![]() As an aid for beginners, a symbol key is provided at the side of the ASCII window (not shown). Assuming you know what the symbols represent, the ASCII here is far clearer despite showing 50% more creatures, and doing so with less space overall. tiles mode (a similarly crowded but not identical scene). Many players have difficulty making that conceptual leap, preferring instead to associate new meanings with new representations (or in many cases representations based on similar previous representations that are already familiar for that same object-e.g., a drawing of an orc rather than an ‘o’).Ī comparison of Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup ASCII vs. Those years of training also apply to the glyphs’ meanings, which we must re-associate with a new meaning in the context of a game. Unfortunately that benefit is at the same time ASCII’s biggest disadvantage. ![]() Tilesets simply cannot do this to the same degree of readability, so our “training” obviously has its advantages. This is even possible using ASCII fonts only 7~9 pixels tall. After learning those associations, visual information can be absorbed both quickly and with a very low chance of error. Our eyes are already well-trained to parse alphanumeric information-all that’s required is learning to associate symbols with specific objects. with no “superfluous visual distractions.” In that respect my initial vision for a future tileset when starting Cogmind was something akin to “icons” in their simplicity.ĪSCII also benefits from the fact that we can leverage years of experience distinguishing a very specific set of symbols to identify them even when densely clustered and/or at small sizes. From another perspective, simple symbolic glyphs help distill information for tactical decision-making into its purest form-i.e. tilesets that can be used to inform the tileset selection process. Here I’m interested in comparing the technical qualities of ASCII vs. It turns out ASCII is actually quite practical, with a number of inherent benefits that are difficult or even impossible to replicate with a regular tileset.Ĭertainly ASCII’s purely symbolic approach appeals to players who enjoy experiences more reliant on the imagination, but that feature is more a factor of personal preference. But the choice to use ASCII (as now it is a choice) must be more meaningful than that, because traditions that have lost their meaning tend to die out to be replaced by more meaningful approaches. To an extent we can attribute ASCII’s modern relevance to tradition, continuing to use it because those who came before did the same. We can’t look to roguelike origins for the answer, since early usage was born of limitation rather than free choice. This discussion doesn’t seem entirely necessary given that Cogmind will be both ASCII- and tileset-enabled, but the topic also serves as a background against which to explain the choice for Cogmind’s primary tileset. Each representation has benefits and drawbacks, and to suit all types of players many popular roguelikes have the option of using either, as will Cogmind. Not that any individual preference for ASCII or tilesets is right or wrong, or one is inherently better in every way. And that impact occurs at a deeper level than “oh this looks better than that,” affecting even the efficiency and precision of decision-making itself. While a game’s visual style need not always be rooted in its underlying mechanics (especially the case with traditional turn-based roguelikes), the choice between an ASCII or tileset map representation obviously has a major impact on the experience. Ah, a visual dichotomy not nearly as old as roguelikes themselves, but nonetheless of great significance today.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |