• Advertisement

Could do with a little perspective on something....

Recommended Posts

I think I might be with a team that is deep within development hell and they are all in denial about it. I have been working on a project with a small group and we all have no previous experience or educational background. The guy who had pulled us altogether had an idea for a game but the story is so confusing and convoluted after 3 years of working on this project... I still have no idea whats going on with the story. All I can say is its a platformer with a large explorable map and systems and mechanics dreamed up so grand out of all the 100 things he wants in the game we still only have 2 mechanics down. Every time I have tried to throw my voice in and suggest maybe we should put a pin in this idea and focus on smaller experiences so we can build our skills up and tackle it later when we know more of what we are doing, I get shot down. I'm told, "oh it will only take a year to make this game" of which both I and the artist look at each other very doubtful each time he says that. 

So leaving out the backstabbing power plays a certain member of the team kept using which blocked me from having access to the game so I couldn't test out my work for myself, phage requests on what they wanted animated which lead to me redoing animation more time then I think was needed. I mean I redid the run animation over 60 times and in the end, they chose to use the very first freaking one I made! Whenever I tried to think logically and ask for a group meeting to talk about characters and how they move so I could get a better idea of what to do I was told "No, no, no this back and forth is a faster way of working"....again run animation took 60 attempts before they used the first run cycle I made. 

In the end, we weren't working towards making the whole game, it took us 2 years and 5 months to make a demo of the game. Then our programmer disappeared and also took with him the code for the game. We should have stepped away from that game and accepted, for the moment that it might be time to take a break from it and focused on crafting smaller experiences to build up our skills and our group's portfolio but no that wasn't to be. We where to start again from scratch, new programmer, new textures and level designs and new rigs and animations. 3 years of work has gone down the drain and now I have to start again... the only problem is I can't bring my self to do the work. 

I have become stagnant where I am and I feel like its time I should move on. I want to try and do things my way and start small and work my way up and not plunge headfirst into a project that feels like an ocean in scale for a small team. I want to focus on my own skills and learn new ones and understand more than just one trait in the spectrum of game design. Though since I have been with the team for so long and put so much time and money into this venture...I'm scared to walk away. Though on the other hand how long are we gonna spend on this game, is it gonna be another year like the lead designer said (again and again) or will it be another 3 and all we will have to show for it is a shiny new demo and none of the full game...

Should I suck it up and try and kick my butt back into gear or is this the time to step away and look into new possibilities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
16 minutes ago, NeverSay said:

Should I suck it up and try and kick my butt back into gear or is this the time to step away and look into new possibilities?

We can offer some advice, but the final decision is yours, and only yours.

That said, some points are not clear. What exactly is this team? Are you an small/indie game studio? Is this a professional project or is it being made in your spare time? Are everyone putting real money in this venture? If not, who's paying the bills? As I understood, you're an 3d modeler and animator in this project, right? Do you have other responsabilities? How was decided which person has each role (design, management, production, programming)? Everybody agreed with one person having so much power over the project?

From what you said, this project is already deep in development hell, and suffering from severe management problems. If the team couldn't do 3 mechanics (out of "100") after so many time, you're in deep trouble. A programmer being able to disappear and taking all the code is ridiculous: the code (and other assets) must safe if a person leaves. Not being able to run the game to test your work also seems bad. Redoing work is acceptable sometimes, but only with a purpose, not walking in circles. Doesn't feel like a good project (or team) to be part of.

If you decide to stay, can't you do smaller parallel projects for yourself? With this, you can learn new skills and have a better chance of having a finished product, that you could be proud of.

 

This other thread has some ideas about keeping the scope clear, with help of a good design document. It can really help to keep everyone on the same page about mechanics, level design and othet things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NeverSay said:

Should I suck it up and try and kick my butt back into gear or is this the time to step away and look into new possibilities?

Never allow projects like this to impact your life, they are hobby projects so keep them that way.

Leave when you want, there is no real obligations. Allowing them to keep what you made should more than cover your part.

3 Years is a long time to spend on a project you did not believe in. The real question is do you want to leave?

29 minutes ago, NeverSay said:

I think I might be with a team that is deep within development hell and they are all in denial about it.

Happens all the time and in many different ways. Very-very few of these projects ever finish even with skilled team members. There needs to be someone who drives the project, even if they are hated for it later.

When you pull out of the team remember that you can't use stuff based on there concepts in your own work or portfolios without there permission. So don't bother taking it with you.

 

If you join a project like this I advice not uploading "Final" work until the game passes the design phase. This saves a lot of effort on your part as most games never finish the design phase; in fact it looks like the one you worked on is still stuck in design.

Only placeholders is needed during design and can be used up to publishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NeverSay, it's clear that the project is not being managed well. Rather than continuing to pour energy down into a bottomless pit, why not find another project that doesn't have all those problems? Perhaps you know and trust some of the people that were involved - if so, it would not be a mistake to work with those people again. But it would not be a good idea to work again with the person who was running that project. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.

Unless this is paid contract work, you should just walk away.  And do not feel bad about it because after putting in at least two years of your life, you have got very little in return - and they are still expecting more. 

While I understand all too well that games require some room for experimentation,  when its your free time you are giving up, you dont want to have to bugger about redoing things just because your best friend is trying play George Lucas.  Sounds like they have no respect for your time and effort, and taking the piss if not paying you for the insult. 

As you have already figured out for yourself, a small team needs to keep it small and slim. Get out of there and make space invaders or something more suitable.   Bring back the fun!  Team up with a programmer who is struggling on the art side( and just grateful to have another soul to work with ) and you'll most likely do far better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TerraSkilll said:

We can offer some advice, but the final decision is yours, and only yours.

That said, some points are not clear. What exactly is this team? Are you an small/indie game studio? Is this a professional project or is it being made in your spare time? Are everyone putting real money in this venture? If not, who's paying the bills? As I understood, you're an 3d modeler and animator in this project, right? Do you have other responsabilities? How was decided which person has each role (design, management, production, programming)? Everybody agreed with one person having so much power over the project?

6

We were a small group of random people who got talking in a chat room and then tried to make a game in our spare time, I got to know them well before I even thought about putting any money towards the project but when I thought they where trustworthy I put a lot of money into it (software, software subscriptions, convention costs.etc..),  though thankfully I didn't do what one person did and sink their life savings so they could work on the game full time (which they lasted 8 months before needing a job).Though besides that we all chipped in to pay for stuff but the main software I use for my work (of which my focus is 2D character rigging/animation) is in the name of someone else in the group....and he is the one who ran away...so that opens up more possible problems for me using that software to the point I'm considering just saving up and getting it again with my own money so I fully own it and not just a 3rd of it. At the moment besides working on this game I'm working what is supposed to be a part-time job but i end up at work more often then i get days to myself, so I burn a lot of the midnight oils. As for roles, we each took the role of what we had some skills in but as for leader ship...well it started off as a democracy but then just spiraled out of control.  Hope this clears up some of the points.

Also thank you all so far for your input, I think I needed to write this all out so it's not in my head and just having the fresh perspectives on this is very helpful :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anri said:

Just out of curiosity,  what animation software are you dependant on?

A software called Spine, it lets you take 2d images and turn them into 2d rigged puppets, it also has a strong meshing tools that allows for good control of deformation and weight painting. It's a good software but I'm curious if there is a way to do the same thing in Blender or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with others and you should likely walk away if your group isn't willing to repurpose and focus on smaller scoped projects before trying to do something that sounds to be quite large.  It sounds like you have some serious project management issues that need to be addressed, and it's unfortunate some of you sunk a fair bit of money into a venture that sounds to have already started on fairly shaky ground.  the better thing to do would have been to start small and make sure your team worked well together and had a good pipeline for creating games, hoping into a large scale project is a sure fire way to fail, as you are finding out now.

 

I personally would not continue with this group as it stands, something needs to change or you will most likely hit a brick wall again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never used Spine but it looks good.

I wouldnt be surprised if Blender could do it, but then again I doubt it would be as streamlined as a dedicated package.   If you are comfortable with Spine 2D then stick with it. 

And don't worry about the price - so long as you aren't going for the full-blown Enterprise edition.  Go for Essentials for now, and then upgrade to Professional later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeverSay said:

It's a good software but I'm curious if there is a way to do the same thing in Blender or something.

Yea and much more. Spine is like a simplified version of 3D software to make it easier for 2D. To do the same thing in Blender just stick to 2D planes.

Blender is harder too learn but the payoff is much higher.

The interface isn't so smooth as spline but if you want help you can ask in the art forum.

On 12/15/2017 at 11:48 PM, NeverSay said:

Also thank you all so far for your input, I think I needed to write this all out so it's not in my head and just having the fresh perspectives on this is very helpful :)

Some times just mentioning things to others allows you too think it through more. We are happy to help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a professional point of view, being paid should be the first priority. If you have no control and you are sure the project won't be profitable, it's time to let the more optimistic members of this hopeless team fail without you, and get a paid job.

Consider the money you invested as the cost of learning game art animation etc. and acquiring valuable experience about teams, projects and people; it's clear from what you write that the price of wisdom could have been much worse.

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


  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Similar Content

    • By getoutofmycar
      I'm having some difficulty understanding how data would flow or get inserted into a multi-threaded opengl renderer where there is a thread pool and a render thread and an update thread (possibly main). My understanding is that the threadpool will continually execute jobs, assemble these and when done send them off to be rendered where I can further sort these and achieve some cheap form of statelessness. I don't want anything overly complicated or too fine grained,  fibers,  job stealing etc. My end goal is to simply have my renderer isolated in its own thread and only concerned with drawing and swapping buffers. 
      My questions are:
      1. At what point in this pipeline are resources created?
      Say I have a
      class CCommandList { void SetVertexBuffer(...); void SetIndexBuffer(...); void SetVertexShader(...); void SetPixelShader(...); } borrowed from an existing post here. I would need to generate a VAO at some point and call glGenBuffers etc especially if I start with an empty scene. If my context lives on another thread, how do I call these commands if the command list is only supposed to be a collection of state and what command to use. I don't think that the render thread should do this and somehow add a task to the queue or am I wrong?
      Or could I do some variation where I do the loading in a thread with shared context and from there generate a command that has the handle to the resources needed.
       
      2. How do I know all my jobs are done.
      I'm working with C++, is this as simple as knowing how many objects there are in the scene, for every task that gets added increment a counter and when it matches aforementioned count I signal the renderer that the command list is ready? I was thinking a condition_variable or something would suffice to alert the renderthread that work is ready.
       
      3. Does all work come from a singular queue that the thread pool constantly cycles over?
      With the notion of jobs, we are basically sending the same work repeatedly right? Do all jobs need to be added to a single persistent queue to be submitted over and over again?
       
      4. Are resources destroyed with commands?
      Likewise with initializing and assuming #3 is correct, removing an item from the scene would mean removing it from the job queue, no? Would I need to send a onetime command to the renderer to cleanup?
    • By devbyskc
      Hi Everyone,
      Like most here, I'm a newbie but have been dabbling with game development for a few years. I am currently working full-time overseas and learning the craft in my spare time. It's been a long but highly rewarding adventure. Much of my time has been spent working through tutorials. In all of them, as well as my own attempts at development, I used the audio files supplied by the tutorial author, or obtained from one of the numerous sites online. I am working solo, and will be for a while, so I don't want to get too wrapped up with any one skill set. Regarding audio, the files I've found and used are good for what I was doing at the time. However I would now like to try my hand at customizing the audio more. My game engine of choice is Unity and it has an audio mixer built in that I have experimented with following their tutorials. I have obtained a great book called Game Audio Development with Unity 5.x that I am working through. Half way through the book it introduces using FMOD to supplement the Unity Audio Mixer. Later in the book, the author introduces Reaper (a very popular DAW) as an external program to compose and mix music to be integrated with Unity. I did some research on DAWs and quickly became overwhelmed. Much of what I found was geared toward professional sound engineers and sound designers. I am in no way trying or even thinking about getting to that level. All I want to be able to do is take a music file, and tweak it some to get the sound I want for my game. I've played with Audacity as well, but it didn't seem to fit the bill. So that is why I am looking at a better quality DAW. Since being solo, I am also under a budget contraint. So of all the DAW software out there, I am considering Reaper or Presonus Studio One due to their pricing. My question is, is investing the time to learn about using a DAW to tweak a sound file worth it? Are there any solo developers currently using a DAW as part of their overall workflow? If so, which one? I've also come across Fabric which is a Unity plug-in that enhances the built-in audio mixer. Would that be a better alternative?
      I know this is long, and maybe I haven't communicated well in trying to be brief. But any advice from the gurus/vets would be greatly appreciated. I've leaned so much and had a lot of fun in the process. BTW, I am also a senior citizen (I cut my programming teeth back using punch cards and Structured Basic when it first came out). If anyone needs more clarification of what I am trying to accomplish please let me know.  Thanks in advance for any assistance/advice.
    • By evanofsky
      The more you know about a given topic, the more you realize that no one knows anything.
      For some reason (why God, why?) my topic of choice is game development. Everyone in that field agrees: don't add networked multiplayer to an existing game, you drunken clown.
      Well, I did it anyway because I hate myself. Somehow it turned out great. None of us know anything.
      Problem #1: assets
      My first question was: how do I tell a client to use such-and-such mesh to render an object? Serialize the whole mesh? Nah, they already have it on disk. Send its filename? Nah, that's inefficient and insecure. Okay, just a string identifier then?
      Fortunately, before I had time to implement any of my own terrible ideas, I watched a talk from Mike Acton where he mentions the danger of "lazy decision-making". One of his points was: strings let you lazily ignore decisions until runtime, when it's too late to fix.
      If I rename a texture, I don't want to get a bug report from a player with a screenshot like this:

      I had never thought about how powerful and complex strings are. Half the field of computer science deals with strings and what they can do. They usually require a heap allocation, or something even more complex like ropes and interning. I usually don't bother to limit their length, so a single string expands the possibility space to infinity, destroying whatever limited ability I had to predict runtime behavior.
      And here I am using these complex beasts to identify objects. Heck, I've even used strings to access object properties. What madness!
      Long story short, I cultivated a firm conviction to avoid strings where possible. I wrote a pre-processor that outputs header files like this at build time:
      namespace Asset { namespace Mesh { const int count = 3; const AssetID player = 0; const AssetID enemy = 1; const AssetID projectile = 2; } } So I can reference meshes like this:
      renderer->mesh = Asset::Mesh::player; If I rename a mesh, the compiler makes it my problem instead of some poor player's problem. That's good!
      The bad news is, I still have to interact with the file system, which requires the use of strings. The good news is the pre-processor can save the day.
      const char* Asset::Mesh::filenames[] = { "assets/player.msh", "assets/enemy.msh", "assets/projectile.msh", 0, }; With all this in place, I can easily send assets across the network. They're just numbers! I can even verify them.
      if (mesh < 0 || mesh >= Asset::Mesh::count) net_error(); // just what are you trying to pull, buddy? Problem #2: object references
      My next question was: how do I tell a client to please move/delete/frobnicate "that one object from before, you know the one". Once again, I was lucky enough to hear from smart people before I could shoot myself in the foot.
      From the start, I knew I needed a bunch of lists of different kinds of objects, like this:
      Array<Turret> Turret::list; Array<Projectile> Projectile::list; Array<Avatar> Avatar::list; Let's say I want to reference the first object in the Avatar list, even without networking, just on our local machine. My first idea is to just use a pointer:
       
      Avatar* avatar; avatar = &Avatar::list[0]; This introduces a ton of non-obvious problems. First, I'm compiling for a 64 bit architecture, which means that pointer takes up 8 whole bytes of memory, even though most of it is probably zeroes. And memory is the number one performance bottleneck in games.
      Second, if I add enough objects to the array, it will get reallocated to a different place in memory, and the pointer will point to garbage.
      Okay, fine. I'll use an ID instead.
      template<typename Type> struct Ref { short id; inline Type* ref() { return &Type::list[id]; } // overloaded "=" operator omitted }; Ref<Avatar> avatar = &Avatar::list[0]; avatar.ref()->frobnicate(); Second problem: if I remove that Avatar from the list, some other Avatar will get moved into its place without me knowing. The program will continue, blissfully and silently screwing things up, until some player sends a bug report that the game is "acting weird". I much prefer the program to explode instantly so I at least get a crash dump with a line number.
      Okay, fine. Instead of actually removing the avatar, I'll put a revision number on it:
      struct Avatar { short revision; }; template<typename Type> struct Ref { short id; short revision; inline Type* ref() { Type* t = &Type::list[id]; return t->revision == revision ? t : nullptr; } }; Instead of actually deleting the avatar, I'll mark it dead and increment the revision number. Now anything trying to access it will give a null pointer exception. And serializing a reference across the network is just a matter of sending two easily verifiable numbers.
      Problem #3: delta compression
      If I had to cut this article down to one line, it would just be a link to Glenn Fiedler's blog.
      Which by the way is here: gafferongames.com
      As I set out to implement my own version of Glenn's netcode, I read this article, which details one of the biggest challenges of multiplayer games. Namely, if you just blast the entire world state across the network 60 times a second, you could gobble up 17 mbps of bandwidth. Per client.
      Delta compression is one of the best ways to cut down bandwidth usage. If a client already knows where an object is, and it hasn't moved, then I don't need to send its position again.
      This can be tricky to get right.

      The first part is the trickiest: does the client really know where the object is? Just because I sent the position doesn't mean the client actually received it. The client might send an acknowledgement back that says "hey I received packet #218, but that was 0.5 seconds ago and I haven't gotten anything since."
      So to send a new packet to that client, I have to remember what the world looked like when I sent out packet #218, and delta compress the new packet against that. Another client might have received everything up to packet #224, so I can delta compress the new packet differently for them. Point is, we need to store a whole bunch of separate copies of the entire world.
      Someone on Reddit asked "isn't that a huge memory hog"?
      No, it is not.
      Actually I store 255 world copies in memory. All in a single giant array. Not only that, but each copy has enough room for the maximum number of objects (2048) even if only 2 objects are active.
      If you store an object's state as a position and orientation, that's 7 floats. 3 for XYZ coordinates and 4 for a quaternion. Each float takes 4 bytes. My game supports up to 2048 objects. 7 floats * 4 bytes * 2048 objects * 255 copies = ...
      14 MB. That's like, half of one texture these days.
      I can see myself writing this system five years ago in C#. I would start off immediately worried about memory usage, just like that Redditor, without stopping to think about the actual data involved. I would write some unnecessary, crazy fancy, bug-ridden compression system.
      Taking a second to stop and think about actual data like this is called Data-Oriented Design. When I talk to people about DOD, many immediately say, "Woah, that's really low-level. I guess you want to wring out every last bit of performance. I don't have time for that. Anyway, my code runs fine." Let's break down the assumptions in this statement.
      Assumption 1: "That's really low-level".
      Look, I multiplied four numbers together. It's not rocket science.
      Assumption 2: "You sacrifice readability and simplicity for performance."
      Let's picture two different solutions to this netcode problem. For clarity, let's pretend we only need 3 world copies, each containing up to 2 objects.
      Here's the solution I just described. Everything is statically allocated in the .bss segment. It never moves around. Everything is the same size. No pointers at all.

      Here's the idiomatic C# solution. Everything is scattered randomly throughout the heap. Things can get reallocated or moved right in the middle of a frame. The array is jagged. 64-bit pointers all over the place.

      Which is simpler?
      The second diagram is actually far from exhaustive. C#-land is a lot more complex in reality. Check the comments and you'll probably find someone correcting me about how C# actually works.
      But that's my point. With my solution, I can easily construct a "good enough" mental model to understand what's actually happening on the machine. I've barely scratched the surface with the C# solution. I have no idea how it will behave at runtime.
      Assumption 3: "Performance is the only reason you would code like this."
      To me, performance is a nice side benefit of data-oriented design. The main benefit is clarity of thought. Five years ago, when I sat down to solve a problem, my first thought was not about the problem itself, but how to shoehorn it into classes and interfaces.
      I witnessed this analysis paralysis first-hand at a game jam recently. My friend got stuck designing a grid for a 2048-like game. He couldn't figure out if each number was an object, or if each grid cell was an object, or both. I said, "the grid is an array of numbers. Each operation is a function that mutates the grid." Suddenly everything became crystal clear to him.
      Assumption 4: "My code runs fine".
      Again, performance is not the main concern, but it's important. The whole world switched from Firefox to Chrome because of it.
      Try this experiment: open up calc.exe. Now copy a 100 MB file from one folder to another.

      I don't know what calc.exe is doing during that 300ms eternity, but you can draw your own conclusions from my two minutes of research: calc.exe actually launches a process called Calculator.exe, and one of the command line arguments is called "-ServerName".
      Does calc.exe "run fine"? Did throwing a server in simplify things at all, or is it just slower and more complex?
      I don't want to get side-tracked. The point is, I want to think about the actual problem and the data involved, not about classes and interfaces. Most of the arguments against this mindset amount to "it's different than what I know".
      Problem #4: lag
      I now hand-wave us through to the part of the story where the netcode is somewhat operational.
      Right off the bat I ran into problems dealing with network lag. Games need to respond to players immediately, even if it takes 150ms to get a packet from the server. Projectiles were particularly useless under laggy network conditions. They were impossible to aim.
      I decided to re-use those 14 MB of world copies. When the server receives a command to fire a projectile, it steps the world back 150ms to the way the world appeared to the player when they hit the fire button. Then it simulates the projectile and steps the world forward until it's up to date with the present. That's where it creates the projectile.
      I ended up having the client create a fake projectile immediately, then as soon as it hears back from the server that the projectile was created, it deletes the fake and replaces it with the real thing. If all goes well, they should be in the same place due to the server's timey-wimey magic.
      Here it is in action. The fake projectile appears immediately but goes right through the wall. The server receives the message and fast-forwards the projectile straight to the part where it hits the wall. 150ms later the client gets the packet and sees the impact particle effect.

      The problem with netcode is, each mechanic requires a different approach to lag compensation. For example, my game has an "active armor" ability. If players react quick enough, they can reflect damage back at enemies.

      This breaks down in high lag scenarios. By the time the player sees the projectile hitting their character, the server has already registered the hit 100ms ago. The packet just hasn't made it to the client yet. This means you have to anticipate incoming damage and react long before it hits. Notice in the gif above how early I had to hit the button.
      To correct this, the server implements something I call "damage buffering". Instead of applying damage instantly, the server puts the damage into a buffer for 100ms, or whatever the round-trip time is to the client. At the end of that time, it either applies the damage, or if the player reacted, reflects it back.
      Here it is in action. You can see the 200ms delay between the projectile hitting me and the damage actually being applied.

      Here's another example. In my game, players can launch themselves at enemies. Enemies die instantly to perfect shots, but they deflect glancing blows and send you flying like this:

      Which direction should the player bounce? The client has to simulate the bounce before the server knows about it. The server and client need to agree which direction to bounce or they'll get out of sync, and they have no time to communicate beforehand.
      At first I tried quantizing the collision vector so that there were only six possible directions. This made it more likely that the client and server would choose the same direction, but it didn't guarantee anything.
      Finally I implemented another buffer system. Both client and server, when they detect a hit, enter a "buffer" state where the player sits and waits for the remote host to confirm the hit. To minimize jankiness, the server always defers to the client as to which direction to bounce. If the client never acknowledges the hit, the server acts like nothing happened and continues the player on their original course, fast-forwarding them to make up for the time they sat still waiting for confirmation.
      Problem #5: jitter
      My server sends out packets 60 times per second. What about players whose computers run faster than that? They'll see jittery animation.
      Interpolation is the industry-standard solution. Instead of immediately applying position data received from the server, you buffer it a little bit, then you blend smoothly between whatever data that you have.
      In my previous attempt at networked multiplayer, I tried to have each object keep track of its position data and smooth itself out. I ended up getting confused and it never worked well.
      This time, since I could already easily store the entire world state in a struct, I was able to write just two functions to make it work. One function takes two world states and blends them together. Another function takes a world state and applies it to the game.
      How big should the buffer delay be? I originally used a constant until I watched a video from the Overwatch devs where they mention adaptive interpolation delay. The buffer delay should smooth out not only the framerate from the server, but also any variance in packet delivery time.
      This was an easy win. Clients start out with a short interpolation delay, and any time they're missing a packet to interpolate toward, they increase their "lag score". Once it crosses a certain threshold, they tell the server to switch them to a higher interpolation delay.
      Of course, automated systems like this often act against the user's wishes, so it's important to add switches and knobs to the algorithm!

      Problem #6: joining servers mid-match
      Wait, I already have a way to serialize the entire game state. What's the hold up?
      Turns out, it takes more than one packet to serialize a fresh game state from scratch. And each packet may take multiple attempts to make it to the client. It may take a few hundred milliseconds to get the full state, and as we've seen already, that's an eternity. If the game is already in progress, that's enough time to send 20 packets' worth of new messages, which the client is not ready to process because it hasn't loaded yet.
      The solution is—you guessed it—another buffer.
      I changed the messaging system to support two separate streams of messages in the same packet. The first stream contains the map data, which is processed as soon as it comes in.
      The second stream is just the usual fire-hose of game messages that come in while the client is loading. The client buffers these messages until it's done loading, then processes them all until it's caught up.
      Problem #7: cross-cutting concerns
      This next part may be the most controversial.
      Remember that bit of gamedev wisdom from the beginning? "don't add networked multiplayer to an existing game"?
      Well, most of the netcode in this game is literally tacked on. It lives in its own 5000-line source file. It reaches into the game, pokes stuff into memory, and the game renders it.
      Just listen a second before stoning me. Is it better to group all network code in one place, or spread it out inside each game object?
      I think both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. In fact, I use both approaches in different parts of the game, for various reasons human and technical.
      But some design paradigms (*cough* OOP) leave no room for you to make this decision. Of course you put the netcode inside the object! Its data is private, so you'll have to write an interface to access it anyway. Might as well put all the smarts in there too.
      Conclusion
      I'm not saying you should write netcode like I do; only that this approach has worked for me so far. Read the code and judge for yourself.
      There is an objectively optimal approach for each use case, although people may disagree on which one it is. You should be free to choose based on actual constraints rather than arbitrary ones set forth by some paradigm.
      Thanks for reading. DECEIVER is launching on Kickstarter soon. Sign up to play the demo here!
    • By Bokchee 88
      I am animator by hand, and i am doing game animation for at least 8 years so far. During the last 2 years, i came with a idea for game and maybe some day, i want to start indie game company. As i am thinking to start game company, i am also thinking what kind of value i can give to the company. For example, am experience in animation,sales(I was selling web development services, before i jumped to gaming), bit of rigging- just not for production, i am learning on the side as well. The rest of the gaming production, like modeling, concept art, texturing, i am total noob or to say better, i am no near interest to do modeling for example, don't have such a patience to do it. But before characters and things are made for animating, what the hell i am would do?
      Also, what is the ideal size of the founding team of a game company? Positions to be filled mostly are, Concept artist, Modeler/Texture artist, programmer, animator-rigger. And later would need more people to join, like more animators, programmers, sound, fx,etc.
       
      And lastly, do i need to have something,like a prototype, to show people and get them interest, or should i ask someone i know, for skill that i lack, for example, Modeling would be great, texturing and rigging, and to start all together from scratch?  
    • By nick1
      Hello,

      I have limited programming experience in C++, but have always had a passion for games.  Where do I start?  I have a rough idea of the type of game I want to develop and am ready to commit the time necessary to learn new languages.  Are mobile games too difficult to begin with? Should I begin learning the basics of keyboard controls before attempting touch screens?  I would appreciate any input or advice!
      Thanks!
      Nick1
  • Advertisement