A Question of Scale
There’s a delicate balance to reach between side of visual appeal & character complexity, and the side of level quality. That balance is achieved by selecting the proper scale. I’ve decided that the tiles should be one of 3 sizes: 30px, 32px, or 36px. Since the game resolution will be 800×600, adjusting for an extra wall and the status panels gives us corresponding usable level sizes of: 26tiles * 17tiles, 24tiles * 16tiles, or 22tiles * 15 tiles. (The original Jetpack’s levels were 26tiles * 16tiles).
As I’ve stated before, Jetpack 2 will not scroll, so the scale must be kept small in order for the levels to have proper complexity. However, missions will consist of multiple levels/rooms, so puzzles can span several rooms. We also want to appeal to the average casual game player, and a quick look at the most popular casual games reveals that they typically have a much larger scale. Copying what’s popular is an easy choice - but not necessarily a correct one.
Below are drafts of the different scales at the actual size they will appear in the browser (in the downloadable version this can be full screen). Included are some everyday household objects for detail reference. Keeping in mind the balance we need to achieve, weigh in on which you prefer!
36px tiles = 22×15 levels
We give up 4 columns and 1 row from the original Jetpack, but we get a significantly larger scale.
32px tiles = 24×16 levels
Levels are 2 columns smaller, characters are slightly larger.
30px tiles = 26×17 levels
Levels are about the same size as Jetpack 1, small scale characters.
A rough example of the center-less tiles that allow for more detailed levels
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
I think the biggest benefit of making it proportional with the original game is that you could use all the old levels in the new engine. Maybe have the game run at 640×400 and have basic levels use double-resolution tiles and the complex levels use the original ones. I think it’s important to look at how the game can be made better and suitable for being playable online… Whether the gameplay changes a lot or not, you can always add things that would make it more interesting.
If you haven’t seen this, check out the java port of Heartlight (Double-sized stretched tiles looks like the original game):
http://www.steike.com/games/heartlight/
Flash port of SkyRoads (Map editor uploads maps online for everyone to play and rate):
http://www.hummezum.hu/swfroads/
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
I thought of doubling the tiles to 24×24, but it is extremely small at that scale. The problem with being web-friendly is you can’t just take over the whole screen, you can take up anywhere from 1/8th to 1/2 of the screen, depending on the player’s resolution.
Most of the original levels aren’t good enough to go in the new version, and the rest will have to be updated anyway. I think we’ll have lots of volunteers making levels too.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I think the old level scale was adequate except for the 16 rows, I found that I would need just one more row so many times. So I would definitely vote for the 26×17 option. That many tiles you can still easily oversee. 2 plus colums and 3 more rows I think are too comples and 24×16 is too little.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Are these three examples taking the 3rd dimension into account? Using the 32×32 tiles for example, would the 32×32 tiles just be the front face and the 3rd dimension goes beyond this? Or would the front, top, and side be included in the 32×32?
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
The 3d is ignored in the size calculations.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:15 am
I seriously messed up my last comment and I couldn’t find a way to delete it so here’s a rewritten version:
I really liked how in the original Jetpack you could oversee the whole level because the number of rows and columns wasn’t too much, so even if you were in the top left corner you could keep in your field of vision what was going on in the bottom right. (Of course, I’m now thinking this based on running Jetpack in a DOSBox window, so no wonder that I can oversee it now, maybe it wouldn’t be so if I ran it fullscreen on a large monitor) The only thing I found negative in this sense is that when designing levels I would constantly run into a problem of having just one row too few. I don’t know why that is but I remember the feeling from the old days and I certainly ran into it now when I took Jetpack out again and started to make new levels. So without graphically seeing the design I’d vote for the 30px tiles, 26 rows, 17 columns version, but I might possibly change my mind if I saw all three in action.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
I don’t think this is a big issue, though I would recommend a number of rows/cols that enables old levels to be brought to jetpack 2. Sure, the old levels are not all great, but there a few gems like ‘work those leg muscles’, and ‘chaos’, ‘chambers’, etc. These would be candy for the hardcore oldschool fans.
Also, regarding multiple rooms, have you ever played ‘framed’? That game was like jetpack (but scrolled), there were doors placed on the background wall, so the player could walk through them to reveal a second platform screen that was parallel to the normal one, i.e. two levels stacked on top of each other. Hard to explain in words but a very nice effect.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
This is off topic, but another thing that I remembered that jetpack 2 needs is a fuel depletor, like an instant one, so you don’t have to use rows upon rows of fuel drainers. Also there needs to be a simple and instant one way door. for exemple a steel barrier encrusted with stone on one side, just like the already existing brick.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
For people thinking that a larger play area will not allow importation of old levels then think again. Even if the screen size is bigger, the extra tiles could jus be filled in with stone. Unless Adam makes it so that you can have variable level size, then it wouldn’t even matter at all.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:42 am
@Dan: unless of course he selects the 24×16 size.
@Adam: The items in your images are shorter than the height of a block, is the engine going to be capable of full height items (that get partially obscured when placed beneath a block)? Seems like a geometry flaw otherwise.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Sorry, the images were missing for a few days and I didn’t know it. Wordpress screwed me by converting my paths from relative to absolute, so when I copied the post over from my staging site, they didn’t work for anyone but me.
I should have mentioned, the level sizes listed are maximums, you will have the option to make levels smaller.
The items are a little smaller than a tile, because otherwise the top of your head would be obscured every time you ran through a tunnel, and I think that would be unattractive. One of the unfortunate effects of a 3d look.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Oh, pictures! Great. Okay, this gives a much better basis for decision.
Seeing all three I now can definitely say that the 28×19 levels are too much and the tiles are too small. The 26×17 levels look the best but seeing the design and taking into account that there would be more to a level than just one “layer”, also made me really like the 24×16 setup a lot. I also like 24×16 because it has you see the tiles in more detail, which is good because they look pretty.
Also, I disliked the 3D look previously but this way, having a tile-ish background instead of the mountain background, it’s much more appealing.
(Oh, and I definitely approve of David Hasselhoff as a monster.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:44 am
@Adam: I agree there, having the head cut off would not be good, but I think a monster’s head being cut off would be a plus, it would give it an extra ‘fear factor’ as well as enhance the 3D appearance, if *everything* was short it would look like something was wrong, and that the graphics where taking a short-cut.
Also, are you accepting that when jetpack stands on the left of a block part of his body will be obscured? Or have you a way around that too…
June 5th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I like the 26*17 tile levels. 24*16 is just too small, but I wouldn’t mind designing for a 28*19 level
June 5th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I think that the level size should be the largest possible, but if anything, at least it should be the size of jeptack 1 levels because it would be ideal to be able to import those ones. I like that you can make it smaller. I could make a wicked little 10×12 level…
June 6th, 2008 at 12:41 am
You should have the mona lisa head be an enemy in the game!
not. really.
June 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
OK I’ve removed the smallest option as I just didn’t like it, and I replaced it with a 36px tile option at the top. This gives up 4 columns and 1 row from the original Jetpack, but we get a significantly larger scale.
I really like the look of the larger scale. The big question is, will giving up 20% of our usable level space hurt level quality? (Yes imported levels from Jetpack 1 will have to be edited, but this is Jetpack 2 not Jetpack 1!)
June 7th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Personally, I would WAY rather have more tiles than less. I think that detail should be sacrificed for tiles because there is a LOT more you can do with a level that has more tiles than more detail…
June 8th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Hey just to let you know i found some Actionscript 3 encryption software here:
http://www.amayeta.com/
the SWF Encrypt 5.0 can encrypt Actionscript 3
June 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Sure, but there must be a happy balance, otherwise he would make the square 4px by 4px
I for one am a proponent of beautiful graphics where it doesn’t intrude the gameplay too much.
I’m not sure how much can be resolved in this discussion, I feel confident the editor will make a good choice.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Well I forgot a pretty important point: You can have center-less tiles, ie walls/floors without the brick. So even at a larger scale levels can be a lot more complex. For example, previously to create 2 tunnels would take 5 tiles: brick-space-brick-space-brick. In the new system it can be done with 2 tiles: floor-space-floor-space-floor. So even in the largest scale above, you could have 15 horizontal tunnels (albeit more cramped), where in the original Jetpack you were limited to 9. I’ve posted an example of this above.
Thanks Dan, I actually have an arrangement with the SecureSWF people, but for 2 months now their product has been too buggy to work. And their customer support has been very poor. To nerd out and quote Star Wars, “this deal is getting worse all the time”. Their encryption seems superior to SWF Encrypt though, which is why I’m holding out.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Well, seeing all the examples, I’d say I like the ‘30px tiles = 26×17 levels’ option best. However, I’m probably somewhat biased in this regard, as I’m rather obsessed with the Original game, and thus, my thinking tends to turn to making J2 similar to J1.
Personally, the graphic detail in J1 never bothered me; in fact, I was happy with it. That being said, the option that has smaller (and obviously, less detailed) tiles, with bigger levels, is quite appealing to me. I guess it depends where you want to take the game, Adam. If you like a more classical theme, I’d stick with smaller tiles and bigger levels, but if you want to ‘update’ and add more graphic detail, then you’ll need bigger tiles.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Its nice to see those wafer thin floors and walls, but it would be nice if such walls and floors, when left on their own, did not appear as brick, since that’s impossible, they should appear like a wooden platform for instance.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Perhaps instead of having completely center-less tiles, it would be good to have thin tiles that are maybe half the height of normal tiles. This way they don’t look completely thin sheets of paper. If you’re going to show the tiles from a perspective angle, then shouldn’t the tiles have length, width, and height? It just seems like a step backwards.
I’d say stick to tunnel objects: a single block with both a ceiling and floor. I’ve added a link to an image I made that will sort of show off what I mean. Note that I used the redbrick pattern as the center of the tunnel object. This wouldn’t be necessary, and could be replaced with a window texture or be left open completely.
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb293/timkloske/tunnel_concept.gif
June 10th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Yeah the wafer issue is a problem, dern it. I’m trying to figure something out now.
Thanks for the image example, that is helpful. I’m considering something similar, the problem is the ceiling of one tile has to be the floor of another, so they can’t both be within 1 row. Having it extend from the bottom may be the way to go.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
well I’m stuck between the first and second designs; they both have good points and bad properties. But if I really had to choose, my first thought would be the 2nd one, with more stuff in it.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I don’t know how to say this without seeming like an asshole but so far I’m not seeing anything I like in this new version of Jetpack. From what I’ve read and the pictures posted, this is going to be nothing but a graphical rehash of the same game. If basically nothing is going to change I don’t even see a point in doing it. It’s your game and you can make it how you want but if there aren’t going to be BIG improvements over the first game I’m just going to stick with the original.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Hey give it time, I have to make a living too… there are other improvements described in other comment sections. I’m not going to post about them until I’ve decided on a few though.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:47 am
As much as I like graphics, I think that gameplay>graphics. Why do you play a game? To have fun. The content of the game is probably more important than the graphical size of the objects. I still have fun playing Atari games like pong. Graphics are a plus and certainly do add to the entertainment value of games, but overall gameplay does seem to outweigh them. I’d say go for the 30×30, and like I showed within the image in my last post perhaps make the top faces a little smaller. This way you will still get more detail into the characters (because they can be taller, and bigger without their heads getting occluded), and still have lots of room on the board for blocks, items, tricks, and traps.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
even so, I would play a game with good graphics and gameplay over one with just good gameplay.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Has anyone gotten re-addicted to jetpack 1 again since this blog started? I just made a whole freaking level pack and even made demo videos as to how the game is beaten…… I need to get a job or something…