[MUD-Dev] Graphical mud perspectives

[Richard Woolcock]

Nathan Yospe wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Richard Woolcock wrote:
> 
> :Okay I know we have discussed graphical muds a fair bit, but something
> :I've been thinking about while debating if I should code a graphical
> :mud is what sort of perspective view to have.  The different types I
> :can think of are:
> 
> :* First person perspective: You see what your character sees, like
> :  Doom/Quake/Daggerfall/etc.
> 
> Problems: Suffers from general sillyness in a non-VR environ, thanks
> to the square shape of your monitor. Works very well when applied to
> VR. Creates problems with periphery views. Really sucks when there's
> a status bar across the bottom of the screen. (With VR test cases, I
> found glowing stats just to the right of forward focus that were not
> visable unless triggered - I eventually hope to allow quick eyeblink
> control triggers for the GURU arcade engine - were both the greatest
> convenience and the least annoyance/distraction of any approach.) If
> used correctly, the most immersive view.

Well thats way beyond anything I could code for the conventional user.
I don't think the 'sillyness' is any worse than any other view however.

> :* As above, except your character is standing forward slightly (as
> :  if you are standing behind them).  While a little more awkward,
> :  this does allow you to see your character performing manoevers -
> :  so if you do a backflip, you see your character do it rather than
> :  see the screen spin 360 degrees.
> 
> Also known as over the shoulder or floating cam view. I've programmed
> engines for this before. It can be rather attractive, and tends to be
> my favorite view for non-VR. (VR, naturally, demands 1st person.) And
> if you are controlling multiple characters in proximity, this is just
> about the best you can do. GURU non-VR uses TOtS - translucent frames
> of your characters with the camera panning around them.

Hmmm can you get away with solid (rather than translucent) frames?
Obviously you'd have to judge the distance between your view point and
your character so that you could quite easily see things in front of 
them.  This would probably work for combat, but might mess up being
able to pick up objects (ie you couldn't see them past your character).
Perhaps an adjustable viewpoint could help?  Could be very strange to
use though.

> :* Overhead view: Like the old Ultima games, or perhaps Gauntlet (hey,
> :  anyone for a game of mud-gauntlet? ;).  It could also be done in a
> :  similar way to WarcraftII/Command and Conquer/Total Annihilation,
> :  except with each player controlling a single 'unit'.  The trouble
> :  with this is that you rapidly start moving away from all social
> :  aspects.
> 
> I'd guess Raph has something to say about this. I think UOL uses this
> view, no? BTW, I still like the first and third (and portable) Zeldas
> for their approach to this. (The new one is, it would seem, OTS, very
> high polygon count, and extremely detailed.)

Well I didn't want to comment as I've only really played Ultima 6 and
Ultima Underworld, however I believe the more recent Ultima games moved
to an Isametric view (I could be wrong).

> :* Isametric view: Syndicate, Diablo, Dungeon Keeper, etc.  Suffers
> :  from similar problems to overhead views - although I keep thinking
> :  of the way you can 'switch' into creatures in Dungeon Keeper (gaining
> :  a first-person perspective view), which could make things a bit more
> :  interesting perhaps
> 
> Hmmm. What about side-scroller view? *duck* Okay, forget I said that.

Heheh for a mud, that doesn't bare thinking about.

> :I am beginning to favour the idea of an overhead PK-style game, with
> :a form of character customisation similar to Syndicate (except fantasy
> :themed).  As long as I don't bother with fancy graphics or computer
> :controlled mobs, it shouldn't be too difficult to get a very simple
> :sort of game running - then its just a matter of adding the mud-server
> :part, and linking the two together.  Of course it'll probably take
> :months to get this far, but once I have something simple, its quite
> :easy to build on.
> 
> What OS is the clien going to be hosted on? There are a lot of sprite
> animation libraries out there, some of them free (for Dos and MacOS.)
> Give it a look-around. BTW, if anyone wants to port something from NT
> or 95 to MacOS, and is using the (thankfully unixlike) sockets, I did
> write and make freely available a win32->OT(MacOS) porting library. I
> also wrote one for posix/unix->OT(MacOS)

Okay well I admit that I have done very little graphics, however I did
study graphical theories at University, and have a pretty good idea 
what things I need to read up on to get a half-decent animation working
(certainly a lot better than the simple sprite animations I used to do
on my Amiga when I was still at school).

Being a !Win95/NT type person, I only use Win3.11 (when I'm not using
Linux), and obviously I want the client to be usable by me ;)  Am I 
correct in assuming that Win3.11 stuff will also work on Win95/NT as 
long as I am careful?

KaVir.