DRW wrote:
So, I'm still looking for a reason why programmers ever used "SMB scrolling with the x coordinate = SMB x + 32 pixels".
What does that mean?
SMB is a weird thing to compare to, since it doesn't allow any scrolling to the left. It's also not quite the simple case of locking to the camera once a certain position is reached, e.g. you can kind of scroll it further by running yourself up against a pipe a few times, and there's a strange smoothing effect when you resume sustained motion.
DRW wrote:
In this case, wouldn't it be better to put the "no movement" zone more to the left? I mean, you move forward most of the time, so it should be first priority to see what's ahead of you.
Some games do have an asymmetrical camera that favour motion to the right. Rastan (arcade) is an example of this. You should be careful to design the left-moving parts of levels with this in mind, of course.
DRW wrote:
Why would anybody think at all that the fixed-to-center camera is bad? Literally all of the top games on the NES have it: "Super Mario Bros.", "Mega Man", "Castevania", "Contra" (in 1 player mode), "Ninja Gaiden".
I think you mean Super Mario Bros. 2? Super Mario Bros. clearly stops the camera when you turn around.
Is Metroid a top game? Is Super Mario Bros. 3 a top game? (These both commits the "sin" you started this thread with.)
I think you should consider it based on what the specific game is doing, rather than make your design decisions based on how many cool games were doing it.
DRW wrote:
I mean, "Ninja Gaiden" is a quick game with not a low difficulty, but I've never heard anybody complain that the camera is bad.
Given the way enemy spawns are dictated by the camera in that game, I think more complex camera motion would have been a detriment.
DRW wrote:
So, who are the people that find constant camera movement irritating?
Sure, there will be some smart alecks who, when you ask them, will say: "Erm, yes, erm, I don't like that kind of camera." But how many of them really did say: "Man, the camera in "Super Mario Bros. 3" is not good" when they played the game?
This is a bit of a strawman. People don't usually complain either way. Players don't normally consider the other options available to the game designer and compare them in their head as they play them. That was the designer's job. Just because the user isn't going to call out a specific decision doesn't mean it's an unimportant decision.
DRW wrote:
I bet it will be hard to find any person who can truthfully say that he considered the fixed camera bad before being confronted with it on a forum or a website.
Everybody who bitches about it now probably never said to himself: "Couldn't they have implemented a more dynamic camera in SMB3?" before he got that idea on an internet forum.
Do you consider SMB3 camera's good or bad? Have you actually played it? Its camera is not locked, it has a calming window just like the other games you were complaining about. The only difference is the window is more narrow.
On a different note, there's one game where I think this kind of dragging window was a perfect design decision: Fez. In Fez, the levels are made of vertical columns that you are kind of rotating around. By having the
camera drag behind you as you move to the right, it centres your view on the column, rather than showing you what's ahead (because there's nothing ahead).
In my own game, I've implemented a
lock-to-centre camera, but I tried several different strategies before I picked that one. The primary reason for this is because of the rectangular room structure. I want the player to know exactly when they've reached the edge of a room, and the way scrolling stops is a perfect signal for this. A calming zone confuses this signal by stopping the camera at arbitrary places in the middle of the room.