Page 8 of 15
Posted: 09 Feb 2008, 07:19
by Pauan
Modanung wrote:Pauan wrote:My friend Curly created a better blur. Here it is:
This blur is against the reason I made the attack frames the way they are. The whole idea was that the weapon passes through the entire area of attack.
Also I now see some changes in the legs which make the character's movement look odd. His legs became quite stiff and slide over the ground.
I agree with Cosmotrator's point though; the back leg should stay put, not the front one. I'll look into it, but first I need some sleep.
Well yeah, naturally this would be better suited to either a long-range polearm or a short-range attack like a knife, whereas the larger blur is more suited to larger weapons like a sword.
Heavy modifications and tweaking are necessary, but in the end it should look good
and function well too!
Posted: 09 Feb 2008, 13:15
by Falcata
Pauan wrote:Crush wrote:P.S. That is true. But for a different reason than you listed. Even fantasies have a basis in reality. However, your "rule of cool" still applies. This is a videogame, and as such the only thing that matters is the player. If the player thinks this game is cool and fun, then we have succeeded. But if the player thinks it's lame or boring, we have failed. That is our goal. A master swordsmith can argue all day about the integrity of the blade and how ineffecient it is, but the player honestly doesn't know or care. If a player saw that blade, they would logically think the pointy end is in front. After all, doesn't it resemble a miniature scythe? Thinking of it from a player's perspective, it makes perfect sense. The small hook could be used to slice somebody's head off, for instance. Sure it may not make sense in the real world, but it makes perfect sense to the player, who ultimately is all that matters to a game developer. Realism only becomes a factor if it affects the fun that the player will have.
Fine then. But if the sword is going to be used in this manner, then it's name should be changed, because it is no longer a Falchion. Same goes for it's misspelling, "Falcion."
Posted: 09 Feb 2008, 16:11
by AxlTrozz
Considering the size of the actual monsters I think that's a good movement, If we create a big monster or boss I don't think an attack like that it would be useful
Posted: 09 Feb 2008, 22:19
by Pauan
AxlTrozz wrote:Considering the size of the actual monsters I think that's a good movement, If we create a big monster or boss I don't think an attack like that it would be useful
Well that's kinda the point.. a sword isn't a long-range weapon, but it's moderately fast and powerful.
Plus, people using a sword will probably need a rather high strength stat, so even though they have to be in close, they'll do lots of damage.
...Unless you were referring to the way the sword is held, in which case that was my mistake.
...Or if you were referring to the blur made by Curly, then yeah, like I said it'd be better suited to smaller things like knives.
Posted: 10 Feb 2008, 00:17
by Pauan
Falcata wrote:]Fine then. But if the sword is going to be used in this manner, then it's name should be changed, because it is no longer a Falchion. Same goes for it's misspelling, "Falcion."
Actually, it's spelled correctly.
Anyways! I shifted around the frames a bit so that the back foot doesn't move anymore. Certainly more tweaks are needed, but tell me what you think anyways. Oh and the first blur is back by popular demand...!
Posted: 10 Feb 2008, 00:30
by Doubi
Powerful! Looks so much better now the back foot stays put
Turns out you needn't have put me on the mantis after all
One thing I did like about the other slash was that it used an extra frame at the end to disappear. I think that made the slice look kind of more... decisive? Or rather, I think it's that this one looks a bit weird just disappearing all at once, being so big 'n' all.
It's also nice 'cause an extra frame or two of disappearing blur wouldn't be too much hassle for weapon spriters, and makes it look cooler without making equipment spriters require any more frames
Posted: 10 Feb 2008, 00:34
by Pauan
Doubi wrote:Powerful! Looks so much better now the back foot stays put
Turns out you needn't have put me on the mantis after all
One thing I did like about the other slash was that it used an extra frame at the end to disappear. I think that made the slice look kind of more... decisive? Or rather, I think it's that this one looks a bit weird just disappearing all at once, being so big 'n' all.
It's also nice 'cause an extra frame or two of disappearing blur wouldn't be too much hassle for weapon spriters, and makes it look cooler without making equipment spriters require any more frames
We'll burn that bridge when we come to it.
As you said, we can easily change that without affecting the playerset. Besides, when I tried to do the whole disappearing thing, it didn't look right. I'm sure somebody else will come up with something better.
Posted: 11 Feb 2008, 20:56
by Cosmostrator
This looks great. You got the body movements down in very few frames.
-Cosmostrator
Posted: 12 Feb 2008, 00:08
by Saphy
Pauan wrote:Falcata wrote:]Fine then. But if the sword is going to be used in this manner, then it's name should be changed, because it is no longer a Falchion. Same goes for it's misspelling, "Falcion."
Actually, it's spelled correctly.
Anyways! I shifted around the frames a bit so that the back foot doesn't move anymore. Certainly more tweaks are needed, but tell me what you think anyways. Oh and the first blur is back by popular demand...!
It is not bad. But there can be many improvements. For example, in the 2nd and 3rd frames, the legs are spread too far apart (the rule of thumb is 2 feets apart and shouldn't be wider than the shoulder), and head is just weird. Maybe it is too stationary, or maybe the body's movement is too exaggerated, but as it is, it doesn't look very natural.
Posted: 12 Feb 2008, 23:35
by Modanung
Saphy wrote:...and head is just weird. Maybe it is too stationary, or maybe the body's movement is too exaggerated, but as it is, it doesn't look very natural.
The thing with the head is that if you make it turn during the animation you need extra frames for hats/helmets/hair as well.
Posted: 13 Feb 2008, 04:25
by Dave
Modanung's totally spot on about the extra headgear frames. Though the rigidness of the head's direction is noticeable, I'm not sure that it looks bad enough to justify the extra equipment frames. Besides, I could imagine a moderately well-equipped character muffling that rigidness a bit. The equipment they're clad in might help to take a bit of focus off of some of the more exaggerated motions.
..I prefer Curly's blur. The other one looks ... hairy?
Posted: 13 Feb 2008, 08:31
by ElvenProgrammer
dabe wrote:..I prefer Curly's blur. The other one looks ... hairy?
Agreed
Re: New playerset's frames and animation
Posted: 17 Feb 2008, 11:35
by Black Don
Its not the head that look weird. I think it does not work quite right because the body mass changes to much when the shoulders turn. He looks like he dropped 50 lbs from the standing position.
Re: New playerset's frames and animation
Posted: 17 Feb 2008, 11:50
by Platyna
I have a feeling this sprite is getting longer while animating...
Regards.
Re:
Posted: 18 Feb 2008, 15:46
by Rotonen
dabe wrote:Modanung's totally spot on about the extra headgear frames. Though the rigidness of the head's direction is noticeable, I'm not sure that it looks bad enough to justify the extra equipment frames. Besides, I could imagine a moderately well-equipped character muffling that rigidness a bit. The equipment they're clad in might help to take a bit of focus off of some of the more exaggerated motions.
We should be able to achieve the desired effect with facial expressions (especially the eyes should play into this). Kind of hard without making more work for headgear, though. Of course, as always, I don't personally have nothing against more work for equipment. Unless someone can provide a solution which does not cause that and also works, we're going to have to do it anyway.