Dividing all areas into maps with a fixed size of default resolution in a VXAce JRPG... Sounds inter

This crazy idea of using only the default size of 544x416 (i.e. 17x13 in the editor) for all the maps popped up in my head and I would like to hear your thoughts about this design approach.

I think, being able to see the whole map all the time might help for a bit more relaxing gaming experience if the game is intended to cater more to the casual players and give the player the sense of more control over the map.

Does it sound feasible at all or is it simply a silly idea?

As I'm someone who enjoys exploration, finding nooks and crannies, wandering behind trees and discovering goodies as a reward for leaving the path, I think I would find this rather boring and somewhat claustrophobic.  Also very difficult in some types of terrain to give a proper sense of scale, e.g. towering cliffs, if everything has to be crammed into one screen.

You would still be able to go off-track for exploration but you would have to do much more "zoning" and I guess it may feel a bit claustrophobic like you said.

As for the sense of scale, I didn't mean to cram everything into one screen when I said using a fixed small size :) Just imagine dividing up a big map into 17x13 pieces. If there was a towering cliff in a big map, you would still be able to see only a part of it and you would have to climb it to see the rest. It won't be any different when you divide the map into small pieces. You will only need to change map to climb it further instead of staying in a big map while doing it.

I utterly hate this concept with a passion(if it was just a simple, newbie puzzle game it might work, but not a RPG, omg just kill me now, and spare me the agony of a RPG so bad).

The viewing screen is a joke as is, but if that was the entire size of the map, talk about a boring game. No exploration at all, a town would be made up of 1-2 houses, lmao, and it would be pointless to have any dungeons to begin with, ect.

There are good games that use this concept, but it is more difficult to do it with quality - you'll need to be a much better mapper to pull this off (this isn't possible by simply cutting a map off, the maps need to be designed not only for the small screen size but also for the zoning method and connection).


Especially

Zoltor's idea would really cause a bad game - you need to go away from the regular map approach completely.
The town in Zoltor's example would have to be restructured to consist of several street segments, with each segment containing two of the town houses and links to two or three other street segments (it wouldn't be a geometric town map anymore, but a segmented map).


Dungeons would have to consist of similiar segments, and each segment connected sequentially instead of geometrically (branches are needed in the sequence as well), and the "puzzles" would have to be spread over several segment maps, they should never be contained to a single map.

Well when someone says using the default res for a map, natually one thinks It's a whole map, not 1 of a dozen/more segments that make up a map.

Yea I also thought the whole map was going to be crammed into a default res size :p

I think it could work, providing you put in the additional effect to ensure its not a pain in the add and transfers are 'seamless'

Well, OP may be a bit unclear about my intention but if it was about cramming the whole place into a single 17x13 map, I would have said "for all the areas", not "for all the maps".

Also, I clearly said on my second post that I meant dividing a big area into 17x13 maps and wasn't really expecting such a hateful post lol. I will just change the title. Any possible "OMG it sucks, someone please kill me" type of replies won't really help with the discussion.

@Dekita. I agree that transfers should be as seamless as possible and would like to here about how to achieve that.

Well there are a few things you could experiment with.. Such as having no fade when maps are shifting (but that dont really look that nice imo)

There are also a few scripts for map transferring. Never played with any of them, but from what I have seen it looks pretty seamless (i am talking about a zelda style map transfer script - cant think who wrote it)

Well It's good that you're not talking about an entire map made to fit the screen, but it still sounds counter productive.

Also you need to take into account that #1 depending how big your game is, the compiler is gonna hate compiling your game, and #2, you're bound to use more switches/variables doing it this way, not to mention certain events could become annoying to get them to work as intended.

In the middle of last year I downloaded a demo showing a very neat way of doing transitions from one map to another without making it obvious that that is what you're doing.  It's done purely by careful mapping and events, no scripts.  I have hunted all through the tutorials' threads, but can't find it.  So, I've loaded it up to my dropbox for a while if you want to download and have a look at it.  It might be just what you're looking for (though again, it might not).  I haven't used it myself, but it looks very straightforward.  What isn't mentioned in the demo, but was in the tutorial, is that the last couple of tiles on map A (the one you are leaving) have to be the same as the first couple of tiles on map B (the one you are going to).  

Here is the link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/h0za66v9tukh0vg/AAARkVh9DRjZzWYD3VonuRYda

Thank you very much, I will check it :)

edit: I am thinking about a combination of seamless transfers and entrance/exit indicators so that the player still knows that they are actually in a map fit in default screen rather than a part of a one big map taking up multiple screens but doesn't get overwhelmed by countless transfers around maps.

Try making four small maps in the editor to test it out - no transfer sound (or if you do want one, then a quieter, shorter one) and no map transition fade.

I appreciate the ideas about transfers but I feel that the thread is about to go a bit off-topic. The main purpose of the thread was more about the map design.

I would like to hear from more people what pros and cons they can think of about such a map design approach :)

This would be a real pita to do in the editor though... A script that doesn't move the camera with the character, but slides it to a new section ala Zelda would be a better solution. Then again, the reason Zelda did this was due to hardware limitations.

I've also written a script for seamless transfers between maps. It's posted in the RGSS3 Scripts here.

 Hmm, somehow this got posted without my reply.  Here goes a second time.

I would like to question your fundamental assumption - i.e. that a game made up of maps like that would be more relaxing for the casual gamer.  Why do you say that?  To point out the obvious, you can have a stressful small map and a peaceful and serene large map - it all depends what is happening on them, the lighting, the music etc. etc.

I've puzzled over why a small map should be considered more relaxing, and am not convinced that simply being able to see the whole map is important one way or another.  On a big map I might worry what's going to happen to me beyond those trees - but I could just as easily think that when the trees are the border of the map and I'm going to have to go into a 100% unknown zone with a new map - at least with a large map I get to see a gradual unfolding of what's waiting for me.

Does it give me more control as you suggest?  Can't see how.

If your basic assumption cannot be demonstrated, at least in part, I can't see any justification for all the extra work.  There is a secondary assumption i.e. that the casual gamer only wants to be relaxed.  For that I would need to know who the 'casual' gamer is, and why you assume relaxation is what they prize above all other factors sufficiently for it to be the determining factor in your design.

It is a fight of Functionality VS Expression. 

Small maps are more functional - everything is close, everything can be quickly accessed. 

Big maps are better for showing the scope of something. For example, if you want the castle or dungeon seem really, REALLY big, then a big map will let that happen easily. 

Now, this is not all that is to it, but Curia doesn't feel like writing an essay about map sizes today (this would be really, REALLY big.....) I'll hit you with a few bullet points though:

- Both small and big maps are equally viable.

- Small maps are better for puzzles and action sequences.

- Big maps are better for slow-paced moments. 

- They both mix well together. 

- Constraining yourself only to one type will make certain tasks harder for you. 

- Small maps work better with random dungeon generation. 

- Big maps are better for random encounters (as in - your battles are based on taking steps until BATTLE HAPPENS out of nowhere) 

As a private note though... The default smallest size map is pretty small in RPG Maker so... your call, but I would go for at least the 640x480 resolution map as my smallest. 

Could you exemplify that please?

That is a very good point, never really thought about it before but that makes a lot of sense. But really that is the only positive I can see to the design specified by the OP.

The discussion pointed out that it is (theoretically) doable, but I see a lot of work for no gain. And actually I think this design would be more daunting to a "casual" player, with such a design they will be blind about what is coming up making decisions impossible to make ahead of time, after a few times running into danger with zero warning (and maybe losing) they may just think the game is too tough...it actually would be more suitable to a game with an intentionally hard difficulty, I think. So.....actually I guess that is 2 positives.