• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Shayel

Code Review - Pong clone..

5 posts in this topic

Hello

For the past few days I have been working on the Pong clone. I have made it before, but I wasn't satisfied with the quality of the code, so I decided to rewrite it. I guess you all are bored, because of the Pong Clones attacking you from every side, but here it is:

https://gist.github.com/Shayelxx/5691085

Well.. I think that it may be too big for such a simple game, but I am just starting to learn :)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't do a full code review, I don't think I am qualified to do that. ^^

 

But as a few suggestions.

 

1. SFML's rectangle(as do most graphics API's) have functions 'contains' or 'intersects.' I'd always use one of those functions rather than reinventing a bounding box collision.

 

2. Personally I like to create my own Vector class so I can remove coupling between graphics and physics as much possible. Since your graphics api, SFML, provides you with sf::vector I'd make your own for the physics. This way you can override basic operations like addition, subtraction and equals with C++. Also you can also write the normalize, mag, and other vector operations in that class rather than putting them in CBall.

 

3. Totally preference. But when I create my headers I go by this order. Public functions/variables -> private functions/variables. You have it the other way around. I like the most general, class defining functions to be at the top and the details(private variables/functions) to be at the bottom. Simply makes it more readable and maintainable in larger projects, for me.

 

Other than that, it seems well engineered to me for a simple game ^^. Easily readable and logical. GJ!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your feedback

As for the SFML advices: I am new to sfml, I have just moved from SDL.. well.. previous bad and ugly pong was written using SDL. But I find SFML much more friendly. Anyway, thanks for advices. In the classes, I prefer to describe the private fields first. It is the core of a class, when I look at it I can see what it really is :) But as you said, it is a matter of preference :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.. thats.. quite a lot :) I will definitely keep your advices in mind when creating next project. There were some problems, that I couldn't solve other way than doing things such as

if(score.AddPoint(ball.Logic(deltaT.asSeconds(), paddle1, paddle2))) Reset();

I admit that it is not the best way, but at this point I couldn't make up any other, working solution. You can probably see that I am not the best in creating object oriented code :) I'm still learning what to make public/private, how to change the private fields etc.. As for putting C in the class names. Well.. it helps me :) I don't think it confuses other people, and if it does just tell me :) Thanks for advices! :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.. thats.. quite a lot smile.png I will definitely keep your advices in mind when creating next project.... Thanks for advices! smile.png

No problem.

 

I admit that it is not the best way, but at this point I couldn't make up any other, working solution.

 

Here is an example of how I might rewrite that part of the code:

float deltaSeconds = deltaT.asSeconds();
 
ball.Logic(deltaSeconds);
leftPaddle.Logic(deltaSeconds);
rightPaddle.Logic(deltaSeconds);
 
if(Collision(ball, leftPaddle)) {
     ball.BouceHorizontal(leftPaddle);
}
 
if(Collision(ball, rightPaddle)) {
    ball.BouceHorizontal(rightPaddle);
}
 
Vec ballPosition = ball.GetPosition();
 
if(ballPosition.y < 0 || ballPosition.y > SCREEN_H) {
    ball.BounceVertical();
}
 
 
bool resetPoint = false;
if(ballPosition.x < 0) {
    score.IncreaseRightPlayerPoints();
    resetPoint = true;
} else if(ballPosition.x > SCREEN_W) {
 
    score.IncreaseLeftPlayerPoints();
    resetPoint = true;
 
}
 
if(score.isGameOver()) {
    ResetGame();
} else if(resetPoint) {
    ResetForPoint();
}
 

The main change is pulling the code that deals with object interactions (ball vs paddle, ball vs wall, ...) outside the objects themselves. We no longer have the ball needing to know about the paddles and then trying to communicate collisions back to the playing class, which needs to forward them into the score class for further processing, which finally tries to return a decision about resetting back into the playing class.

 

A smaller, more focused change would be:

int pointScorer = ball.Logic(deltaT.asSeconds(), paddle1, paddle2);
if(pointScorer != 0) {
    score.AddPoint(pointScorer)
    if(score.isGameOver()) {
        Reset();
    }
}

 

You can probably see that I am not the best in creating object oriented code smile.png

That is OK, it is a skill that you refine over time. There are other people who might disagree with some of my comments. Leaving aside any outright errors I may have made, the likely cause of such disagreements is because there is no one true way to solve programming problems. You can get a sense of this even from the two approaches I outlined above.

 

Each person has their own "style", not merely at the presentation level but rather in how they fundamentally approach, understand, de-construct and solve problems. There are other aspects to style too, for example because I work with a team, I make an effort to write my programs in a more straight-forward manner, rather than the more idiosyncratic style I had before I started collaborating with other programmers. Another influence on my style is unit testing - the code where the ball doesn't need to know about the paddles is easier to unit test.

 

The way to improve your knowledge of object oriented code is to keep writing programs.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0