• 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
Alpha_ProgDes

Abstract base class ..... in C#?

8 posts in this topic

I must be getting my languages confused...
 
Here's what I want to do in C#
 

//create an interface
public interface IAdd
{
   public int moveXUnits(int XUnits);
}

//create an abstract base class that inherits the interface
public abstract class Movement : IAdd
{
   private int startUnit;

   public Movement()
   {
      startUnit = 0;
   }

   public Movement(int initializeUnit)
   {
      startUnit = initializeUnit;
   }

   public int moveXUnits(int XUnits)
   {
      startUnit += XUnits;
      return startUnit;
   }
}
 
//finally create some concrete classes that inherits from the abstract base class
public class Walk : Movement
{
   base(1);
   public void Step()
   {
      moveXUnits(2);
   }
}

public class Skip : Movement
{
   base(2);
   public void Step()
   {
      moveXUnits(3);
   }
}

public class Run:Movement
{
   base(3);
   public void Step()
   {
      moveXUnits(5);
   }
}

 
So my first question is: what is the analogous keyword for base in C#. Because 'base' is giving me an error.
Second question is: is this right? I have a feeling that it isn't.

Edited by Alpha_ProgDes
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are those base() calls meant to do? Call the base class constructor? In that case you need to make the calls as part of the derived class constructors. Ex:
Walk() : base(1) {}
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are those base() calls meant to do? Call the base class constructor? In that case you need to make the calls as part of the derived class constructors. Ex:

Walk() : base(1) {}

 

You're exactly right. On both points.

 

Though it's a simple example, any other improvements would be much appreciated.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you want Step to be in the abstract too, and then override in the derived ones, e.g.
 

public abstract class Movement : IAdd
{
   private int startUnit;

   public Movement()
   {
       startUnit = 0;
   }

   public Movement(int initializeUnit)
   {
      startUnit = initializeUnit;
   }

   public int moveXUnits(int XUnits)
   {
      startUnit += XUnits;
      return startUnit;
   }
    public abstract void Step();
}

public class Walk : Movement
{
    public Walk() : base(1) { }
    public override void Step()
    {
       moveXUnits(2);
    }
}
// etc.
And I wonder if you actually need the interface here.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Improved code.... (I think)
   public interface IAdd
    {
        int moveXUnits(int XUnits);
    }

    public abstract class Movement : IAdd
    {
        private int startUnit;
        private int stepUnits;
        private int totalSteps;

        public Movement()
        {
            startUnit = 0;
            stepUnits = 1;
            totalSteps = 0;
        }

        public Movement(int initializeUnit, int initializeStep)
        {
            startUnit = initializeUnit;
            stepUnits = initializeStep;
            totalSteps = startUnit;
        }

        public int moveXUnits(int XUnits)
        {
            stepUnits = XUnits;
            totalSteps += stepUnits;
            return totalSteps;
        }

        private int autoMoveXUnits()
        {
            totalSteps += stepUnits;
            return totalSteps;
        }

        public virtual void Step(int XUnits)
        {
            moveXUnits(XUnits);
        }

        public virtual void Step()
        {
            autoMoveXUnits();
        }

        public virtual void displaySteps()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("I have moved " + totalSteps.ToString() + " units.");
        }
    }

    public class Walk : Movement
    {
        public Walk() : base(1,2){}
    }

    public class Skip : Movement
    {
        public Skip() : base(2,3){}
    }

    public class Run : Movement
    {
        public Run() : base(3,5){}
    }
Edited by Alpha_ProgDes
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IAdd interface to me is kind of weird, you're modeling a behavior (imo a good thing when it comes to interfaces), but it feels like two of the same behaviors...one as an abstract class and the other as an interface (Step vs moveXUnit), which basically are two differently named ways of doing the same exact thing. To me, if you want to define behaviors like "Move along X axis", "Move along y axis", "Move along x/y", those would be individual interfaces that something like Movement would implement. In that case, what would "Step" mean? Just feels redundant and muddying behavior.

 

Simple example granted, but defining behaviors like that in this way is kind of restricting in my opinion too. You may be able to skip, run, and hop, but that's the manner of how you do it (e.g. speed and other influences like hopping up and down), those behaviors don't need to care where you're moving. So Movement to me sounds like it should model how you're moving, and it gets used by, or itself operates on another object (interface) that models where you're moving.

Edited by Starnick
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that its a arbitrary example to learn the strategy pattern. But it is not aptly applied. The strategy pattern is a way to encapsulate algorithms and make them easily interchangeable. You would never use a design pattern for something as trivial as movement speed and animation change.
Movement can however be aptly applied to a strategy pattern example using your movement types:
public class Program
{
    public static void Main()
    {
        //game initialize phase:
        //constructing the objects in our game
        GameObject[] movingObjects = new GameObject[10]; 
        for(int i = 0; i < movingObjects.Length; i++)
        {
            movingObjects[i] = new movingObject();
            movingObjects[i].SetMoveStrategy(new BasicMovement());
        }
        //set object 1 to use astar
        movingObjets[1].SetMoveStrategy(new AStarMovement);
 
        //game update phase:
        //showcasing polymorphysism
        //we don't care which movement algorithm is selected for the game objects we simply want them all to move.
        for(int i = 0; i < movingObjects.Length; i++)
        {
             movingObject.Move(MovementType.Walk);
        }
    }
}
 
public class GameObject //context of strategy pattern
{ 
    private MovementStrategy movementStrategy;
 
    public void SetMoveStrategy(MovementStrategy movementStrategy)
    {
         this.movementStrategy = movementStrategy;
    }
 
    public void Move(MovementType movementType)
    {
         movementStrategy.Move(movementType);
    }
}
 
public enum MovementType
{
    Skip,
    Walk,
    Run
}
 
public abstract class MovementStrategy //interface of strategy pattern
{
    public abstract void Move();
}
 
public class BasicMovement : MovementStrategy //concrete strategy
{
    public override void Move(MovementType movementType)
    {
        //Basic Movement algorithm here, differentiate by movement type.
    }
}
 
public class BreadCrumbMovement : MovementStrategy //concrete strategy
{
    public override void Move(MovementType movementType)
    {
         //Bread Crumb algorithm here, differentiate by movement type.
    }
}
 
public class AStarMovement : MovementStrategy //concrete strategy
{
    public override void Move(MovementType movementType)
    {
         //A Star algorithm here, differentiate by movement type.
    }
}
 
The base keyword is not used at all to demonstrate the strategy pattern. It is used for "inheriting" constructor arguments passed to the base class or to reference it implicitly. Edited by Slowvomit
2

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