• Advertisement
  • entries
    109
  • comments
    175
  • views
    117141

Clarifications and random thoughts

Sign in to follow this  

130 views

Notes about what I do


I have to explain some things about the text RPG thingy I'm doing right now. First, this is an exercise in software design, not a exercise in game programming. It means that the real goal of this stuff is to show how to decide what solution to use, not to show that I always use the best available solution. While I'm trying to develop a semi-realistic solution (the games rules are rather complex: some of the rules are actually inspired by the D20 system (skills, for instance)), it is obvious that this solution can't be used in a production evironment.

Of course, the right way to go should be to incorporate a scripting system into the game rule engine. This way, the engine will be very open.

I won't do this, for at least 3 reasons:
  • adding a scripting system only increase the number of solutions that might be choosen to answer a particular problem. It don't change how we need to think in order to answer this problem.
  • a scripting system may add some unneeded complexity into the game engine (object and function binding?)
  • in the end, I'll have to write scripting code, which is rather similar to non-scripting code. For teaching purpose, I'm going to stick to C++ :)

This is why i'm going to hardcode nearly everything. It means that each time you'll want to add a room to the game, or a new creature/npc, a new object then you'll have to build the game again.

Fortunately, I'm not (totally) dumb. Adding a scripting system (and changing some design solutions I took) will be the next step of this teaching session - once we'll have a working version of our text-based game :)

I still have a lot of ideas ;)

Rooms and Doors


Now, a (very) small update about the project itself: since we are going to handle rooms, I finally added the Sector classe: which represent a "room". I used this name because I'd wanted to add more than just rooms to the game: forests and their glades are pretty good setups too :) Sectors handle pairs of Path+Sector (using std::pair) to link themselves to some other sectors (the Path object can be NULL - they represent the condition to go from one sector to another one, and having no path does mean havin no restincting condition). For example, a Path can implement a secret door, a locked door - or a speaking door, if you really want to ;)

This is subject to change. I originally did this because I didn't want to introduce yet another cyclic dependency between Path and Room. using std::pair<> I break the dependency between Path and Sector (the dependency between Sector and Path still exists) and I allow myself to reuse a Path that don't have any intrisic data in another room. One of the consequence of this is that I am not able to say from which room the player comes - meaning that I can't create one-way doors using this system.

Another solution would be to reintroduce the cyclic dependency (the path knows to which sectors it belongs). I loose the possibility to reuse a path that don't have intrisic data (because now, all pathes have these intrisic datas) but I gain some other possibilities.

Another possibility is to introduce a base class for Sector. Sector inherit BaseSector, Path knows BaseSector, and Sector knows Path. The solution might be good, but it introduces a fake class (BaseSector) whose role is to be known by another class (Path). This design is rather artificial :/

Some pretty useless thoughts


  1. A nation at war releases a lot of war-related games. Strangely enough, these games are supposed to be fun to play. I still don't see what makes war so fun.
  2. I should stop irc. It eats too much time, and is not really good for productivity.
  3. working with a terrible headache is really difficult
  4. as I stated on irc yesterday evening, I'd like to work for a game company in UK - as a consultant. If you believe someone can be interested, please, drop me a word :)

See ya laters, dudz!!!11twelve
Sign in to follow this  


0 Comments


Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Advertisement