detail vs. gameplay

[108 Stars]

Talking about a possible version of Donkey Kong for the Lynx made me think (again) about a topic that has bothered me a while.

 

I'm talking about the right way to cope with the Lynx very low resolution, and the unusual aspect ratio.

 

Let's face it, pretty much all classic games were developed with a 4:3 aspect ratio in mind, and higher resolution. Or in the arcades for vertical screens. So Lynx ports of such games have a problem to deal with to begin with.

 

The example of Donkey Kong for one is, that it is originally a non scrolling game, and the player is meant to see the barrels the moment the ape throws them. He can thus plan his strategy.

 

We have the DK sourcecode available now as it was used for the Atari 8-bit computers; running in 320-200ish resolution (or 160 stretched)

 

This is how the game roughly looked on the Atari 800:

 

 

Now if we went with the original graphics plus scrolling, this is what it would look like on Lynx, bar life, score etc which would take a few more pixels away.

 

 

Is this desirable? Would people want to play such a version? I don't know. I already have the player sprite more at the bottom so the player can look higher u, but still I feel the overview is too lacking.

 

The alternative would be redrawn graphics to fit on a single Lynx screen. Less detail, but more accurate gameplay.

 

I have made this mock up for the Lynx in vertical position, and I have already posted it numerous times; it is but a try to fit the game on one screen.

 

 

I have not yet tried to squeeze it on one horizontal screen, but it would definitely look even more squashed.

 

 

Now this is not only about Donkey Kong (that's just the specific game that brought the problem back to my mind), it's an issue for many possible games; and even the dev back in the day dealt with it differently.

 

See Double Dragon:

the sprites here have original arcade size, being almost screen filling. in the arcade game and most home ports, the sprites appeared rather small with a wide look at the surrounding.

 

to the left the Lynx, to the right the Master System:

 

Ironically, despite the overall higher res of the SMS, the devs made the sprites smaller than Telegames made the Lynx sprites. The result is that while the game looks almost arcade perfect on pics the Lynx screen is very crowded and you don't see what's coming; the SMS version, while not as pretty retains the true DD gameplay.

 

Which way would you go?

 

With Ninja Gaiden III the approach was the exact opposite. Left on the Lynx, right on NES.

 

 

Here the developers basically squeezed the entire NES screen on the small Lynx screen; it's almost as if they used an automatic resize option of some graphic program. The result is full overview over the game, but admittedly the sprites have lost all detail and it's hard to tell what they are supposed to be.

 

 

And I feel that other developers had to trade off gameplay for looks or vice versa also; Electrocop comes to my mind, where I really wish I could see more of my surroundings to have more time to react. Or Zarlor Mercenary, which being a vertical shooter on a horizontal screen leaves you very little time to react imo.

 

The old fake Mortal-Kombat-II-demo...

 

 

GadgetUK considers doing a demo of MK for the Lynx, and again I've been thinking if this is a good size for the sprites. Characters can jump quite high in MK, how would that work here with such a zoomed in view? it would also be impossible to get a good distance between you and the enemy. Yet downsizing the sprites would take away from the MK look.

 

 

I am really wondering what you all think in general about that problem. What would you do? After all homebrewers work for the community to enjoy the games, but I'm just not sure how things like these are best handled.

Edited April 14, 2013 by 108 Stars

[GadgetUK]

I think it's difficult and you have to judge each one on a case by case basis. It depends on the game, the screen orientation, size of original sprites vs screen size etc. If you take double dragon as an example, I think if the sprites were any smaller the detail would be lost, but gameplay could have been better. If you look at games like Desert Strike and Lemmings, there's litteraly nothing missing, it feels like detail is what you expect from larger systems, and that's due to original sprites being small proportionally. The main problem is keeping character identity on games with larger sprites. Look at the Bubble Bobble and GNG demos, the sprites are perfect but screen space is a problem. But try scaling those sprites down and they start to look pants.

 

It's a difficult one!

Edited April 14, 2013 by GadgetUK

[Atari_afternoon]

I would value gameplay over graphics.

Like the Atari 800 version of DK, which plays so wonderfully. Sure, DK stands at the right side and it has one ladder missing, therefore it is a smaller level and but it does not bother me to the least, seemed to me a better solution than squeezing it all in

With DK for Lynx, holding it upright looks a good solution, even if the Lynx screen is a bit unevenly lit, if the color contrasts are strong enough (like the Klax tiles), should not be a gameplay problem, thinks me.

NG 3 (Lynx) is totally unplayable for me. Too fast, too much at once. Some simplified gameplay would have done wonders.

And I must say I like DD the way it is. Might be just me but I have played the Lynx version first and unlike something like NG3, the baddies attack you slow enough to be able to react.

[108 Stars]

See, I like Ninja Gaiden despite the piss-poor graphics (see my review here:http://www.nexgam.de/lynx-atari/ninja-gaiden-iii-atari-lynx.html), but I'm very disappointed in DD knowing other versions of it.

 

It's not an easy decision.^^

 

But what you said about DK just gave me an idea; I never counted the stages in the versions, and never really noticed they cut away a floor i the Atari 800 version. I thought it was just squeezed.

But maybe cutting away one more floor plus simplifying graphics a bit may be a solution for DK Lynx in horizontal mode. Hmh.

 

Green Little Quak Quak was easy; while the original Frogger fits on a non scrolling screen we could go for detailed graphics with scrolling there, since all dangers come from the left and right; the player does not have to see all the way ahead. In that case the zoomed in view did not affect gameplay.

[Uzumaki]

Been a while since I played Colecovision of DK but didn't they also have missing ladder and one platform? No idea why but if it's graphic limitation, maybe look to CV version?

 

I don't mine holding Lynx vertical for "tall" oriented games. In fact with the new LCD mod candle is working on, the color/contrast issue won't be a problem with modern LCD having wider viewing angle.

[roland p]

But maybe cutting away one more floor plus simplifying graphics a bit may be a solution for DK Lynx in horizontal mode. Hmh.

Like this:

This is the gameboy version, which has 160x144 pixels. Lynx has 160x102 pixels. So some scrolling could help.

Edited April 15, 2013 by roland p

[Lynxman]

Maybe it would be a nice idea if it is possible for the user to zoom in the screen.

First start show the complete screen and if the user zoom in the screen it is easy to store the zoom value into the eeprom. (I think all new Lynx Games should have a eeprom for Highscore or game save!)

[108 Stars]

@Lynxman

That may actually work for some games; I imagine that draw the stuff "high res" (by Lynx standards ), and the game could zoom out when the player pauses, or maybe even during gameplay by pressing the option button.

 

Not sure how the latter method would hurt game speed, zooming the screen out during gameplay may be a bit much.

 

But it's a good line of thought.

[Der Luchs]

Yeah, save slots would be great!

[NinjaFlicker]

I'd prefer the option between better graphics or full playfield, personally. Namco did it for all their gameboy ports of Pac-Man, and it was like getting two games in 1, due to the extra challenge of the graphically enhanced version.

 

But why not create new Donkey Kong graphics? There's a lot of great artists to be found around here, and this is one of the great iconic games.

[108 Stars]

I'd prefer the option between better graphics or full playfield, personally. Namco did it for all their gameboy ports of Pac-Man, and it was like getting two games in 1, due to the extra challenge of the graphically enhanced version.

 

That might be an option... I never knew Namco did that. The only thing speaking against it would be the extra work, but I would do that for small games like Donkey Kong. The question remains how much work that would be from a coding standpoint, I can't judge that.

 

But why not create new Donkey Kong graphics? There's a lot of great artists to be found around here, and this is one of the great iconic games.

 

That's the point why I'm asking, of course I will do new graphics and not just copy & paste it from another version. The question is a general one as to how to approach such ports, with very detailed graphics or best visibility (or a way in between). Even if we did original size sprites etc for a game I would naturally redraw them from scratch and not use the original sprites for more than to get the correct relation to the size.

 

 

I am still more for a size that allows good gameplay, eventhough of course for me drawing huge sprites is fun. But looking at Double Dragon it's just a no-go for me, I absolutely wish they had gone for smaller sprites and better overview. It would not have to be the full overview like in the arcade, but a middle way at least.

Another series that comes to my mind where this was handled wrong imo is the Nintendo-versions of Lode Runner. Lode Runner was originally a single screen game, and that was necessary to plan your escape routes, but all Nintendo versions had a zoomed-in view with scrolling and it hurt the fun for me.

 

Left original, to the right the NES version where you see only half the level.

 

 

I think the graphics could still be improved a bit in the original style while retaining the true gameplay feeling.

Edited April 22, 2013 by 108 Stars

[Fadest]

An option for a DK would be to have a zoomed screen with scrolling but with these additions :

- allways have DK visible on top left of the screen (in a bubble or circle) so player can see when DK throws a barrel

- for barrels that are not on screen, display arrows on top of screen that follow barrels movements. The color and/or size of the arrow give an indication of distance of barrel.

 

Maybe this would better work with avertical only scroll.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Fadest

[+karri]

One possibility is to have a minimap at lower left.

 

Edited April 23, 2013 by karri

[NinjaFlicker]

Thanks for the honest answer. My own bias is towards Double Dragon, actually. I enjoyed the zoomed-in cinematic view - it made me feel like I was in a survival horror, almost. Focusing on my space, rather than how far I was away from the goal forced me to think like a survivor, anyways. I can only say that it's closer to my experience in real inner city fights, even if that takes away from some of the videogame escapism.

 

But I know there's no way I'm going to see anything like that again, especially since this is your port, for you. If you're not having fun with it, what's the point?

 

So back to the issues you raised, about just the basic concept of offering the player more than one perspective....

 

I know that it's not as simple as just drawing a new graphics set, but couldn't the patterns/movement simply be adjusted through basic size/pixel reduction equations?

 

Or would it be possible to use the same code entirely for every view (minus things like adding arrows to show the locations of offscreen barrels), and just use the Lynx's zoom and rotate features to allow people to find the view that works the best for them?

[108 Stars]

@Fadest & Karri

Thanks for the suggestions, these are nice workarounds. And you being coders I suppose you would not have suggested them if they were huge trouble from the coding perpective or asking too much from the hardware.

 

But I know there's no way I'm going to see anything like that again, especially since this is your port, for you. If you're not having fun with it, what's the point?

 

Yeah, that's the thing. I like to find a way that works for the players, so that everyone enjoys the games. But although doing pixel stuff is fun for me, it is also lots of work and so I don't want to go a way where I know that I won't enjoy the game myself.

 

I know that it's not as simple as just drawing a new graphics set, but couldn't the patterns/movement simply be adjusted through basic size/pixel reduction equations?

 

That's for the coders to answer.

 

Or would it be possible to use the same code entirely for every view (minus things like adding arrows to show the locations of offscreen barrels), and just use the Lynx's zoom and rotate features to allow people to find the view that works the best for them?

 

There I am not so sure. With the Lyynx' low res, and the automatic scaling I imagine we could have situations where when you scale it just the way you like it some lines or pixels are not rendered, yet the collision detection is still there. Imagine Mario's nose being left away due to scaling, but it would still be there when it comes to him touching the barrels; you would visually see there's a pixel of romm between you and the barrel, yet you still die.

I may be wrong about that, but that would be a fear I have.

 

Secondly, and that is more in my department: It would look ugly. The detailed sprites the way I drew them would be fine, but the Lynx has no sense of art, and when scaling this is done by some algorithm. The result is something that can look really ugly and distorted, not like when I would draw the stuff small by hand and can decide on every pixel placed. So I think the scaling is nice for an effect in game, to seamlessly zoom in and out during gameplay, but when you want to switch more permanently to another perspective it would be much better to draw by hand.

 

Look at the Lode Runner pic where Karri put in the mini map; it has also been scaled down a bit by some program and you see how all the bricks in the walls etc are distorted when you compare to the original pic from the NES I posted before. A similar effect would happen when the Lynx would scale it.

 

Thanks for all the input from everyone so far btw, keep it coming.

Edited April 23, 2013 by 108 Stars

[LX.NET]

Has anyone considered the example of Ms. Pac-man on the Lynx? I wrote about it once, as an arcade being converted (as one of the many on the Lynx)

http://atarilynxdeveloper.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/arcade-machines-converted-to-atari-lynx/

There you can see how the graphics are very different, yet it is unmistakenly Ms. Pac-man.

I for one really like the tiny cutesy graphics. I wouldn't mind a DK version with those tiny graphics, in an upright version if needs be. E.g. in Pitfall the graphics needed to be adapted as well. It simply won't fit in the original dimensions. It is still very true to the original.

Just my two cents

[108 Stars]

Yeah, that's kind of my personal approach, much like with my DK mock up; redrawing the graphics to fit the screen, leaving away as much as needed but trying to save the basic charm.

[LordKraken]

Well, I don't know if it brings much to the debate, but I had a different approach on my first lynx project (it was more a learning project than a real one).

I wanted simple graphics and mechanic, scrolling and eventually, zoom possibilities. So I decided to (try to) port bomberman and I used the SNES version as reference.

 

 

First problem, the tiles are 16*16 pixels, which is quite large for the lynx resolution. But bomberman's sprites are mainly squared and thus, they can be easily reduced with (almost) no loss. So I converted a set of sprites from 16*16 to 12*12 pixels. This is the result of the conversion - you don't see the whole area but something like 70% (screenshots are 2x zoomed):

 

 

 

Then I wanted to play with the Lynx's zoom, so I added on-the-fly zoom/unzoom support to the engine and this is the result:

 

 

It's not that nice, but you see 100% of the action, there is some place left for game information and when you play it, it's fine, the action is still understandable.

 

This solution is IMO quite good for a game with simple graphics like bomberman, as the user can dynamically choose between quality and visibility.

 

ps : the game is in no way ready - no explosion - no AI.

[Der Luchs]

Great :thumbsup: :thumbsup: