Jump to content

Rick

Members
  • Posts

    7,936
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rick

  1. That first picture is a big map relative to what we would be able to do. I know it's not big in the sense of today's AAA type games but that is a big highly detailed map for sure and would take way to long for us. I know you weren't saying do that specifically but I'm just pointing out anything like that I think would take too long and is too detailed.

    To me that looks like a more world hub map because it has such different zones. I can imagine clicking on each zone to load in just that specific part. That actual map is probably still too detailed for a world hub map but the idea of having very different biomes like that does makes it a good world map I think. 

    The red circles would show entire clickable areas that load that specific map. This world map would be way less detailed and low poly but get the point across of the drastically different areas that you can load. Perhaps we could have fog on the entire map but the first one you can do doesn't have fog. Then after you do it we can decide on 1 or more to remove the fog. If the fog is set in a way then we can expand as much as we want without having to decide right up front how many areas to have.

    WorldHub.png.c1f6c1ce8a25d39ddd8d6a24494f1fd8.png

  2. I think we need to decide on the exploration idea.

    Are we really wanting vast terrains so exploring is a thing? It's hard to feel like you're exploring within a small terrain. When I think floating islands I think smaller terrains not larger ones which is what I was going from. Larger terrains require populating which will be a roadblock for a small community project. We also don't want it to be a walking simulator. How long are we expecting each map to take a player to complete? Are we thinking many quick short maps or fewer longer maps.

    I generally go for smaller maps that users don't spend a ton of time in as we can more easily complete a smaller area and it makes it easier/quicker to extend the game in the future by making more maps. Since LE doens't allow 2 people to edit maps at the same time it's also just 1 person making a map. The smaller those maps are the easier that'll be to manage from a development perspective. Smaller maps that can be made in a shorter amount of time and put in front of the gamers vs a longer dev cycle with larger maps due to having to populate them.

  3. Given each map is relatively small and it's a low poly look I wouldn't think vegetation would be any sort of bottleneck for the game. Paths would then be the question. LE built in doesn't do anything like that does it? I think Aggror had a workaround for it but that can't be better than some built in tool for that in a modelling package since LE doesn't really allow much support for that kind of add-on.

  4. Not that I know blender or if anyone on our team is using blender but found this which seems to be pretty easy. I would imagine other modeling software has something similar? https://devforum.roblox.com/t/how-to-make-a-generate-a-low-poly-terrain-in-blender-in-less-than-10-seconds/87161

    Seems like it doesn't get much easier than something like this. I suppose paths and roads is where it would get harder but I assume modeling software has that covered as well?

  5. With that kind of low poly style I don't think LE's terrain can duplicate that look well enough. Is there some terrain module in some art software that makes it easy to make random low poly terrains? It's probably better to start with a random kind of terrain and edit vs making 100% from scratch.

  6. I don't know if I'd want to get all that lore heavy with a community project.

    Being a sky island these things shouldn't be all that big so as to convey that it's a sky island visually. Plus for dev reasons we'd probably want them to be fairly small so we don't have to fill it with a ton of stuff so exploration would be minimized if that was the case. If we have a big terrain the player will never feel like it's floating in the sky I don't think.

    I've never played the new Zelda game but I did watch videos on it. They have these tombs you go into and each one has it's own kind of puzzle. Perhaps each sky island can have a puzzle and a couple easy enemies (think zoombas in mario). Solving the puzzles opens up the exit. The character can have some "powers" or something that they get in each island that is used for it's puzzle. We have enough people that I think we can come up with some puzzles and the early levels will be easy ones. If we went this route I don't know if all islands even need enemies. Some puzzles can involve enemies maybe if needed. Like one could be some major stationary bad guy that's spitting out bad guys constantly and you have to fight them so you don't get overwhelmed but there is a puzzle on how to beat the main bad guy itself.

  7. I agree with sky islands (probably themed). I think that makes things more module and expandable for development purposes. The question now is what do we do on these sky islands? I would assume each one has a main goal to "beat" it while fighting enemies and solving puzzles?

  8. 5 minutes ago, Slastraf said:

    I think such a detailed document is nice when you're doing a game on your own or within a company. In a setting like this I think such a detailed doc from the start is just going to bog down the process. Having this doc is more like waterfall design instead of agile which I don't think works well in a setting like what we have.

    I think we need a high level idea of the game for sure. We can then come up with 2-3 details for each release. Each release should sort of be playable as a game in some sort of way.

  9. We can just have filler art for that. The other stuff parts for intro are known. I think for version 0.1 the idea should be just get a terrain and character in low poly and intro stuff and 3rd person camera/3rd person movement. That's it. We should be able to move around in this world and that's all for version 0.1.

    While we are doing that we can talk about more details, but version 0.1 should be bare bones something with movement.

    • Upvote 1
  10. This will be a topic for whoever will be doing the 2D art for the intro screens/main menu. I'll be doing the coding for that and I figured having a to do topic on this will help us coordinate this. The library I'm using allows tweening things with different easing so we can get fairly fancy with this with relative ease. The library works best with 2D images and it's resolution independent in sizing (it'll scale) and positioning.

  11. 16 minutes ago, aiaf said:

    Btw, please think of more tasks , i dont want to be the single guy posting tasks :)

    I can't modify your top post to add tasks but for the UI one can you add a gfx side of that. Need 2D:

    Made with LE logo

    "Company" Logo (maybe something that has LE Community Project or something)

    Game Logo that's displayed as main menu screen?

     

  12. I'll take the intro screens. I have a UI library that I made some time back. It's resolution independent and works with images and has some nice coroutine ways of handling doing things over time, like fading and moving, which makes for a nice UI experience. I'll use stand-in UI gfx for now but someone will need to do those. I'll make a separate post on UI Intro for me and the person doing the 2D UI stuff for it.

    The UI library I have also includes a tweening library in lua. So if we need to do things over time, move whatever, this tween library makes it really simple. It's nice because it has different types of tweening. Not just linear. It's based off https://github.com/kikito/tween.lua (don't use this though as the one I have is modified for LE a little).

    I like the bounce easing for UI as you can sort of bounce in UI elements which gives it a very polished feel.

  13. Looks like Third person, low-poly, world exploration/monster fighting/puzzle is the winner. We need to get some requirements down. As others have stated this is the kind of game that can have it's scope blown wide open so we probably want to start small and build from there. First release should probably be very simple. A terrain and character in the style we want (low poly) just walking around with a 3rd person script. From there the possibilities are endless but without those first steps we have nothing.

  14. Perhaps a tower defense with space ships as the enemies (I've never seen that before so it could be unique)? The map can just be space with some planets in the background which makes that easy. The enemies can be different kind of ships. Small & fast ships with low health, big and slow ships with high health, etc. Maybe the place where we can put defense weapons are marked as planets and the weapon sits on the planet?

    • Like 1
  15. When I see To Do I think it's a post per task itself. Maybe it's own forum for releases? I think most tasks warrant their own posts especially if multiple people are working on a task it can be a post they can communicate on.

  16. When Tim and I were teaming up this was an issue. Because it was the 2 of us it was easier to manage but even then it did sometimes cause issues. Ideally 1 person would own the production map file. We would have our own map files if we were testing some code out that had visuals.The main map owner would implement any functionality though ideally via instructions by the content creator of said thing.

    • Like 1
  17. Yeah, we probably could, but whatever we pick I'd like to have that in the back of people's minds. Will said project be easy to divide scripting (and probably models as well) so we don't end up with a monolithic approach to the development.

×
×
  • Create New...