Ah, that makes sense. So, progress on this titlescreen? Did you welcome any submissions of ideas, or did you want to keep working on it yourself for now?

The legs are just wrong...

Maybe:

HOLY CRAP! NanoWar! You're back!

o.o

[ontopic] Would that make the player too small though...?

Welcome to Cemetech, NanoWar!

@Raylin: Isn't the player already that small...?

Well...

He seems smaller...

I suppose so, but I think that's just because he's narrower in that second sprite. I had a similar problem with getting running to look as non-awkward as possible with my early prototypes of M-Game:

/\those look exactly like the n sprites(or was that the point?).
that would be the most AMAZING game to port

EDIT:...and you already are
Kerm, you're my favourite

Haha, I do my best. Check out the Envisioning M-Game thread; it's next on my list after I get CALCnet squared away.

I know the legs aern't exactly the most good looking, but unless i wanted to double my code, the player *must* be a 5x5 sprite. Which means that there must be a pixel in the left bottom and right bottom corners or it just looks like he's floating at some points.

And no matter what, due to the nature of how i am warping through portals, the physics bounding box for the player must be square. This is because the player isnt rotating when he goes through rotated portals (as he technically should but its a nightmare in 2D)

What, Builder? No rotC()?

Those are solid reasons; thanks for explaining it. It's too bad that the physics constrains you to that, though.

Its mostly because if the physics bounding box was rectangular, when the player moved through the portal from one direction, onto a portal at 90 degrees rotation, the bounding box would not collide properly since i am ignoring rotation on the player.

There *might* be another option. Where i make the player sprite larger than the collision box. So i could for example use Kerm's running sprite on a bounding box of 4x4 (which is how wide he stands) but his head would be able to go through the roof...

Yeah, that would be a bit awkward. :/ I suppose for your 90-degree rotation problem, the only solution would be to calculate out the rotations, which you'd prefer not to do?

well its not really the calculating that i mind, that part wouldn't be super hard since its only 90 degree increments. But its all the sprite rotations and changes in the bounding box size that just seems too complicated. That and i think it would make the game more confusing really

Meh, I suppose that it would be. I wonder if I'll try to tackle any of those issues if I decide to put portals in M-Game. I definitely support your decision to omit them, though.

I've never been away .
I just opened a fresh motivation booster... haha.

Hmm, what does that mean, exactly? I new calculator?

lol... lucky him if he got a new calculator...

i hate the fact that i can no longer use mine for university...
in fact... i can't even use a scientific calc... >=(

Well, yeah, at some level the math is too theoretical to need a calculator anymore.

So i ran some tests and i have decided on staying with 5x5 box and 5x5 sprite. So unless i can figure out a better 5x5 sprite the little dude is staying the same