2x2 Link: too buggy to retain?

Hmm... is it really that big of a deal to leave it as it is? Anyone who wants to use Big Link should just have to deal with these imperfections, and some already do. If it's not causing any harm to anything else, you should just leave it in. After all it's an option, not mandatory.

So... did anyone read _L_'s post?

Big link is screwing up his desire for side scrolling quests.
so he wants to remove big link.

I say remove the side scrolling crap, it was never intended to be a Z2 clone anyway.

It was working towards Z3 from Z1, who honestly cares if it can be used to build side scrollers?

Cdawgs little demo was cool and all but not worth desroying what Zelda Classic has been for me the last 5 years, how about the rest of you?
Do you want to be able to build "the Adventures of Link" quests, or "Link to the past" style quests?

Like I said earlier, go to the quest annoucement forum and download Castle Haunt III and play it, and tell be that Big Link can't be made to work, I didn't even spend that much time tweaking him in there, he could be made to do a lot better even then that.

AND it didn't effect anyone elses quests in the least.

oh well...
Anything you come up with _L_ isn't going to be as good as the 2.11b10b was.
You're going to have it so screwed up that there will never be a stable release, so if I ever want to build another quest, which is doubtful, I'll just use the 2.11b10b, and people can play it or not.
Until then, I'm outa here, I'll stop raising hell and let you destroy it in peace.
There just doesn't seem to be any point to this, it doesn't look to me like it's going to make any differance, as far as I'm concerned ZC's best days are behind it.
Cya folks, had some good times here.

Just fix the freaking thing and be done with it. None of the reasons you've given in this topic are enough justification to remove the feature, unless you suddenly don't think you can handle all the bug fixing...

Furthermore, why worry about the hitbox at all? The sprite 'not looking right' if it falls through 1x1 areas is really a nonissue, and the quest maker should take that into account when making their sprites.

As for the other bugs, they sound rather easy to fix.

jman2050 wrote:Furthermore, why worry about the hitbox at all? The sprite 'not looking right' if it falls through 1x1 areas is really a nonissue, and the quest maker should take that into account when making their sprites.

See figure 1, attached. What should happen when Link, in sideview, walks to the right?

What if the solid combo was a damage combo? Or a warp combo?

In my conception of what the Big Link feature is, the point of Big Link is to make him appear taller. So it seems contradictory that his added tallness isn't taken into account when in sideview.

Well, since everybody seems awfully insistent on retaining Big Link, I guess the only recourse (apart from going in and making all of the changes necessary to make a tall Link interact with combos in that way) is to greatly encourage questmakers to make two-tiles-tall Link mutually exclusive with sideview (despite the fact that it would have much of an "ignore the man behind the curtain" aspect to it).

Thanks for your input!

_L_, there's another problem with your reasoning, especially with that last post. Zelda, aside from Z2, has NEVER, EVER had a seperate sprite for Link in sideview areas. Zelda is a top-down game, not a sidescroller, so it's stupid to conform Link around a feature that has been in what, four games out of the series, and was never really a big part of them to begin with

I bring up a suggestion I had for the slashing problem here, and here. You seem hellbent on adding new features, so I might as well bring it up

Finally, _L_, you seem to be focusing on what YOU want in ZC, not the general public. ZC is about customization of your own quest, and if people want fat Links falling through single-combo gaps, that's they're decision, not your's. The fact that you're still even considering this against all the oposition just proves this

*b* wrote:Zelda, aside from Z2,

Well, for now, at least, they can't.

The fact that you're still even considering this against all the oposition just proves this

_L_, I see your point, but there are many solutions to this problem. Quest makers could also be wary not to allow that situation to occur in their quests, Also, an invisable block could easly plug that hole up.

The real puzzle is how drowning is going to be handled in side veiw rooms? If its (Drown -> Start of Room) then there should be no problem. But if its (Drown-> Set back were you fell in from) then there may be some problems in relation to gravity. (Link falls in, set back, Falls in, Set Back... Untill Dead if he is notvstuck in endless loop.)

_L_ wrote:And what if someone wants to make Zelda 2? Or Metroid?... if someone wanted to make Metroid or The Guardian Legend with a two-tile-tall character, then they'd have to make it entirely topdown as well.

Little reminder here. ZELDA Classic. This is for making ZELDA games, or games simmilar to Zelda, not Metroid... and anyone who has attempted those already has made them RPG-style. Zelda 2 didn't have any 1-tile passages anyway, so that's not a problem. Plus, with a Zelda 2 Link, it'd be easy to position the sword, no? Maybe add a quest rule for Z2 sword position while in sideview rooms, or maybe just in general

As one of those people who would like to make a Z2 style zelda, I'm glad you decided to leave the feature in - bugs and all. Yes the character's collision isn't really 2 tiles tall but I have my own jumping script anyway, to control jump-height, so I can solve it on my own through scripting. And any other person can do the same or use other creative solutions, such as invisible blocks/triggers.

Anyway on a positive note: the fact that you asked the question rather then just doing it, and listened to the masses (thankfully😊) means, to me atleast, that you're not just trying to sculpt ZQuest to your whims (as some have suggested) and DO care what people think. Thank you.

*b* wrote:Zelda 2 didn't have any 1-tile passages anyway, so that's not a problem.

_L_ wrote:Neither did Four Swords Adventures - the only Zelda game with both sideview areas and a "big" Link sprite.
But, do the questmakers know that?

Well, they do now. If they are any good at quest making anyway, don't you think they'd take in to account how big their sprite is in relation to the area they're making?

to my understanding you could make it work fine and dandy every where but in side view area's... side view area's i thought was a feature added by _L_ and he wants to remove it cause it doesn't work with his side view crap?

why not just make it not available or not work or something to prevent the quest maker from using it in its entirety in conjunction with side view area's?

Or you could just say: 'Don't use fat link in conjunction with side-view areas in your quest. Meaning, if you plan on using side-view scrolling in your quest, just use small link. And be done with it.

Okay, I wanted to stay out of this, but now I'm a bit mad.

_L_, I think you've gone a bit too far. Don't you think it's possible that maybe it's not Big Link that's bugged in sideview areas, but instead your Gravity screen flag? Think about it- Big Link won't work in sideview. Logic tells me that sideview might be bugged instead. So why not just check that before jumping to any conclusions? Seriously, everyone's going to hate you for good if you keep going on like this. Keep Big Link at all costs and try to debug him if he's bugged. That's just the way it is.

Edit: Was that too rude or anything? I can change my post if that sounded way too rude. I hate being rude. Even though I'm like that a lot.

The problems really have a simple solution... if a questmaker wants to use big link, they would have to work around these limitations. That's all they really are if this is mostly affecting sideview areas, and like DFW said, if you want to use big link, then just don't use side-view areas.

On a side note, I've never played 4 swords, but I thought this whole side-view thing in conjunction with the Roc's Feather was supposed to emulate Link's Awakening and the Oracle games.

If Big Link is taken out, I will... cry.
Well, I can also say it worked fine in Castle Haunt III.

_L_ wrote:No, you don't understand.

See figure 1, attached. What should happen when Link, in sideview, walks to the right?

What if the solid combo was a damage combo? Or a warp combo?

In my conception of what the Big Link feature is, the point of Big Link is to make him appear taller. So it seems contradictory that his added tallness isn't taken into account when in sideview.

Well, since everybody seems awfully insistent on retaining Big Link, I guess the only recourse (apart from going in and making all of the changes necessary to make a tall Link interact with combos in that way) is to greatly encourage questmakers to make two-tiles-tall Link mutually exclusive with sideview (despite the fact that it would have much of an "ignore the man behind the curtain" aspect to it).

Thanks for your input!

Frankly, removing a perfectly functional feature because it might not work well when used a certain way by certain people is no excuse. It's up to the quest designer to make that call, not the programmer.

In fact, it makes even less sense when you consider that Big Link was originally designed to operate in equal fashion to the modern Link seen in games like LttP and Four Swords/Minish Cap. Any size larger than 24x24 and matching up with sidescrolling was not even a factor, so it should not apply. Even when sidescrolling areas were used in Four Swords Adventures, they were designed to make Link's collision rectangle less obvious.

Love For Fire wrote:The problems really have a simple solution... if a questmaker wants to use big link, they would have to work around these limitations. That's all they really are if this is mostly affecting sideview areas, and like DFW said, if you want to use big link, then just don't use side-view areas.

On a side note, I've never played 4 swords, but I thought this whole side-view thing in conjunction with the Roc's Feather was supposed to emulate Link's Awakening and the Oracle games.

I suppose I'll be with LFF and DFW on this one. The Devs provide for the quest makers, and this includes all the knowledge necessary, and for this case, the quest maker needs to know that if you want to preserve both Big Link (Hitbox-wise) and Sidescrolling mode, then you can't have them interact in the way _L_ Mentioned. If you do, it's not the devs fault, because they were persuaded to leave both in.

EDIT: ... ... ....

Oh my god ... ...

Just one hundred posts left. < <, > >, .. .. .. Whoah.

No.

Anyone who finds themselves actually getting upset in this thread needs to get (1) drunk or (2) laid. I know the internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS and all that, but come on now. It's a video game.

Thats said, I don't know of anyone but me that's tinkering with a fully sideview quest. And I have no problem whatsoever with the size of Link's bit box. Making him two-tiles large would only matter if you ALSO had the ability to duck, or roll, or slide, or something so that it added a gameplay dimension. That might be nice in the future, but it's hardly worth doing now, when everyone and their grandma is clamouring for a bug-free release. So... I guess I don't see why its such a big deal.

And if good features go away, people will just use older versions. No harm, no foul.

Why not just add a check box to activate Big Link Hitbox while in Sideview areas only?

But C-Dawg, when I made my Big Link tiles and put it in, to took me over 3 weeks to do it. Too me, this is like if they took out something like room state carryovers all of a sudden. If you were using it, you would get a little mad because it will cost you all of that time and your vision that you had in the first place. Of course you just have to change all of your rooms that had the room state carryover and that would take a while, same with this.

Plus, I don't think sideview would look that bad with Big Link because it is not like I am using all of the pixel space. I just use 3-4 extra pixels for the top of his head, which is why I don't use the big hit box. But if it doesn't work on sideview, then I rather not use the sideview then. But see that is my personal opinion. All of the objects and characters in my game are based on Link's height and it would be screwed up if I would have to switch.

A bit off topic, but how the hell did it take you three weeks to add Big Link?

It was basically, it took forever to get the Link look right so my group members would like it. It went through 3 phases. Then I went back to 16x16 Link, then made the new Link tiles which they now like, so then, I went into the quest and changed everything to fit his height. For example, I changed all of the trees so that they would be way bigger then Link, doors to houses, etc. And now I got it to look perfect. Though, it will go through one more change as the slash tiles don't match up.

in other words, without big link, Shoelace's new quest ceases to exist. :P

Big Link is more important than a side-scrolling novelty. I encourage you to ditch side-view gravity. It is the feature with the most bugs, and therefore it should be cut first. The Roc's Feather can still work even without side-view.

Is there any way in which this is not logical, C-Dawg? The most stable features stay, while the buggiest (and most recent) are cut?

in other words, without big link, Shoelace's new quest ceases to exist. :P

No, that is not what it means. :P It is just my opinion of why this addition should stay. Of course I can change things back, but that is going to a take a while, and it just sucks that I would have done that for nothing, especially when the Big Link is working fine. It is like I said, say someone was to take out a feature that was used in the Lost Isle. Of course, the game doesn't have to be canned because of it, and it can survive without a feature. But changing things that you had already did is going to make you a little mad.

NO! Please, I beg of you keep sideview gravity. You all get to say your "Keep 2x2 Link, I'll use it and not sideview gravity", well, now I'm saying "Keep sideview gravity, I'll use it and not 2x2 link" I'm not saying ditch 2x2 Link, but ya know, Z2 wasn't the only game that had sideview gravity. Anyone here ever play the oracles? There were some great sideview areas there, and they still felt Zelda-ey. And to top it off, I'v NEVER played Z2, and I still want Sideview gravity.

Heres somthing I've been meaning to ask anyway. Has anyone actually MADE an actual tileset for 2x2 link. You know, 2x2 cave entrances, huge houses, giant trees and boulders. And how about enemies. If you want proper size enemies, than we need an enemy size editor.(Which I'd like to see anyway for custom bosses)
My point is, 2x2 Link isn't really BUGGY, but it requires a massive amount of work both by devs and quest makers to get to work properly.

Oh yeah, I am not saying to get rid of sideview gravity. By all means keep it. I think both should stay. I think quest makers would just have to know that if you use 2x2 Link, you won't be able to do sideview correctly. Then they can decide what they want to do. Like a lot of people said: Leave it up to the quest maker.

But I don't like the idea of automatically making the hit box big when in sideview because even though I am using a big Link, I am only using 4 pixels to make him taller, so if it was to use the big hit box, it would hit over his head and still get hit. That wouldn't look right so I would prefer my Big Link to keep the small hit box. Just throwing that out there because of that suggestion.

I have an idea! Why not an editable hitbox for link. Two actually. One for top-down, one for sideview. It would work kinda like the combo editor. Now everyone's happy!!!😊 😊 😃 😮