Cyprien

The reason why people stick with black is because it's easier on peoples eyes.

Added Viridian City…

Is there a reason why? Generation I tiles would be simpler to make however they don't offer much as Generation III does.

Pallet Town  Viridian City  Pallet Town Tilesheet (Resized):  Pokemon Generation I Tilesheet (Resized):  Pokemon Generation I Tilesheet Indoors (Resized):  Pokemon Generation I Tilesheet Towns? (Resized): 

Nice…. I wished I could pixel like that.

@Kris: > It is a very good character sheet, the quality is not poor at all. I can see at least five of the characters has some pixel errors which should be corrected.

Well… Nintendo has so many different games which do so well they spend alot of time making a new game for it (Zelda, Mario, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Star Fox, Metroid). You'll pretty much see one game or more of the tiles above on a nintendo console. Then you got the ones which doesn't see alot of releases compared to one above (Punch-Out, Kid Icarus, F-Zero, Pilotwings). That doesn't mean they don't create new games.... (Nintendogs) Nintendo DS which has a Nintendo3DS release & (Pikmin) Gamecube which getting a Wii-U release of Pikmin 3. One of the reason I think nintendo does so well it doesn't try mess up the whole game by turning it into something really different (final fantasy xiii).

I'm a serious gamer and I've never played gears of war or call of duty. It's mostly because there not really my style I hardly touch a first person shooter unless I've got someone else to play it with. You can be a serious gamer and still play sports like games… I used to play Sega tennis 2K2 on Dreamcast. A kid wouldn't really care for a sports game unless he was playing the sport in real life. They tend to play the same games as everyone else however most younger kids will tend to want to play Mario. As for a family there going to pretty much want to play something they can all play at once which tends to be sports games or party games. That is if your family even plays games. Oh... keep this in mind people who play sports games are serious gamers they buy a new sports game every year with just a few updated features...

I wouldn't use that character sheet the quality of it is very poor.

It may seem a little funny however the reason for this is because the people who rip the work takes a lot of time to do it. While they like my self don't want credit for making the sprites/tiles they do want credit of ripping them.

Enter Key picks up Ctrl Attacks

 Don't claim as your own work! Please give credit to me. I ripped the tileset myself. I mostly did this because I was bored and wasting time. They are in no way fully finished. So you won't be able to map the whole game with them. Free to use as long you keep the credits! If I get bored again I may make some more.

Why so many towers you should spread them out a little.

I've always hated runescape. Anyways about the item sheet while it's styled good. The quilty of the sheet is very poor. It shouldn't been saved as a jpg.

E3 there to get people hyped for the games which are coming out. I don't mind that but it becomes a pain when your waiting for a game to come out like zelda which was announced at last years E3.

@Zonova: > He was actually talking about adding a screenshot function inside the game engine, i believe. I know, however it's a method of fix all the serious bugs if you can't add a screenshot button.

print screen button takes a screen shot of your screen just paste it into a paint program and save it as a image.

Thanks frosty i did a simple edit xD was never ment to be use. Edit: Why Jaiden doing the gui and not me.

I have to say I'm pretty clueless… I'm sorry but I really don't understand the point. Is it to make the screen small where the rare people who do use 600x800 by some reason can also play? To have it compact so people can view other things which is on there screen? Here's a simple mockup I made using floating, on screen... ect.  Still uses same upload.

@Robin: > It really isn't. The simple fact is that this is not a full size game. People are not going to be sat there with their entire screen taken up by it. They'll play it windowed whilst alt-tabbing through conversations, Firefox and the like. > > By making it so big you're cutting out a large amount of players as well as simply making it unsightly. Why not they pretty much already do it. Pretty much if you need to do anything you'll still have to alt-tab unless you can use what small part is left of the screen. Edit: Don't get me wrong… I do love the look of your game and how compact it is. 

Why do I feel like I'm playing mind craft when I look at this. It looks great.

@Reign: > The iPhone would support Eclipse games quite well with a bit optimisation, but that would imply the game is to be written in C, C++ or ObjC. > > If you lack knowledge in the market of embedded devices, then rather not make statements like those. > Thanks for sharing something I already knew. Also, since the height is a mere 600, it would be best to support 800×600 as minimal, which is exactly my point here. > You are assuming here. Most GPUs might even support exotic modes you'll never hear of when using modern GPUs. This has to do with VGA, SVGA and VBE. Obviously, the standards are old, but it makes sense to actually rely yourself on even the 640×480 resolution, like most game developers do, even when dealing with 3D. > > Your claim is also false. A modern dual-core computer will usually be about 80× to 160× better than an Intel machine from '95, just taking processor power into account (not the ISA vs. PCI vs. PCIe busses, GPUs with thousands of stream processors, etc.). A modern quad-core computer will top that with 160× to 320×. In comparison with my Amiga, a modern quad-core machine might even be 1600× to 3200× better. > > However, a modern computer has some losses. Memory is 400× to 600× slower compared to 1980, the gap is filled in by deploying caches, but ironically the software is optimised for processor speed, and not for cache misses. Then there is also processor security such as paging, ring levels, etc. which are all horribly slow (hence why µ-kernels still aren't popular in 2011). Not to mention that software is usually poorly designed and will therefore run poorly compared to software from 1980. > > In reality there is no difference in performance, because whilst the machines have been improved, the software has lost a magnitude of performance. > I am a programmer myself, who still actively uses Assembly and C, and the majority of my software is still compatible with Windows 3.1 or at least Windows 95, whilst I don't even really care about those platforms, but it's because I cared about backwards-compatibility and because I design my programmes with care. A developer can go back as far as the API allows him to and with Windows that is back to Windows 3.1, at most. > > Regards, > Stephan. lol, really if you want to defend this so much I'm not going to stop you. I'm sure someone somehow could do something with the iphone. Then wouldn't the game would be somewhat small for computer users. Yes the game would still work on computer. I guess if people don't mind playing a game which is 480x320 that's great. Your welcome! I'm happy to share info you already knew. I only wished I could have read your mind so then I would have known you already knew it. Then your time reading it wouldn't been wasted as it was so. I guess I was posting it for other people reading who might not have known about it. I do care about backwards-compatibility as a website maker I tend to try my best to support as much backwards-compatibility coding as I can so pages will look right. Anyways robins idea could/might work. Thanks for suggesting something which isn't on screen.

I know. However I would hope no one would be as crazy to try to even use one of them to play a eclipse game. It can be done but it would be like trying to use a iphone to play an eclipse game (somewhat pointless) [ps. iphone can't be done]. Netbooks however are able to show a good width resolution of 1024\. There height on the other hand goes to 600 which is shorter then a basic computers 1024x768\. The problem is it will look small because of the screen size of the notebook. There are 12inch notebooks which do have a higher screen resolution of 1280 x 800. Alright… now for the people using a outdated gpu. Well most gpu outdated or not should at least support 1024x768 as long you have a computer before the year 1995 I think your alright. If your not do your self a favor take your computer out back and hit it with a hammer a few times and buy a cheap $400 computer it will be x20 greater then anything 1995 had. While developers try to help and support the people with as much compatibility as they can there is a point where there nothing they can do. I hope that helps.

I don't think anyone in there right mind would use 800x600 on a computer. If they do they should upgrade to at least 1024.

Looks Great… I've already seen it as you know. He's right it's somewhat too big for small screen resolution. Anyone using higher 1024 width would be fine however. I'll be waiting for the finish work.