Grauken
Gourd vibes only
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2013
- Messages
- 12,787
Here's an odd question. Have you ever wondered why some dungeon crawlers have thick walls (basically a wall or a door takes up a whole square on the grid) whereupon others have only thin walls or doors (basically taking up only the edge of a square)? Is there a reason for that beyond just aesthetics?
Most games with thin walls are games in the tradition of Wizardry while most games with thick walls are in the tradition of Dungeon Master. So is it a question of tb (or phase-based to be more specific) combat versus real-time combat? Yes and No.
Wizardry games have a specific metric I call S2E (squares to exit) though you can basically generalize it to S2O (squares to objective, whatever your objective is). Every time you step on a new square in these games there's a chance you enter combat, lose HP and other resources. Wizardry games, at least the early ones, are all about managing your limited resources until you can get back to the city. So in theory you should step on as few squares between the city and whatever your objective is as possible.
If you have levels with thin walls it leads to a very compact design with a S2E/S2O metric markedly lower than if you have levels with thick designs. For example, Level 1 of Wizardry has an S2E of 29, Level 2 of 63. Once you have access to the elevator, your calculation for each level changes again.
The 2nd level of Dungeon Master has an S2E of 259 (if I didn't discount).
Now some thick-walled games have smaller levels and would have smaller S2Es and some games with thin walls can have massive levels with probably equally massive S2Es, but the overall point is easy to see. If you have thin walls, your overall level design is far more compact and in general can lead to shorter paths, which is advantageous if you play a Wizardry-like where each step on each square carries the risk of losing limited resources.
I think it's something most developers stumble upon intuitively. An interesting case study is how the level design changes between Might and Magic 2 and 3, from thin to thick-walled.
While M&M 3-5 aren't real-time, they also don't really have random battles (let's forget about respawns) and the ranged battle phase takes advantage of the level design with maneuvering almost similar to real-time crawlers, something you don't see in Wizardry-likes. And once you cleared an area you don't have to worry about enemies again.
Another interesting case is Mordor and Demise, who are both real-time but have thin walls.
But they are unique in that enemies are contained to each room, they are somewhat randomized and each room functions similar to squares in Wizardry-likes, meaning you have the same resource management you face in Wizardry-likes where you have to optimize your gains going from the city to level exits.
Though, all that said, this isn't an iron-clad rule. Shining in the Darkness follows mostly the Wizardry gameplay (random battles, tb combat on one square) but still has thick walls.
And then there oddities like zz's Geisterschiff that has partly random tb combat that takes advantage of the level design and is mostly ranged-based. Thick walls, but doors are mostly thin if I remember correctly.
Most games with thin walls are games in the tradition of Wizardry while most games with thick walls are in the tradition of Dungeon Master. So is it a question of tb (or phase-based to be more specific) combat versus real-time combat? Yes and No.
Wizardry games have a specific metric I call S2E (squares to exit) though you can basically generalize it to S2O (squares to objective, whatever your objective is). Every time you step on a new square in these games there's a chance you enter combat, lose HP and other resources. Wizardry games, at least the early ones, are all about managing your limited resources until you can get back to the city. So in theory you should step on as few squares between the city and whatever your objective is as possible.
If you have levels with thin walls it leads to a very compact design with a S2E/S2O metric markedly lower than if you have levels with thick designs. For example, Level 1 of Wizardry has an S2E of 29, Level 2 of 63. Once you have access to the elevator, your calculation for each level changes again.
The 2nd level of Dungeon Master has an S2E of 259 (if I didn't discount).
Now some thick-walled games have smaller levels and would have smaller S2Es and some games with thin walls can have massive levels with probably equally massive S2Es, but the overall point is easy to see. If you have thin walls, your overall level design is far more compact and in general can lead to shorter paths, which is advantageous if you play a Wizardry-like where each step on each square carries the risk of losing limited resources.
I think it's something most developers stumble upon intuitively. An interesting case study is how the level design changes between Might and Magic 2 and 3, from thin to thick-walled.
While M&M 3-5 aren't real-time, they also don't really have random battles (let's forget about respawns) and the ranged battle phase takes advantage of the level design with maneuvering almost similar to real-time crawlers, something you don't see in Wizardry-likes. And once you cleared an area you don't have to worry about enemies again.
Another interesting case is Mordor and Demise, who are both real-time but have thin walls.
But they are unique in that enemies are contained to each room, they are somewhat randomized and each room functions similar to squares in Wizardry-likes, meaning you have the same resource management you face in Wizardry-likes where you have to optimize your gains going from the city to level exits.
Though, all that said, this isn't an iron-clad rule. Shining in the Darkness follows mostly the Wizardry gameplay (random battles, tb combat on one square) but still has thick walls.
And then there oddities like zz's Geisterschiff that has partly random tb combat that takes advantage of the level design and is mostly ranged-based. Thick walls, but doors are mostly thin if I remember correctly.