Grimrock

Hi everyone.
I just bought this wonderful game and I love it, unfortunately the narrow fov made me sick for 2 days and I can't play it anymore.
I can understand that the current FOV set is a game design choice, however I think that players health is more important!

I think I've read that devs are not going to add this option, that's the reason I'm making this post to ask the community support and change their idea.

An alternative to the FOV change could be the complete removal of movement animations between one tile and another, it would become like the old dungeon crawler games and it would become less immersive but at least I would be able to play it

I was hoping the "old school mode" might include a non-animated step movement feature. I suspect that this would be more complicated to implement than just removing the animation due to timing changes. It would be fun to try the game that way if it were possible. Does it make any difference to use a wide aspect resolution, or to play in a lighted room?

They are adding an option to disable the head-bobbing during movement in the next patch. That may help you.

Disabling the animation would be a bit tricky due to the timing. There would have to either be a long pause before your action took place or immediately after so you couldn't move faster than intended. Those pauses where no input was accepted might lead to more frustration than anything.

Dungeon master had this waiting in movement and it wasn't frustrating, it would be still an option
I don't know if head bobbing is a problem, removing it could help (and motion blur should be removable too).
However the major problem of fov should be related to camera rotation.

Bibendus wrote:Dungeon master had this waiting in movement and it wasn't frustrating, it would be still an option
I don't know if head bobbing is a problem, removing it could help (and motion blur should be removable too).
However the major problem of fov should be related to camera rotation.

Absolutely, a few people on here seem to have forgotten that DM didn't let you move as fast as you liked from square to square, in fact movement speed varied quite greatly depending on how weighed down your party was.

Goffmog wrote: Absolutely, a few people on here seem to have forgotten that DM didn't let you move as fast as you liked from square to square, in fact movement speed varied quite greatly depending on how weighed down your party was.

Very similar to LoG in fact.

Daniel.

Darklord wrote:

Goffmog wrote: Absolutely, a few people on here seem to have forgotten that DM didn't let you move as fast as you liked from square to square, in fact movement speed varied quite greatly depending on how weighed down your party was.

Very similar to LoG in fact.

Daniel.

Indeed

But more than once on here i've seen people comment that animating between steps is unlike the old-school games because you can no longer "walk as fast as you can click" when it's fact the only difference is that in LoG you get a nice snappy animation.

Goffmog wrote: But more than once on here i've seen people comment that animating between steps is unlike the old-school games because you can no longer "walk as fast as you can click" when it's fact the only difference is that in LoG you get a nice snappy animation.

Interestingly, Dungeon Master on the Amiga actually moves faster if you have more RAM, I run it through WinUAE and assigned 2mb of Fast Ram, this sped up movement no end, removing some of the sluggishness.

Daniel.

Darklord wrote:

Goffmog wrote: But more than once on here i've seen people comment that animating between steps is unlike the old-school games because you can no longer "walk as fast as you can click" when it's fact the only difference is that in LoG you get a nice snappy animation.

Interestingly, Dungeon Master on the Amiga actually moves faster if you have more RAM, I run it through WinUAE and assigned 2mb of Fast Ram, this sped up movement no end, removing some of the sluggishness.

Daniel.

Interesting I would have thought the timing routines were based on clock speed - rather than memory. That might explain why DM ran faster on the 512k ST than it did on the 1MB Amiga, because the ST had a faster CPU (but a worse everything else!).

jfunk wrote:Disabling the animation would be a bit tricky due to the timing. There would have to either be a long pause before your action took place or immediately after so you couldn't move faster than intended. Those pauses where no input was accepted might lead to more frustration than anything.

I suspect the time required for animation is slightly longer than the steps in DM, but it would be interesting if someone could do a side by side video comparison. If these delays were to be shortened, it would affect all combat and puzzles, and I assume would require another round of playtesting.