Low-end graphics vs. ASCII

[Yeesh]

I just think you can do so much with tilesets, and since there seem to be more and more being developed all the time, I can't understand sticking to ASCII. If only because I don't want to have to use the Look command on everything to know what it is whenever I start playing a new game.

 

[Orgasm]

One thing I dont like about ASCII is the floor.

 

[lisac2k]

One more low-end graphics whore.

Just a small off-topic: what shall be the initial language version of the project, German?

 

[Phelot]

and guess what, I got a professional graphic artist who was working for Bungie (the people who made Halo) at that time.

Could you by any chance give his name? Or at least when he joined Bungie?

EDIT: Oh yeah... I like the low end art best. This may sound stupid, but I hate trying to figure out what the fuck each character is supposed to mean. One of the reasons I can't get into Dwarf Fortress.

I don't mind it in roguelikes that aren't over whelming like Angband, but when the whole screen is filled up with random shit, my head assplodes.

 

[shihonage]

Those screenshots are biased. Of course I would choose low-end graphics with a dark background over horrible ASCII where the background is lightgreen!

 

[Goliath]

and guess what, I got a professional graphic artist who was working for Bungie (the people who made Halo) at that time.

Could you by any chance give his name? Or at least when he joined Bungie?

Nope, that happened years ago and I don't remember his name. I quickly abandoned the graphics idea so the whole collaboration lasted about 2 days or so.

 

[Goliath]

Just a small off-topic: what shall be the initial language version of the project, German?

No, English.

 

[Goliath]

The poll result is pretty clear: low-end graphics win.

Thanks for participating!

 

[Goliath]

Fixed the color scheme of the skull. It was only a test screenshot but that just looked too horrible. Art style consistency FTW!

 

[Yeesh]

EDIT: Oh yeah... I like the low end art best. This may sound stupid, but I hate trying to figure out what the fuck each character is supposed to mean. One of the reasons I can't get into Dwarf Fortress.

I don't mind it in roguelikes that aren't over whelming like Angband, but when the whole screen is filled up with random shit, my head assplodes.

It only sounds stupid when one takes into account that all you have to do is go right here and download one file, then make one change to one .ini, and the game looks like this:

 

[mondblut]

Unfortunately, I wouldn't get away it. I am not some modder, but a free software person. I want to use that whole infrastructure for project hosting and distribution just like I did in the past and those guys REALLY care about license issues.

Well, if it's so important for you to comply with those GNU or whatever shackles, this part is still relevant: "pick some popular standart icon resolution, and... let future modders do that for you".

Stick to 24px stickmen, keep unit graphics in easily replaceable form (unpacked and in some generic format), and without doubt some anonymous man of good will shall eventually produce a completely unofficial tileset. Linux cultists do not yet ban games on the grounds of their moddability and some third party using something copyrighted in their mods, do they?

Edit: I liked the knight and the altar better in the first version.

 

[Achilles]

I you can make your game work with the tilesets Yeesh posted, I think you should go with ASCII. Tilesets look much better.

 

[Johannes]

I'm fine with ascii, though there's a lot of quality differences between implementations of it imo. ADOM dungeons have a crispier look than Nethack for example (when a walls/floors have a consistent look, instead of changing between rooms and corridors like in Nethack for one), and DF looks too messy with all these non-typable symbols. Then further along the line someone can do a tileset, or use an existing one - I'd think sometihng made for Nethack/DF/etc would be available at least. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the graphics side at first as much.

Also it's really nice to have the [l]ook option regardless of graphics, I think.

 

[Ontological Priority]

​​

 

[Damned Registrations]

ASCII has the advantage of different things being inherently recognizable as the image they are (The 'D' is always a 'D' so once you know it's a dragon it's an instant recognition.) And unless the graphics are pretty good, there's always going to be shit like the anvil/altar thing where you need to use the look command anyways. Especially if many different things are involved. It's pretty hard to make tiles for 12 different adult dragons that look signficantly different enough you won't need to use the look command.

Looking at the nethack tileset shown here for example, the difference between the kitten and the cat is very tiny, and although the dwarves are fine for short humanoids section, I wouldn't recognize the hobbit and gnome icons as such with knowing they were supposed to be short humanoids. They could just as easily be elves or thieves or leprachauns. (On second thought, that's probably what the last one in that row is; I'd have mistaken him for a gnome and gotten my pockets picked.)

That said, it's best to leave the door open for tilebased mods of really high quality. Dwarf Fortress is pretty gimped there, since it shares a lot of characters between text and icons, any really nice tileset also makes chunks of text illegible from time to time.

 

[PandaBreeder]

Goddammit graphics whores, popamole, FFS, , etc.

Anyways, I'm voting in favor of low-end graphics. They're much more practical as you can know what something is with a glance.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Goddammit graphics whores, popamole, FFS, , etc.

Anyways, I'm voting in favor of low-end graphics. They're much more practical as you can know what something is with a glance.

Really? What do you figure the 4 objects in the pic are then? My guesses would be, in read order; Knight/swordsman, anvil, fairy/fey thing, mage/priest/rogue?

Edit: Also, how many tiles between the brown guy and the knight guy? I'd guess 5, but can't be certain.

 

[Crooked Bee]

I agree with DamnedRegistrations. Low-end graphics can be deceiving. ASCII is not -- and it's not so hard to learn the symbols, to boot, really -- so it's the least problematic option for roguelikes, I think.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I agree with DamnedRegistrations. Low-end graphics can be deceiving. ASCII is not -- and it's not so hard to learn the symbols, to boot, really -- so it's the least problematic option for roguelikes, I think.

 

[Goliath]

I agree with DamnedRegistrations. Low-end graphics can be deceiving. ASCII is not -- and it's not so hard to learn the symbols, to boot, really -- so it's the least problematic option for roguelikes, I think.

..but I am not working on a roguelike, just to make that clear. I have decided to use graphics, so as far as I am concerned this thread is complete.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Yeah, sorry, we've derailed your thread a little. Good luck with your project!

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I think that post was about ascii vs tilesets in roguelikes. Ascii is great for games that have a shitload of monster types like roguelikes.

 

[Severian Silk]

Don't like ASCII.

 

[laclongquan]

ASCII is for faggot!

A game should have at least lower end graphic. Sure, that put more work on your non-existent budget, but if you dont care enough to do that, I doubt I can get interest to play your game.

Dwarf Fortress is a favourite here but I dont even consider give it a try. I dont ask much, mind you, but ASCII is right the fuck out.