Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 10 May 2004
Offline Last Active Today, 04:04 PM

#5308945 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 31 August 2016 - 08:11 PM


I know those values are the right ones because they've been the right ones for the last 30 years or so...These values have more than 30 years of actualy use backing them up. They are far more certain than any computer game values.

Humor us non-designers. We're curious. Tell us why those are the right values. Tell us what would happen if we didn't use those values. Please. That's all mikeman is asking. Is that really so difficult? What was the question you thought mikeman asked, that you thought you were answering?

You could even write a multi-paragraph blog post explaining those numbers alone. People here would read it.

If you can't explain why you believe something, how can you be sure that you're right?


I mean, he conceded that those values are just a "good starting point based on experience", and prone to change, which is reasonable...you award the player based on their dice roll, you start with some default values that seem reasonable based on your exprience and then tune them as necessary...except that's what all designers do *anyway*. What Kavig Kang claims to bring to the table is a much more detailed design document...but if the document is 800-pages littered with arrays of values that are not set in stone and can change anyway, why not condense it to "player is awarded based on a 5-dice roll - values of awards to be decided upon playtesting" in the first place?


If the various values are to be balanced during playtesting anyway, would you rather have 20 pages detailing the fire and damage rates of all the weapons in the game, or just a single sentence "weapons will differ in damage and fire rates, but no weapon is clearly better than the other and they all have their purpose - the actual values are to be decided when the game is played and tested"? The latter is what he calls a "summary" in contrast to the "detail design document that is already a game" - except I don't see the value in the former when the values are going to be tuned during testing anyway, it just feels like you filled a lot of pages with numbers to give the *impression* of "professionalism" instead of capturing the essense of the game mechanic in a few paragraphs and do the tuning later. I mean, if we go back to the money you get based on dice roll, the essence here seems to be that there's an extra bonus for the "all 5 dices roll six", beyond what you'd normally get based on the function used for 1-4 sixes. So you can just say that, more effectively communicating what you're trying to do and why, instead of listing endless arrays of values which are to be tuned afterwards anyway.

Unless, of course, he does have a "scientific method", besides of past experience that every designer has, of determining those values, in which case the detailed designed document is valuable because fine-tuning in order to capture the elusive "fun" factor will take much less time. But so far he hasn't answered what is the "scientific method" that lead to a 400-million bonus instead of a 800-million one or a 200-million one. Hell, I could even say that if you roll 5 sixes, you do one more dice roll and the extra bonus is decided based on that, so it could be 100 to 600 million extra bonus. Or you roll the dice and you get a fixed bonus, unless you roll 1, in which case, no bonus, just your "regular" 1.6 billion. Are those rules better? Are they worse? Are they just different? Does the extra dice roll generate more "fun/suspense" or more "boredom" for the players? I personally have no idea, that's why I'm asking questions(but not really getting answers), but don't you need to have an explanation of why if you claim that "those value are correct" and even bring "math" and "scientific method" into it?

Kavik Kang, I don't want you to think I'm doubting that you're a good game designer, I mean it's certainly obvious you know your stuff when it comes to board games, I'm just curious what is this "scientific method" you use and you claim is a huge advantage over all the other videogame designers.

Okay, and now something tangentially related to lighten the mood   :D


#5308942 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 31 August 2016 - 07:41 PM

Yeah, but as someone who is just interested in learning *some* stuff about game design, I posed an honest-to-god question. What is it that makes a 400-million extra bonus to result in better and more exciting game play than a 800-million one(or any other value really)? 

#5308940 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 31 August 2016 - 07:34 PM

I didn't "rant" about anything, and really usually ignore "psychological warfare" like that.  I wasn't insulting you, telling you specifically that you are in the wrong line of work.  I meant, as most I am sure already realize, that anyone who can't answer the question you had asked doesn't know literally the first thing about game design and really isn't qualified to be doing it.  Kind of like how you wouldn't want an engineer to design your car who still hadn't figured out how to spell "Cat" with building blocks.  Same thing, really.  And that is not insulting any one, it is akin to saying "if you don't know that 1+1=2 then you probably aren't much of a mathematician."


Dude, again. I'm a programmer. A *programmer*. I write code. That's what I'm going to do when I go to work tomorrow. I'm going to write C++ and HLSL to render terrain and trees and grass. *Not* a game designer. Those are in a different floor. I rarely ever interact with them, except when we go for lunch. Do you even read my posts? You don't insult me by telling me I'm in the "wrong line of work", simply because you don't seem to understand what my "line of work" is.

And again, I'm still expecting an actual answer, and not one which is basically "respect my authoritah". You must have derived those values *somehow*, and again, I'm honestly asking you to show me what the process of this was. Like, explain to me why a 400-million bonus is "better" than a 800-million bonus. There *must* be a rationale to that.

#5308937 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 31 August 2016 - 07:19 PM

Mike, do you see how low those values are?  How simple the math is?  I know those values are the right ones because they've been the right ones for the last 30 years or so... I doubt that math has changed since then, at least not math this simple.  I have made over 100 games, easily, similar to this one using the same tool kit.  Really, this is at the same exact levels that Stratego is... if you can't see that these are the right values to use, then you are probably in the wrong line of work.  These values have more than 30 years of actualy use backing them up.  They are far more certain than any computer game values.  In fact, there is no chance at all that these values are wrong.  This is kindergarten stuff we are talking about here.  I know their a excellent mathematicians reading this, surely they can see that.  I don't need the math, I've been using them for over 30 years.  How long do you spend on a game, again?


Okay, first of all, I don't know how many times I can say I'm a *programmer* and not a designer, so unless you've got a problem with how I implemented vegetation rendering for the company I'm working for, keep the "wrong line of work" comments out of this please :). It's really starting to look like you don't know what programmers do in game companies, and how their work is completely different from designers. My job is to make the engine and/or code the tools that will enable the designers to enter whatever values they want, not to determine those values. We are *not* in the "same line of work", you and me. Not even close. I'm not taking your job, unless your job involves writing HLSL shaders :)

Second, you didn't actually answer the question, which was really an honest question expecting an answer, you just said "I know those values are right because they're right", and then proceeded in a mini-rant. :) The "these values are correct because we've been using them for 30 years" tells me nothing. They've been using the 6.25m value for 3-pointers and 30-second rule for decades too on FIBA too. Then they experimented with 6.75m. and 24-seconds. 

I still honestly expect an answer on how those values(mainly the extra bonus for an all-sixes roll) are derived, given the goal is that they would result in an enganing and fun game play. Honestly. Stop taking everything as an offense. It's a honest to god question. Personally, I fail to see how an "excellent mathematician" would even begin to "prove" that a bonus of 400 million results in "more game fun" than 800 million. How on earth are they going to put a psychological factor into an equation?

#5308923 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 31 August 2016 - 05:50 PM

If the "NATO blue" dice roll (one for each unit) is a 6 the US gets $100, 2 gets $200, 3 6s is $400, 4 6s is $800 million, and all 5 sixes (from the Fighter) are $2 billion.



I'm gonna ask what I asked in my last post, and this is actually a honest question. This is just a small part of the game, but it's a good example. *How* exactly do you know those values are the ones needed in order for the players to have the most enjoyable experience possible, without playtesting? Why all 5 sixes are 2 billion? How did you arrive to that number? Just by looking at the numbers, the reward is "100 * 2 ^ (number_of_sixes-1)" for number_of_sixes <=4, and an extra bonus of 400 million(the reward for 3 6s) for number_of_sixes = 5.


But how do you know the game, *this particular game*,  wouldn't suddently become much more exciting and "fun" for all involved if you kept everything the same, but the reward for all 5 sixes was 2.4 billion instead (that is, the extra bonus is 800 million, the reward you get for 4 sixes)? I'm narrowing it down to the most basic level - forget anything else, assume even the formula for number_of_sixes <= 4 does result in "maximum" fun - I'm asking how do you come up with the very last rule, the one controlling the extra bonus for all 5 sixes - that the extra bonus resulting in the most enganging game play is indeed 400 million(the amount you get for 3 6s) and not 800 million(the amount you get for 4 6s). How are you sure, how do you verify that if you increase the extra bonus to 800 million and let the players play the same game in all other respects, a signficant number of players won't suddenly go "whoa, for some reason this is way more fun now!".

I don't know man. Take basketball. At one point, the 3-pointer line was at 6.25m. Then they changed it to 6.75m because they figured that resulted in more balanced and fun games. That's for FIBA rules. For NBA, which has a slightly different ruleset, different philosophy, arguably more skilled and athletic players, it's 7.25m. All of these are tweaks that are made due to experience of thousands of games. Iterative design.

Another example. For soccer, they kept going back and forth on how to resolve a knock-out game that ended up in draw, and not have it end in penalty shootout ( 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football ) , which are pretty much a coin toss(OTOH, many people consider them very exciting nonetheless). First they had "sudden death/golden goal"(first team to score on overtime wins). Then they had "silver goal"(the team leading the first extra-time half wins - incidentally that's how we(Greeks) ended up in the European Final that surreal summer of 2004 :). In the end, they were considered failed experiments that " had not brought about more active and attacking play" and were eliminated.



Failed experiments. Tweaking. Iterative design. From people that have been arguably doing this for much longer time than the videogame and the tabletop/hobbyist industry have been doing it.

How on Earth can one claim to know the "true" value of all these parameters beforehand, without having to see at least one game with the specific ruleset in action, observe and evaluate how the living, breathing, many times "irrational" components of the game - the players themselves - react to it; that's beyond me. I just don't see it happening anywhere else.

#5308916 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 31 August 2016 - 05:26 PM

Interesting description of how the design process for some features of a AAA game went.

Note that user experience features like "feel" and "discoverability" are featured prominently, particularly when it comes to input methods. I have a hard time picturing a 500-page design document having anything more substantative than speculation regarding "feel," even if said speculation was based on prior experience. After all, small details can sometimes have devastating consequences on user experience.


This is what I don't get, basically. What you can verify, at the very best case, is whether the ruleset is consistent and results in a non-broken game. I have no idea how a game designer can verify if a game is actually fun and/or enganging for other people, which is the goal here, without seeing it in action with all its myriad moving parts and verifying that it "feels" right. Unless they make an exact "reskinned" clone of an existing game - and even then, they may fail miserably. 


Sure, for my racing game, I may have a rule that, when colliding with a wall, a craft loses 15% of its speed and takes 2% damage. That's a rule alright - it doesn't technically break the game and the game is perfectly functional. It also may mean that new players may collide with the walls too much, keep ending up way behind the opponents in the first races, and completely lose interest in the game - so it's a working game alright, except not a fun/enganging one. So, adapting to that, I reduce that value to 10%, and suddenly new players find it easier to play and have fun with it. It's one of those "small details" that can have devestating consequences, and the consequences in a real-time simulation may be heavily dependent to even things such as how many times per second you're running the physics simulation - let alone the friction or collision model you use(or the middleware you licensed uses). It's baffling to me is how can anyone claim that they know that number(5% or 10% or 12.75% speed loss per second of impact/friction) results in the most "fun" gameplay possible *beforehand*, without playing the game and giving it to other people to play and seeing how all the moving parts - the physics model, the enemy AI, the actual tracks, interact with that rule. 

#5308913 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 31 August 2016 - 05:00 PM

That doesn't even hint to any of you that you may not be as "professional" as you thought you were... Really?



Just for the record - I'm a programmer, not a game designer, so no, I'm not claiming to be an "expert" or even very knowledgable in game design at all. I have to wear the "designer" hat for my own indie game(which is just a racing game, nothing overly complex) because...I simply can't afford to hire a proper designer. For some reason, you seem to think AAA games are made by programmers and artists alone, which just tweak things until the work. That couldn't be further from the truth - every game company of signficant size has dedicated designers - though their job is a bit more involved and day-to-day managing than simply churning out a 500-page design document and giving it to programmers and artist to "put it into the computer". You might ask, if I'm not a designer, what gives me the impression I can judge how game design works - well, as I said, I'm not aware of this top-down approach working in *any* other art form. But even if I'm mistaken, you jumped right to the gun to come to the conclusion that the "game industry" is not ran by professionals, even though I'm sure I already mentioned I'm a programmer and not designer.

So yeah, since my profession is simply writing the technology and tools that designers will use, and I haven't been fired by the lead programmer yet, I consider myself professional, thankyouverymuch. :P

One side note: Have you ever thought that, even though the videogame industry does has its debts to the tabletop industry, it has its own history now and it makes the games using different methods *for a reason*, and you just don't want to accept those reasons have merit, because you understand tabletop games very well, but not *videogames*? Why are you so focused on the videogame industry anyway? Why not just stick to the tabletop games you know so well? Is it because you think there's not any money in them? What is it? 

#5308815 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 31 August 2016 - 04:33 AM

The thing is, I gather from your posts that you have an approach to creating a "product"(for lack of a better word) that, frankly, *no* industry uses that I'm aware of...books, music, films, games, etc...

That is, I see you believe in a top-down approach, where some "genius" designer writes a huge detailed design document, that is essentially a complete game - from there on it's simply a matter of putting all that into the computer. The game is guaranteed("proved"? how?) to be enjoyable and fun and interesting, because the designer has a "secret formula" that guarantees that.


The thing is, when has that ever worked in *any* entertainment industry? You say, in a deregatory way, that today's game makers are "walking in the dark" and "tweaking" and practicing "trial and error" and such. While that is not completely true - the games *are* designed by dedicated designers that have honed their craft and have their own ideas and principles - in the end, it is true that an iterative and "trial and error" process is used, because, AFAIK, that is used *everywhere*. Musicians write a lot of stuff and see what works and what doesn't. Writers write a lot of stuff and throw away most of it. Directors shoot a lot of stuff and keep what works. The end product is usually not what they had in their mind when they were starting - all sort of real-life factors change it and they simply have to adapt as best as they can. Nobody(or almost nobody, the Mozarts of this world aren't exactly born every year) has everything in their mind(or on paper) perfectly arranged and don't need to see it in motion in order to do corrections. Heck, even the programmers that write the technology behind the game most time don't formally verify their code - and this is something that's actually possible, unlike all the others - I don't think you can ever formally "verify" that a book/movie/song/game will be enganging and interesting. You can only try and see where it gets you. I honestly disagree with this top-down approach on a fundamental level.


This reminds me actually of a scene from "Amadeus" :

Now, I don't know if you are a "Mozart of games", or even if you claim you are, a genius game designer that can put everything on paper and be perfect from the get go, "a game already finished in your head", to paraphrase, but even if you are, it would be unreasonable to expect the entire industry to change its ways around such extremely rare individuals - in the end, checking if Mozart's piece "worked" was easier than producing a multi-million dollar game. 

I think that's what most people here mean when they say that implementation is everything - humans just aren't able to 100% assess beforehand how a complicated system will work, and, most of all, if it will result in other people's enjoyment. I see it as kind of ridiculous if one claims they have "verified" that other people will find the product enjoyable. That's why most designers insist that you have to have a playable, working version of your game as soon as possible - to see what works and what doesn't, when, and how. I get an impression that you see that process as "beneath" you - that you can indeed follow a complete top-down approach without having to experiment and tweak with an actual game. The thing is, as I said, it doesn't work with music/books/movies/whatever(without that meaning of course, that there aren't various schools and principles for those artforms and they're all pure magical "inspiration"), I don't see why that would work for games either.

#5308141 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 26 August 2016 - 07:30 PM

Ugh. This is, again, pretty much going nowhere. As always with Pirate_Lord/Kavik Kang it devolves quickly from a thread about a game design idea to a thread merely used by a guy to vent his frustration about an industry that doesn't give him the recognition he (thinks) he naturally deserves, and with his life in general. I'm sure tabletop games were a very strong influence for computer games, as I'm also sure they're mostly distinct industries at this point and one is possible to be interested in the latter and not the former(and vice versa). I sure have very rarely played tabletop games, but have played hundreds of computer games for 25 years now. So...whatever. I'm gonna go play me some new Deus Ex now :P

There's literally no way at this point to engage in useful discussion about the *ideas* themselves, because you will take whatever we say as a starting point to vent again about how you are one of our "forefathers", you started all this, we don't recognize you as our superior, as we should, etc etc etc. You literally cannot stop repeating this ad nauseam and get on with the meat of the discussion, which is about the game design idea you have, of which we literally know nothing about as of yet. Just so you know, someone that feels the need to repeat his credentials and namedrop with every other sentence just comes off as very insecure about the whole thing, and has the opposite effect of what you (probably) expect. I personally give up from the effort to make you drop everything else that's irrelevant to game design and just talk about your ideas as equal-to-equals. It just ain't gonna happen with you.

I'm *only* saying all this because, even if you ever get people to work for you and your game, you're gonna drive them mad with your constant need to be validated at every turn. 

But good luck with the prototype anyway, it's very good that you finally decided to work on something concrete, though I do find it strange it took you this long and someone else's advice to figure out that you really should be working with the things you're already good at. :)

#5308008 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 26 August 2016 - 04:31 AM

Here's a simple truth for you that you won't want to hear, Kavik Kang:

Ideas are the cheapest commodity in the entire games industry. They are almost worthless. They are the easy bit.

Getting ideas implemented is hard. You seem to me to lack even the interpersonal skills to make this happen, never mind the technical ability.

See, if I understand correctly, what he claims to have is a concrete mechanism that generates awesome game play, not just an "idea".

Say, a set of strict, well-defined, codified rules for space dogfights, where you feed it the positions and states of all the ships involved, and the actions the player initiates in one step, and this mechanism generates the next steps, and the next steps, and so on, which result in the most awesome space dogfight you've ever seen and makes every other computer game look super dumb. It doesn't just generate "realistic" responses from the other ships, it generates a whole world state which is *fun* to play at every step. Awesome, awesome stuff.

I mean, it's indeed true that's what game "AI" is supposed to be really, a set of rules that generate coherent, interesting and exciting world states based on player input. That's what every game that implements space dogfight has, Kavik just claims his mechanism makes all others obsolete. 

If what he has indeed works, it would indeed be awesome. The problem is, he's the only one that vouches that it works. In practice, it wouldn't be too hard to demonstrate that this mechanism/ruleset he has is indeed able to generate awesome play. It's not necessary to build a whole AAA game to do that. Distill it to its most simple form. 4 triangle-shaped ships in a playfield, equipped with, say, shields, machineguns, rockets and homing missiles. One of them is player-controlled, the rest are bots. Have Kavik explain his mechanism to a coder, the coder puts it in the computer, and when played, the program gives you the most awesome dogfight experience you've ever seen in a computer game. That's what he says he has. Something you've never seen before. It's that simple. No bells and whistles required to show how awesome it is and how different from any other game. Get people hooked based on that prototype, and continue. It's dead simple, really. It would take an intermediate coder a week, tops, since Kavik has already codified the mechanism and all you need is to translate it to C++ or Python or another programming language.

The thing is, can anyone imagine Kavik Kang trying to describe this mechanism to a coder that would actually turn this mechanism into a computer game?  :D

At this point, he might as well claim he's got a way to make a cold fusion reactor(or...perpetual motion machine), if he can't communicate the core of his mechanism clearly and keeps getting lost in irrelevant crap, like the history of his childhood and talking down to people for no reason, that mechanism is not going to get made. Unless he makes it himself. Or the "idea" isn't even good and there's nothing to make in the first place. Or it's already been made. Or who knows. 

But anyway, Kavik Kang, if you want my advice, do exactly that. Hire a programmer for 2 weeks to whip out a dogfighting prototype in Unity(after having them sign an NDA), using your awesome mechanism, which will result in awesome dogfight game play never seen before, which will result in people seeing your idea works in practice and start taking you seriously because "hey, this guy might actually have something there after all". You've already codified the mechanism, I assume, so the coder's job is dead simple. You don't have to simulate the entire universe for starters, just a dogfight. 

#5308001 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 26 August 2016 - 04:05 AM

And I have communicated my ideas quite well in the 800 or so pages all of the documents related to the PDU so far represent.



Yeah, see, when a layman reads Einstein's equations about General Relativity, they go "I can't tell heads or tails of this thing", even if this thing can be used to predict how much light bends around the sun. They can't see the magic things that are embedded in those equations unless someone explains it to them. And, frankly, even the GR equations aren't 800 pages long :).
I'm a graphics programmer. Suppose I give you a 800-page long code listing that I claim is supposed to generate the most awesome real-time renderer in the history of ever. Will you sit down and actually read it, or will you ask of me to show you the thing in motion first, or at least some screenshots, so you know it's worth your time to sit down and read it? How many times have *you* read other people's 800-page long documents without having them show you it's worthwhile to do so? 
It's only after the equations were used to predict how much light bends around the sun that the common people went "holy shit, whoa, this guy is a magician", and Einstein became a celebrity.
If you have this magic thing that only a few people can understand how it can generate a great game, you have to show it in action so people can go "whoa, I've never seen a game do that before". What is called "proof of concept". It's shouldn't be a new idea to you. Even the greatest geniuses in the history of the planet, on every field, had ideas that looked great on paper...but end up not working in practice. Frankly, this idea of yours can be great, or it can be totally stupid, and everything in between. The only one vouching for it is...you.
As I said, I don't really understand what you're claiming to have here. Is it basically a set of "ultimate play rules", that you can feed any player input into it, and it can generate on the next step(s) a consistent, coherent, interesting and exciting world state? No boring, bogus, illogical, inconsistent, dead-end world states, no matter what you feed into it? Is that it? I mean, yeah, that's a big thing, that is pure gold, considering how after year's work I still can't guarantee that the AI in my indie combat racing game will always result in an exciting game play that keeps you hooked in the screen up until you cross the finish line and go "YEAHHH!". Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. I wish it always did. Doesn't happen in reality either. Many football matches are just plain boring. I guess I'd pay..."some" money to someone that could show me how to do that. And you would have your proof of concept. Don't know what else to say.
And just another final note, as everyone has mentioned you show a gargantuan amount of condescension to...basically everyone that isn't you, and especially people in the computer game industry that, let's face it, have built *something* concrete, even if it doesn't compare to what you have in your head(that is, doesn't exist yet, by most people's definition of "exist"). I'm just saying, even if you get a 100-man team, you'll end up having them quitting if you talk to them like that, at least before you actually get your first PC game out, it becomes a global phenom, and you become bigger than Jesus. Then you can have all the arrogance you want :)

#5307999 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 26 August 2016 - 03:47 AM

Yeah, it just took a bit more time and google-fu to find your name attached to SFB, but I found it, that's why I deleted my post. Apologies.

But again, I don't really know what it is that you're asking here. You claim to have a great thing, an awesome game mechanism that modern computer game designers can't even comprehend, except you can't even give us a half-clear idea of what it is, and asking...what can you do with it if you want to make a computer game? I'd say...probably nothing? You don't have any intention of trying to make a prototype yourself, you don't want to talk about your idea because other people might "run away with it", your connections in the game industry aren't interested in making computer games...no, I don't think anybody is going to come along and give you 100$ million. I mean, you could post your idea in the Classifieds forums and try to gather a hobbyist team to make your idea a reality...but I get the impression you don't *want* to talk about your idea unless someone gives you the keys to a 4-story building filled with professionals ready to do your bidding. I...don't think that's gonna happen. My guess is that this idea of yours, if it truly is great, will remain in your head until you either can learn how to communicate it properly, or someone else that can comes up with the same idea, or similar.

#5307996 Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

Posted by on 26 August 2016 - 03:10 AM

Still doesn't hurt to pitch your idea to them and see what they've got to say. Of course, having a playable videogame prototype that shows the actual idea works would be nice.

Other than that, I don't know what to tell you...if you expect anyone to hand you a 100-man team and 100$ million without telling them what this awesome thing you got even is(btw, I have NO idea what you're even talking about, with the "matrix" and "god simulator" and "Rube" and such, but then again I'm not an expert in game design), it ain't gonna happen. I mean, I remember you are Pirate_Lord, and I remember the thread you made about sports games, and I remember me offering you my help as a programmer to whip out a prototype because I was interested in sports games at the time and was curious, but you dismissed it because you only want to work with a huge team on an AAA game and nothing less. So I went on my way :)

Btw, you really need to take note of what other people are telling you, that is, you are really bad at presenting your ideas. I honestly think that even if you had a team of programmers/artists in your disposal, they still wouldn't be able to understand what it is that you're describing, and you would end up talking down to them because of it. I'm not sure, but I don't think anybody here has any idea what this "special thing" you got even is, how would a game using it would look like. If there *is* something great inside your head man, it sure as hell has a very tough time getting out. :P


#5275279 Hyperdrive - Futuristic Combat Racer

Posted by on 11 February 2016 - 09:29 AM

Hello there!

Hyperdrive is a futuristic racing game that we've been working on for the last couple of years. It's going to come out sometime in 2016 for Windows, Android and iOS devices. It features 8 tracks(with themes like Desert, Megacity, Volcano, Frozen Lands, War-Torn City, Canyon, Mayan City, etc), 11 vehicles, and upgradeable weapons and mods you can equip your vehicle with. Soundtrack is original by our own music composer. Local and online multiplayer is planned, but probably after launch.

Anyway, the game is nearing completion, we're just putting together the various tracks for the game, so we're looking for feedback. Here's a gameplay video of one of the tracks, so any comments, suggestions or questions are welcome and much appreciated!

PS. We are in dire need of testers atm, so if you're interested in helping out, send me a PM and I will provide you with a Windows build. Thanks!

#5141677 There got to be a better way to manage animations.

Posted by on 24 March 2014 - 05:07 AM

Well, another solution you could use that would make the code a bit cleaner without changing the logic too much would be to implement a module which "chooses" which animation should be played based on registered rules and conditions. This is basically what you do here, deciding the animation based on the state(s) the character is in, with the difference that now is hardcoded.


So you could have something like this:


struct AnimationRule
    std::set<int> states;
    std::set<int> excluded_states;
    int animation_id;


Each rules contains a set of the states that need to be active and a set of the states that need to be inactive in order for animation_id to be played.


Then you can basically feed the Animation Manager a list of an arbitrary number of rules, using some kind of priority system(could be an explicit number you assign to each Rule, or just based on the order you register them), and the manager would evaluate those and have the first rule that has its conditions satisfied play the corresponding animation_id. That way at least you get rid of all the hardcoding, and you can even encode the whole thing in data files.