25th April 2005, 9:48 AM
Quote:Well yes, a third dimension makes this harder. Though GGA did have to have some full-3d controls as well -- for the towns, for instance, or for the enemies which go through the environment not just along the 2d path that you travel on. So it's not quite that simple.
Actually, it is that simple. Giving a tiny bit more z movement isn't difficult.
Quote:Both games obviously would have challenges with this, since the GGA one has to rotate around and all... again, you'd have a much stronger case against a straight 2d side-scroller, but this GGA's not that simple... but yes, it could feasibly be harder in MN64. Both would obviously have lots of camera issues to deal with, but in MN64 at least it's probably less likely that there'll be something between the camera and the action that you have to figure out some way to get around (like when in a 3d game the camera is behind a wall)...
Again, this shows your complete ignorance towards this subject. It's amazing how much more you continue to insist that you know more about this than I do.
MN64 has a camera that changes dynamically and on-the-fly, while GGA's is always controlled by the game, not the player. HUGE difference there.
Quote:I've discussed this. I'd say the level design complexity is very similar. Both require 3d level design tools, both have levels that are made in 3d, and at least some elements that use all three dimensions, even in GGA (like the stones that roll across the screen in the first level in GGA)... it might well be simpler to make a level in GGA because it's sidescrolling, but I'd say that they compensated by making the levels more complex, versus MN64's simpler ones... a big part of that, though, is certainly just because MN64 is first-generation and GGA isn't, so in the second game they had optimized the system more and had a better idea of what the N64 could do.
For instance... in MN64, most architecture is square -- square corners, square or rectangular rooms, etc... GGA doesn't have that problem. I guess the sidescrolling nature helps here, it keeps them from having to build the whole room, so it doesn't look as boxy... but just looking at the towns, they certainly look better in the second game, are more complex graphically, are easier to navigate, etc... but if you ignore the graphical elements, I'd say the towns are even -- in both towns work very similarly by most ways you'd compare them, after all. Are the MN64 ones harder to make? I don't think so... it doesn't seem like it's that much harder to do a series of boxy rooms (with doors and people and some stuff like plants or water or something, sure) than it would be to do a couple strip-town segments.
Seriously, how much more can you talk out of your ass? Do you go throughout your day to day life like this, spewing forth what you think is actual knowledge about subjects that you know nothing about?
The only thing you see and understand is architecture. You think "hey, polygons are polygons, right? so the levels are the same!11111". But you're very wrong. With sidescrollers you are far less constrained with designing architecture than you are in a fully 3D platformer. It does not matter that you make both types of levels in max. That detail is insignificant. What matters is that you are trying to create a balance of fun and control in either two dimensions or three. You are either dealing with a full x and y axis or x, y, and z. With GGA, they had a) a controlled camera, b) simpler controls, and c) only two full (gameplay) dimensions to have to deal with. With MN they had a) a user-controlled camera that changes constantly, b) more complex controls for use in three dimensional gameplay, and c) three full (gameplay) dimensions to deal with. All three points combine to create a far more complex development process. If you cannot comprehend this then I am not going to deal with you any longer.
Quote:Probably true, but as I've been saying, on the other hand, GGA is more polished (for instance, the noticably better english translation in GGA)... does that make up for it? I'm not sure. But it's there.
No, it does not make up for it. It is FAR more difficult to polish a sidescroller than a 3d platformer. More than you could possibly imagine.
Quote:AI... it probably is easier in a 2d game. But remember, this is a 2d game with some enemies that move in full 3d (or have some moves which are full 3d), which complicates things... and neither game exactly has the most complex AI routines around. But it would be harder to say 'walk back forth in a straight line in this full-3d environment (and charge the player if you see them)' than' walk back and forth along the plane (and charge the player if you see them)'.
There's no "probably" here. I am stating a fact.
Quote:triggers, volumes, and balance, I'm not sure what you mean.
Of course you don't! You don't know a thing about this entire topic! You can only understand it from a critic's point-of-view, which is very limited and does not give you insight into what I have been talking about.
Quote:By balance do you mean game balance? I guess that that'd be harder in a full 3d adventure-type game like MN64... would stuff like the healthbar (how in MN64 it steadily increases, versus GGA's static one), etc fall under that?
Eh, that's a very minor thing.