Can automapping be really as good as parallax mapping?

[J_C]

Yes, it is another THAT kind of thread. Automapping vs parallax mapping. 


Don't fret, I don't want to discuss the same thing again, I've already read several threads about it. And the final conclusion is always that if you have the talent, you can make as good looking maps with automapping as with parallax.


My question is more like: Does it worth the time? 


In my oppinion, to make a map as good looking as a parallax map, you constantly have to edit the tiles, and then use them in the editor during automapping. Let's say you want to have a plant, which is in the right top corner of a tile. Then you export the tile, move it in a photo editor, then import it back. But next time you want the plant to be at the bottom left corner of a tile, so you have to move it again in a photo editor, then import. Same thing for recoloruing, increasing, decreasing sizes etc. 


Wouldn't it make more sense to draw these in a photo editor, and put the on a parallax map? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a waste of time to constantly edit the RTP tiles and import them back into the game.


The only drawback of parallax mapping in my opinion is that you have to look out for passabality, but if you are careful enough, you can deal with that. 


For those who are quite good in automapping, and not using parallax mapping, what do you think about that? Because I heared a lot of time that parallax mapping takes more time, but I just don't see that.


These only apply if you are making a more complex map of course. If you are only making a very basic map, then automapping is easier obviously, since you don't have to edit the RTP tiles at all, just use them as they are.

 

[byBibo]

I'm not good with automapping, but here's my 2 cents: editing the RTP is time consuming, but not that much if you do all the editings at the same time. I take your flower example: if i want it in the upper right corner, then in my photo editor, i can always make the upper left, bottom left and bottom right at the same time, so i don't have to redo this if next time i need the flower elsewhere. As long as your foresee all the needs you might want from 1 specific tile, you can do whatever you want inside the RM editor.

 

[Idril]

I would honestly find it easier to parallax, working from a base map-shot, than to have to edit tiles and arrange them and import them. That sounds like a lot of scattered work - what if I suddenly decide I need a new tile? I'd have to edit my tilesheets again. And with scripts that let you set passability in-editor, parallaxes are pretty easy to work with once you get used to it.

 

[Musashi]

I think parallax maps are really worthy when you're using brushes/patterns in the image editor or making complex lighting effects (those are really the only things that can differentiate a parallax map from a editor one) ,if you're only using tiles, parallax is not really the best option most of the times. It may sounds strange, but parallax mapping is faster than 'automapping' when making single complex maps, but in a long term project, preparing your tiles right will get your editor maps a parallax quality and will make your work a lot faster, because you just have to do it once - once you made that object tile in the top/bottom/left corner you can use it with any other tiles and in any future map.

 

[mlogan]

I'm a tile editor. I've tried parallax mapping and for me, I get too obsessed over ridiculous tiny details, such as "That flower clump needs to be moved 3 pixels to the left." If it's in a tile format, it is what it is, if that makes sense. Therefore, I end up spending way to much time obsessing over every detail in a parallax map, never quite happy with it. Also, I don't like the fact that if I decide I want a change, I have to go work with the whole parallax map to fix something.


For me, when I map, I usually work with Gimp open. The importing process is not that big of a deal if you work with the files directly from your project. When I've made an edit, I just export the file straight into the game and the change is automatic. This works for Ace or MV. By keeping my files open, it only takes a few moments to add or replace a tile. Obviously, heavier edits will take longer.


Really though, I think it comes down to personal preference and what you get used to doing.

 

[J_C]

I think parallax maps are really worthy when you're using brushes/patterns in the image editor or making complex lighting effects (those are really the only things that can differentiate a parallax map from a editor one) ,if you're only using tiles, parallax is not really the best option most of the times. It may sounds strange, but parallax mapping is faster than 'automapping' when making single complex maps, but in a long term project, preparing your tiles right will get your editor maps a parallax quality and will make your work a lot faster, because you just have to do it once - once you made that object tile in the top/bottom/left corner you can use it with any other tiles and in any future map.

That is probably true. After having a vast library of edited tiles, you can use them again in later projects. My only problem when it comes to that is that it is so limiting that the editor can only use 4 tilesets at once (B-E tiles), so you constantly have to make new tilesets with all the modified tiles. 

 

[Andar]

Whenever I read one of those discussions I always find that some people compare apples with rocks - because there are several differences thrown in without even thinking on them.


1) Map design is completely independent of parallax mapping or regular mapping.


If you cannot design your map (which means deciding what has to be placed where on the map, how much room for movement and so on) then it doesn't matter what kind of mapping you use, the resulting map will be bad. Parallax mapping cannot magically make a bad map design look good


That is why people say that with mapping skills (meaning good map design skills) you can make a regular map as good as a parallac map. It is not because regular mapping suddenly is better, but because the map design is better than the crappy parallax that might look nice as eye candy (if at all) but is impossible to play on.


2) The difference between parallax mapping and regular maping is NOT only the quality, but also the workload


One of the artist here on the board (sorry, don't remember which one) once stated that regular mapping is 20% of the work for 80% of the quality of parallax mapping.


That always counts even for the best map design - regular mapping has limitations that can be ignored by parallax mapping, and that makes the quality of a good parallax map always better than the quality of a similiar good regular map. But that quality has its price in the workload - you can make four or five regular maps in the same time as one parallax map.


3) Game size - Parallax maps need thousands of times the memory of regular maps


In a regular map, each tile is coded as a single number (the index in the tileset), but for a parallax map you need the color for every pixel. That's 32x32 pixels for older RMs or 48x48 pixels for RMMV - resulting in 1024 or 2304 times the color code for the same mapping space. And often the color code needs more RAM than the tileset number...


So especially if you plan to deploy to handhelds, forget parallax mapping - the game won't run unless it's a really, really high-end device.


So don't talk about quality only - especially in large games it is almost impossible to use parallax mapping, not only because of the much higher workload for it, but also because it will make the games require much more drive space.

 

[Phonantiphon]

I prefer to edit map tiles, I think if you just sit down and work out what you want for a given map and make what you need, you can just swap in and out what you need if necessary. You need a decent filesystem so you can be sure that you keep a track of where your tilesets actually are but it's not arduous, it just needs some planning and organisation.


That said, were I considerably better at art than I am, I would probs *also* use parallax mapping!!

 

[J_C]

Whenever I read one of those discussions I always find that some people compare apples with rocks - because there are several differences thrown in without even thinking on them.


1) Map design is completely independent of parallax mapping or regular mapping.


If you cannot design your map (which means deciding what has to be placed where on the map, how much room for movement and so on) then it doesn't matter what kind of mapping you use, the resulting map will be bad. Parallax mapping cannot magically make a bad map design look good


That is why people say that with mapping skills (meaning good map design skills) you can make a regular map as good as a parallac map. It is not because regular mapping suddenly is better, but because the map design is better than the crappy parallax that might look nice as eye candy (if at all) but is impossible to play on.


2) The difference between parallax mapping and regular maping is NOT only the quality, but also the workload


One of the artist here on the board (sorry, don't remember which one) once stated that regular mapping is 20% of the work for 80% of the quality of parallax mapping.


That always counts even for the best map design - regular mapping has limitations that can be ignored by parallax mapping, and that makes the quality of a good parallax map always better than the quality of a similiar good regular map. But that quality has its price in the workload - you can make four or five regular maps in the same time as one parallax map.


3) Game size - Parallax maps need thousands of times the memory of regular maps


In a regular map, each tile is coded as a single number (the index in the tileset), but for a parallax map you need the color for every pixel. That's 32x32 pixels for older RMs or 48x48 pixels for RMMV - resulting in 1024 or 2304 times the color code for the same mapping space. And often the color code needs more RAM than the tileset number...


So especially if you plan to deploy to handhelds, forget parallax mapping - the game won't run unless it's a really, really high-end device.


So don't talk about quality only - especially in large games it is almost impossible to use parallax mapping, not only because of the much higher workload for it, but also because it will make the games require much more drive space.

Sure, sure, I'm not arguing about parallax being a better quality. I just thought that opposite to most opinions, parallax mapping takes LESS times than regular mapping. But as other pointed out before, it is only true if you don't yet have a ready made library of different . I see that now. 

 

[Andar]

 I just thought that opposite to most opinions, parallax mapping takes LESS times than regular mapping.

No - you're forgetting that with parallax mapping, you still need to set the passability by tile in the regular editor. That is an additional step on top of everything that is already handled by regular mapping automatically. And if your parallax mapping is faster than regular mapping, then you're not using all options of parallax mapping (like placing parts off-grid and in multiple layers), because those also take extra time compared to regular mapping.

 

[gRaViJa]

In XP it was possible for sure, but not in MV or VX. That's why i switched to TileD. It is as fast as regular mapping and it comes very, very, close to parallax mapping if you want what you are doing.

 

[Phonantiphon]

@gRaViJa: Is Tiled good, then...? I mean does it give good results?


As a furtherance to my previous opinion(!): I do think that because Parallax Mapping is more... "arty", that it's entirely possible to get caught up in the "Ooh look how awesome this map is" thing, and drift away from the reason why you were making the map in the first place and\or end up with some lovely but impractical.


...or maybe that's just me...!


Using the editor and just mapping, because it's more systemic and "mechanical", as it were, I think allows you to maintain a more focused approach.


Does that make sense?

 

[J_C]

In XP it was possible for sure, but not in MV or VX. That's why i switched to TileD. It is as fast as regular mapping and it comes very, very, close to parallax mapping if you want what you are doing.

Wow, thanks a lot for mentioning TileD. I was not aware of its existance and it is looking to be a pretty cool software for map editing. 

 

[gRaViJa]

@gRaViJa: Is Tiled good, then...? I mean does it give good results?

Wow, thanks a lot for mentioning TileD. I was not aware of its existance and it is looking to be a pretty cool software for map editing. 

I just finished up my first test map with TileD for my MV game. With MV's very limited mapping options this would never have been possible. TileD is a bit more difficult to master (still looking into above player vs below player) but once you got it, you'll be able to make great maps, close to parallaxing, but way faster. When I add some color tone and fog in MV, i think this will be a nice looking map.

 

[noctiluca]

I think they have potential to be the same in terms of quality/appeal but have a different look to them. To make really great-looking maps it's going to be a time investment no matter what method you choose.


Like, making custom tiles takes forever but it's much easier to make edits or change your maps afterward (or make new ones with your tiles)


Parallaxing, especially if it's hand-drawn has a more organic feel and many more possibilities for visual design, but if you change your mind somewhere down the line it's harder to alter, and making new maps takes more time. Dealing with file sizes is also difficult-- unless you cut down the color count to 64 or so (which can either look good if you design with that in mind, or terrible if you create whatever you feel like and then realize you need to optimize...), you may have maps that are tens of megabytes each.


I'm currently working on a 100% hand-drawn parallax game, and to be honest it's challenging not to switch to tiles because it would make changes down the line so much easier. But when I try to recreate the map with tiles (even as a placeholder) it looks very strange. I dunno. I guess it's a self-imposed limitation to keep me from making the world too big... if I found an easier way to manipulate the autotiles in MV to not looks so sharp/repetitive, I'd probably go for tiles.

 

[J_C]

I think they have potential to be the same in terms of quality/appeal but have a different look to them. To make really great-looking maps it's going to be a time investment no matter what method you choose.


Like, making custom tiles takes forever but it's much easier to make edits or change your maps afterward (or make new ones with your tiles)


Parallaxing, especially if it's hand-drawn has a more organic feel and many more possibilities for visual design, but if you change your mind somewhere down the line it's harder to alter, and making new maps takes more time. Dealing with file sizes is also difficult-- unless you cut down the color count to 64 or so (which can either look good if you design with that in mind, or terrible if you create whatever you feel like and then realize you need to optimize...), you may have maps that are tens of megabytes each.


I'm currently working on a 100% hand-drawn parallax game, and to be honest it's challenging not to switch to tiles because it would make changes down the line so much easier. But when I try to recreate the map with tiles (even as a placeholder) it looks very strange. I dunno. I guess it's a self-imposed limitation to keep me from making the world too big... if I found an easier way to manipulate the autotiles in MV to not looks so sharp/repetitive, I'd probably go for tiles.

Many mention that with parallaxing the file size of each map can be quite big. I've never majde parallax maps this big yet, so could someone tell me why is this a problem? The engine starts to lag, or does it load the maps slowly? 

 

[Phonantiphon]

Many mention that with parallaxing the file size of each map can be quite big. I've never majde parallax maps this big yet, so could someone tell me why is this a problem? The engine starts to lag, or does it load the maps slowly? 

All of the above really, depending upon how optimised the engine is it can make it lag if you have loads of visual data just as if you have loads of parallel events running and obviously, the more information a map has in it then potentially the longer it can take for a given engine to load that map.


You have to think of the parallax and also the all the other events and whatnot that will be on the map as well, it's not just one thing.


The thing is that you need to also take into account how the game will load on systems that are not yours. Just because the game loads in super-turbo time on your rig, doesn't mean it will on someone else's so your hyper-real parallax map may allow for buttery-smooth gameplay on your system but on the dude across the way with a knock-off PC from ...wherever... it may be reduced to a series of very pretty but ultimately impractical photographs.

 

[J_C]

All of the above really, depending upon how optimised the engine is it can make it lag if you have loads of visual data just as if you have loads of parallel events running and obviously, the more information a map has in it then potentially the longer it can take for a given engine to load that map.


You have to think of the parallax and also the all the other events and whatnot that will be on the map as well, it's not just one thing.


The thing is that you need to also take into account how the game will load on systems that are not yours. Just because the game loads in super-turbo time on your rig, doesn't mean it will on someone else's so your hyper-real parallax map may allow for buttery-smooth gameplay on your system but on the dude across the way with a knock-off PC from ...wherever... it may be reduced to a series of very pretty but ultimately impractical photographs.

It's a little off-topic, but I could never understand how this engine could have perforamance problems? Even if a map has 100 parallel processes, it should have no performance impact on today's rigs. I mean, looking at the AAA games which has enourmous system requirements, even the most complex RPG maker game should runwithout a hick.

 

[Sharm]

You're comparing apples and oranges here. AAA games are a completely different market and demographic.  Yeah, anyone who runs the latest hyper real shooter is going to play stuff just fine, but RM games are much more often bought by a middleaged woman with a computer she hasn't upgraded in 10 years.  Also, wasn't online play already mentioned?  That brings internet speed into play, which is an enormous variable that depends a lot on where you live and much less to do with how awesome your rig is.

 

[J_C]

You're comparing apples and oranges here. AAA games are a completely different market and demographic.  Yeah, anyone who runs the latest hyper real shooter is going to play stuff just fine, but RM games are much more often bought by a middleaged woman with a computer she hasn't upgraded in 10 years.  Also, wasn't online play already mentioned?  That brings internet speed into play, which is an enormous variable that depends a lot on where you live and much less to do with how awesome your rig is.

I think you misunderstood me. You say that RM games are often bought my middleaged woman with an old computer (I hope this is not the case by the way). But these performance problems are even worse in this case, because the middleaged woman's old computer would even have more lag than a high end rig.


I don't really want get into an argument about this, because this was not the topic of this thread. And it is not big of a problem, I still like this engine. It is just a little strange.