzes what makes first person dungeon crawlers special. Like a complete list of features that the genre has to offer, types of exploration, puzzles, challenges and so on.

Is any of that specific to first person or it can all still be retained in a top-down game? For example in a game like Demise you have a 3D first person window, and then a map window. Of course FP crawlers were built because they relied on the players drawing the map on paper, but more recently even hardcore crawlers like Elminage, or even Fate Gates of Dawn still offer an usable map in-game. So they are essentially top-down.

Is there something that goes away with a change of perspective, some unique flavor of FP?

Put aside graphic or presentation, I'm only interested in concrete gameplay. One aspect I can consider, for example, is pixel hunting. You see some oddly placed stone and by clicking on it you might trigger a secret door. This is an example that couldn't be directly reproduced in top down. What else?

What is that would turn one off if a dungeon crawler was exclusively top-down instead of FP? (beside graphics)

Also, why given the choice one should prefer a blobber to something that considers character positions on a map?
 

Dorateen

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,332
Location
The Crystal Mist Mountains
First person perspective for exploration puts the player in the game world. Top down or isometric is more of a detached experience. I won't say you can't make a complex top down dungeon, if it's large enough, anyone can get lost. But you never truly create the sensation of crawling in a dungeon unless you're looking through the eyes of the 3D window. The limited vision is part of it, and I don't think having an ingame map negates that, especially when coupled with clearing a fog of war. But actually not seeing the characters in the party makes it more abstracted, closer to sitting at the table for a pen and paper session. Any square can be a surprise to be discovered, and the player never knows what's behind the next corner. That is a key gameplay component that contributes to the drive to keep playing a dungeon crawler.

Top down is good for combat, for the obvious tactical reasons. And of course the magical combination is first person exploration, and top down battle maps.

I would add the Might & magic series to your classic crawlers list, as well as the Gold Box catalogue and Realms of Arkania. Some of the more clever puzzles/locations in the Arkania trilogy had the party splitting up to achieve an objective. Oddly, I've never seen something quite like it in a top down game.
 

hrose

Educated
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
90
I would add the Might & magic series to your classic crawlers list, as well as the Gold Box catalogue and Realms of Arkania. Some of the more clever puzzles/locations in the Arkania trilogy had the party splitting up to achieve an objective. Oddly, I've never seen something quite like it in a top down game.

Well, yeah. I mentioned the more obscure game because the western ones are known. Gold Box is that blend of FP + top-down. The party splitting is already part of my idea.

First person perspective for exploration puts the player in the game world. Top down or isometric is more of a detached experience. I won't say you can't make a complex top down dungeon, if it's large enough, anyone can get lost. But you never truly create the sensation of crawling in a dungeon unless you're looking through the eyes of the 3D window.

Yes, but I want to separate "feel" from substance. Getting lost in FP is a thing, but it isn't anymore if you have a map, especially if it's onscreen and easily available.

The limited vision is part of it, and I don't think having an ingame map negates that, especially when coupled with clearing a fog of war.

But fog of war can easily be used in top-down. You are right when you include the Field of Vision, though, since top-down you usually see the whole area around and "turning" is not a mechanic used. So this is one concrete aspect.

But actually not seeing the characters in the party makes it more abstracted, closer to sitting at the table for a pen and paper session. Any square can be a surprise to be discovered, and the player never knows what's behind the next corner. That is a key gameplay component that contributes to the drive to keep playing a dungeon crawler.

If you cannot see monsters then it's true that every cell becomes meaningful, and it's true that top-down dungeons tend to be far less densely populated. But some of that can still be retained. Any square = any room. The fact you can have an event on a cell even if graphically it looks exactly like another is not a very good feature of FP games. But "the player never knows what's behind the next corner" is not an exclusive feature of FP.
 
Self-Ejected

Davaris

Self-Ejected
Developer
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
6,547
Location
Idiocracy
FPS vs top down is just a matter of preference. I have never liked FPS as the 3D looks artificial and gives me a headache.

If you want the player to have the getting lost feeling, make it a point not to include auto maps.

There is no reason why a party can't split up in a top down game. Sounds like it could be fun.
 

V_K

Arcane
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
7,714
Location
at a Nowhere near you
One aspect I can consider, for example, is pixel hunting. You see some oddly placed stone and by clicking on it you might trigger a secret door. This is an example that couldn't be directly reproduced in top down.
Actually, Lords of Xulima did just that.

Personally, I think the effects of the difference in perspective are pretty minor. Some puzzles that e.g. rely on doors opening or closing out of view might become trivial in in top-down, but it's not like it can't be remedied. It might be harder to do vericality, e.g. pit traps and stuff - but also not completely impossible. Basically, you just have to adapt your dungeon design to chosesn perspective, and all will be fine.
The only thing you really can't do in top-down is real-time blobber combat - but is it that big of a loss? And if you'd want to go that way, it would be easier to include point-and-click screens in first-person - but what game, other than Legacy, does that anyway?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom