Comments on: A Question of Scale

By: Retodon8

Retodon8 — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:45:14 +0000

Sitting here at work on a slow day, looking for sites that aren’t blocked, and…
I find out Jetpack 2 is being worked on; Good news indeed!
Anyway, I figured I’d give my two pence worth as well:

First of all, I don’t like the paper thin walls/floors.
It doesn’t look nice, and makes it harder to follow along long floors, makes it harder to see what everything is.
I think gameplay would actually suffer because of that, even if it does add more playing space.

I believe the original has a decent amount of tiles.
I’d like at least the same amount of tiles, but more would be better, since at times I would love a little extra playing space.
If that means giving up on some of the graphical detail, so be it.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:19:00 +0000

I think that character complexity doesn’t matter because the best part of J1, at least for me, was that I had the freedom to imagine just how sludgy the sludge was, or what the Jetman’s fuschia excercise pants really look like, or just how horizony the horizon behind the door was. That allowed for whatever the player wanted where as, when its spelled out with 5 megapixels then it is what it is. And jetpack 1 was admittedly a kinda boring idea for a game, but the fact that it was mixed with awesome graphics, a level editor and a shady story gave it just the right mix for a perfectly addicting potpourri of “set-in-stone” game elements and imagination……….

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:51:52 +0000

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…

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:11:44 +0000

even so, I would play a game with good graphics and gameplay over one with just good gameplay.

By: Tim Kloske

Tim Kloske — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:47:41 +0000

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.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:57:22 +0000

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.

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:38:48 +0000

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.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:01:04 +0000

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.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:47:28 +0000

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.

By: Tim Kloske

Tim Kloske — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:51:33 +0000

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