My Zelda Mock Up is "Imagic Bad"

[+Gemintronic]

So, I was introducing people to my proto/mock ups for Tunnels & Trolls 2600. One person referred to my Zelda style mock up as "Imagic bad"

http://trollbridge.proboards.com/post/45919/thread

 

What does that mean? Especially in regards to the picture below?

 

[roland p]

Not sure. It doesn't look bad at all. It only misses a Rupee counter

 

Maybe you could change the hud (the hearts, sword, bomb) to a fixed color. And use gray/green/blue for castle/forest/water. Are you able to use multiple background colors? like top half blue, bottom half green so Link can drop into the water.

 

 

Edit: It could be, that people like us, staring a lot at atari 2600 graphics, have developed a way to look at games in an abstract way, and don't need fancy graphics. And if the game looks a bit like Zelda, our brains fill in the blanks. While someone else (like the one commented 'imagic bad') just see blocky pixels, low color count etc.

Edited February 19, 2014 by roland p

[+Gemintronic]

Not sure. It doesn't look bad at all. It only misses a Rupee counter

 

Maybe you could change the hud (the hearts, sword, bomb) to a fixed color. And use gray/green/blue for castle/forest/water. Are you able to use multiple background colors? like top half blue, bottom half green so Link can drop into the water.

 

I could probably use some sort of multi colored background trick to improve the floors.

 

Appreciate the compliments considering the source I still don't get the Imagic bad reference as in many of their games have detailed, multi-colored sprites.

 

UPDATE: Thanks for the edit roland p. That makes sense!

[retroillucid]

This look great!!

[atari_envy]

Although it wasn't intended that way, I would take it as a compliment. Imagic produced some great looking 2600 games. I remember in the day, people were blown away by the colorful graphics of Atlantis and Demon Attack.

 

I would LOVE to see this game made. The 2600 homebrew Dungeon is one of my favorites. I also love the two Dungeons & Dragons games for the Intellivision. Something like this would be a welcome addition to my collection.

[+Random Terrain]

"No offense, but that screen looks bad. Really bad. Imagic kind of bad."

 

The guy probably wasn't even alive when Imagic existed and is just using a random Atari-related name that he saw once when he mistakenly visited a classic gaming web site. Did you look at his eye-rape of a web site? Example:

 

 

I'd ignore anything he has to say about how anything looks.

[4ever2600]

Looks Imagic good to me brother!

[Bakasama]

Aramis of Erak said: Imagics games had sprites that weren't recognizably anything - essentially multi-colored blotches. (And around here, only Demon Attack got ANY traction from their titles.) Activitsion's were amongst the best 2600 graphics.

 

 

I think the guy just simply lacks imagination.

 

Edited February 20, 2014 by Bakasama

[Andromeda Stardust]

What's so "bad" about iMagic? Their games certain hold their own even compared to most of the titles games that Atari and Activision put out. Ditto for Coleco and Parker Bros mostly releasing solid titles. Lots of companies were churning out turds back in the day, but iMagic was alright for the most part. Most of the companies releasing real "turds" either dropped out of the business or died in obscurity. And even a few of those games are still worth playing. Whatever. I remember as a kid people used to refer to NES games with buggy or crap graphics as "Atari bad"...

[+Gemintronic]

Thanks for the sanity check, guys! All things considered it doesn't compare too badly. Going from 16x16 4 color sprites to 8x8 single color per row isn't easy.

 

[+Random Terrain]

Thanks for the sanity check, guys! All things considered it doesn't compare too badly. Going from 16x16 4 color sprites to 8x8 single color per row isn't easy.

 

Have you asked PAC-MAN-RED to give it a try?

[+Gemintronic]

 

Have you asked PAC-MAN-RED to give it a try?

 

Actually, just his contributions here for everyone is inspiration enough. I can't tell you how encouraging it is to have active, generous pixel artists working on Atari 2600 sprites. I used to be intimidated by the prospect of making my own pixel art. Now I just do it.

 

[Gabriel]

So, I was introducing people to my proto/mock ups for Tunnels & Trolls 2600. One person referred to my Zelda style mock up as "Imagic bad"

http://trollbridge.proboards.com/post/45919/thread

 

 

I was about to post "fuck the guy's opinion. Fuck it right in the ear."

 

Then I realized it was a pen and paper RPG forum post. As someone who used to waste a lot of time on pen and paper RPG messageboards, let me tell you that no fuck should be given. Do not give a single fuck.

 

Beyond that, I simply second what Random Terrain said upthread.

[+cmart604]

I was about to post "fuck the guy's opinion. Fuck it right in the ear."

let me tell you that no fuck should be given. Do not give a single fuck.

 

Flat out my single favourite post(s) of the day, hands down.

[CannibalCat]

Yeah looks good to me! Imagic are only 2nd to Activision in the awesome game/graphics dept on the 2600 for me... so not sure what that dude was trying to say. But I agree, he doesn't know much of anything about our beloved console!

[WolfAmongWolves]

I agree. I also just saw his reply to your follow-up question, calling Imagic sprites "multi-colored blotches", that "weren't recognizably anything". It is obvious that this guy has never seen those little critters on the planet surface in Cosmic Ark. Or the rock munchers, byte bats, and homing missiles in Laser Gates. Or the surface destroyers in Moonsweeper. All of those are highly detailed, animated, often multicolored, instantly recognizable sprites. You can safely ignore his opinion.

 

If you're looking for some constructive criticism, I think your Link sprite looks great and is very recognizable. The dinosaur is not as clear to me though - I can't really make out the head/face. The two white lines at the top look like horns, and due to their positions they give the impression that its head is turned backwards, i.e.looking over its shoulder. Is that the intent? Perhaps the animation will help clarify this.

[roland p]

I agree about the Dinosaur.

 

The side view levels like in Link's Awakening would be nice too:

(@0:22)

[mbd30]

I agree. I also just saw his reply to your follow-up question, calling Imagic sprites "multi-colored blotches", that "weren't recognizably anything". It is obvious that this guy has never seen those little critters on the planet surface in Cosmic Ark. Or the rock munchers, byte bats, and homing missiles in Laser Gates. Or the surface destroyers in Moonsweeper. All of those are highly detailed, animated, often multicolored, instantly recognizable sprites. You can safely ignore his opinion.

 

 

Or the dragon and treasures in "Dragonfire".

 

http://videogamecritic.com/images/2600/dragonfire.png

 

 

And "Atlantis" might not have the deepest gameplay in the world, but the graphics are sharp and colorful for a 2600 game.

[108 Stars]

Awesome stuff, Loon. Like the others said ignore that guy. The forum is called TROLLbridge ffs.

[JamesL]

So, I was introducing people to my proto/mock ups for Tunnels & Trolls 2600. One person referred to my Zelda style mock up as "Imagic bad"

http://trollbridge.proboards.com/post/45919/thread

 

What does that mean? Especially in regards to the picture below?

 

Well I think your game looks great! And I think his petty comment is "Mythicon bad."

[Jinks]

Please make this game on batari7800!

But as it stands on for a 2600 game it looks awesome. Imagic? They had great games!!

[+frankodragon]

"No offense, but that screen looks bad. Really bad. Imagic kind of bad."

 

The guy probably wasn't even alive when Imagic existed and is just using a random Atari-related name that he saw once when he mistakenly visited a classic gaming web site. Did you look at his eye-rape of a web site? Example:

 

eyerape.png

 

I'd ignore anything he has to say about how anything looks.

 

I'd just ignore his entire existence just by him posting his mugshot --->

[+Random Terrain]

 

I'd just ignore his entire existence just by him posting his mugshot --->

 

We don't want to go down that road.

[YANDMAN]

So, I was introducing people to my proto/mock ups for Tunnels & Trolls 2600. One person referred to my Zelda style mock up as "Imagic bad"

http://trollbridge.proboards.com/post/45919/thread

 

What does that mean? Especially in regards to the picture below?

 

Dude you know my thoughts, i think this is awesome and i wish so much that you would make zelda a reality it would be amazing, Also Imagic games rock as does this

[Aloan]

So, I was introducing people to my proto/mock ups for Tunnels & Trolls 2600. One person referred to my Zelda style mock up as "Imagic bad"

http://trollbridge.proboards.com/post/45919/thread

 

What does that mean? Especially in regards to the picture below?

 

Imo, He said it because the picture resembles a room of an Imagic game (forgot the name now, but I guess it has Dragon in it's title ) that has a dragon. Although I understand that the animal here is not a dragon but it looks a lot like "it". And in "bad" he meant how blockier it is in comparison to such game which featured the whole max 160 x 192 graphics resolution of the At2600! Now, what do I say? I love it! and I love pixels. The blockier the better! so for me, it's great!