• Advertisement

Recommended Posts

I'm very much a beginner when it comes to game development. I'm merely trying to come up with a concept at this point for a project later in life. I would like constructed input, opinions, and criticism that will help me fix things wrong with my concept in mind.

I've loved story-driven games, and have always thought about making one. I'm not the most colourful crayon in the box, so I find it difficult to come up with appealing storylines that are well designed for a video game and not a written novel. I've came up with several story concepts that I feel may be suitable for games, but for this thread, I'll only explain 1. Please respond with things that I should add, remove, or fix.

I want this to be a story-based game, obviously. I'm not sure if I want to create a game that looks like an old-school RPG game, a 2D sidescroller, a click-to-select, or any other media I happen to think of. I feel it wouldn't be good to make it a first-person perspective game, because that is usually used for gameplay purposes in survival games, shooters, and other games including first-person fighting, which,  being a story-driven game, this concept does not have.

The protagonist is this kid that's around 20 years old that has seemingly dropped out of high school before the game's story takes place. Despite this, he's intelligent and classy, and is able to live comfortably in his own apartment; he even has his own job at a nearby bookstore, where he makes decent money. You figure this all out around the time you begin playing. After a while you notice that the protagonist is dealing with strong grief and sadness; could this be the reason he dropped out? But, what could it be?

This idea begins to grow itself into the player, but, as the player continues playing normally- meeting some of the protagonist's old friends, learning more about them- they begin to forget about the protagonist's depressed state. This is then brought back after a while of exploring the town and coming back to your apartment to rest. After doing so, the player is dropped into this "dream" first appearing to be your normal residence, but slowly becomes distorted over a few minutes until you realize where you are. You can't seem to wake up. This can be done a few sections later when you receive a necklace given to you by a dubbed "imaginary friend" from your childhood that appears in the dream. You can use this to your advantage if you need something to complete an area that is in the real world, shop for new items, or complete a day of work at the bookshop in exchange for currency. Doing so can and will affect the way you perceive the dream world; dreams are never the exact same. Enemies can become more difficult, an area can become more distorted, dialogue may change, tiles may switch, and you may lose or receive items. The amount of times you transfer between realms will affect the outcome towards the end; not by a lot. Only things such as dialogue, characters, and the attitude that characters have toward you will change.

The game will consist of a tutorial character that is seemingly a normal-looking person. Of course, since the world becomes more distorted throughout the dream, the leading characters/bosses will also become more and more bizarre and hostile-seeming throughout the areas leading up to the end of the game, where you discover the true background of the protagonist and the reality of the real world; the character was born with a mental illness that allows them to create a different 'world' to cope with trauma, and has morphed the real world into their own perception of a normal life, where they only have to deal with the grief hinted at towards the beginning of the game (the death of their mother). Though reality is actually very terrible; they realizes that the world is filled with horrible death, destruction, and peril that is not only being dealt with by them. This realization causes them to revert their perception or the real world back to this insane nuclear wasteland full of sorrow. They can't find any of their "friends" and can't go back to the dream world, because none of them were real; they were made up by them to cope with their mother's passing. The wasteland is also a perception by him, but it's much more realistic, figuratively speaking. The message from this is that no matter what your issue is, almost everyone else has, is, and will deal with the exact same thing that you are. There is so much bad in the world, so much death, and so many horrible things that you don't notice. So, you need to stop wallowing in self-pity and fix it yourself, because no one else is going to. They have their own problems to deal with.

Please respond with constructive feedback and advice. Tell me what to add, take away or fix.


Thank you for taking your time to read this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

Well um first off why would the chracter want a world where he'd have to fight 

Usually they do the opposite of whats happening in real life.

If one is weak, they dream of becoming strong

If one lost a loved one, they dream about being reunited with them

So if they did think the world was so bad, he'd want to imagine a world which is peaceful, maybe even cause of him

A good example is catherine where the player character uses dreams to escape from his problem by running away

So I'd think instead of changing landscape make it two different narratives

One in his head and another in real life

Thats all uh so hoped you find my opinion useful

Edited by adharsh anand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

On 1/29/2018 at 9:50 PM, Lumberjack RPG Development said:

I find it difficult to come up with appealing storylines that are well designed for a video game and not a written novel.

That fact that you're differentiating between video games and written novels already puts you ahead of many writers.

Sid Meier said "a game is a series of meaningful choices." In other words, your story (the kid, the dreams) are only important insofar as they support the player's story, which are the choices that the player makes. Can you refine your synopsis to focus more on the player's choices? For example, can you cut some of the set piece descriptions and provide more details on how the player's actions in the real world affect the dream worlds, and vice versa?

Theme is also important, and you're starting to develop one, but I think you could go bolder with it. But keep in mind that players will also find their own meaning (as you can't ram theme down players' throats), so you'll want the game to support that.

 

On 1/29/2018 at 9:50 PM, Lumberjack RPG Development said:

I feel it wouldn't be good to make it a first-person perspective game, because that is usually used for gameplay purposes in survival games, shooters, and other games including first-person fighting, which,  being a story-driven game, this concept does not have.

Another good choice. You may have noticed that in first-person games the story is about the world, since you don't even see the protagonist. Games with character-based stories usually pull the camera back to third-person so you can see the main character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30-1-2018 at 3:50 AM, Lumberjack RPG Development said:

I feel it wouldn't be good to make it a first-person perspective game, because that is usually used for gameplay purposes in survival games, shooters, and other games including first-person fighting, which,  being a story-driven game, this concept does not have.

I wasn't gonna respond as most of the time I have no idea what I'm doing myself, but Tony Li's reply above made me wanna say something. While I agree with him on the third person thing, as I get more easily attached to my character if I can see "me", there is one gi-mongus exception to this. I'm speaking for myself, mind you. 

Firewatch. Try it if you haven't. It's first person, but I don't believe I've ever been more interested in characters as I have been in that. To say much more about it would be at least a minor spoiler, but the reason I bring up the game is that it's completely story driven and in first person. Let me just leave it at that it had me so enthralled I forfeit a night just so I could play it head to tail.

Anyway, sorry I can't be more helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have a pretty strong theme to work with and overall storyline. I think in terms of figuring out the nuances and story beats, motifs, etc. you can do that by starting to write a script - start at a point that draws your interest, write the scene and how it plays out. A game isn't going to be as linear as a script, but you can kinda figure out things like main story beats, get an idea of the pacing, and how the "side-quests" or the more freeform activity the player does will fit into the themes, etc. As for gameplay I think it's a good idea to think about what best helps reinforce the games themes and motifs, e.g. a point and click can feel more deliberate and contemplative, parhaps fitting into themes of mystery and problem-solving, RPGs are generally about characters, personal identity, empowerment, etc. Of course you can invent a new kind of gameplay. I'd also think in terms of what you would find enjoyable to play. 
 

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 GhostarWhite7
      Today again I painted the next drawing. I look at him and I understand that something is wrong in him. Can problems with the prospect or with black and white or with the composition or is everything terrible? help me figure it out, help.. My english is not very well, i'm from russia and i want to draw for game

    • By cesarpachon
      hello, I am trying to implement a realistic simulation of a roulette wheel. it is not clear for me what is the proper way to simulate the initial status of the ball, when it spins against the edge of the wheel until it loss energy and start falling towards the centre.
      I modelled the conic table as a height map, as I assume that would provide the smoother surface. but I see anyway there is rough squared corners everywhere, so really I don't have a smooth inner wall to slide against.
      I wonder if I should ignore the wall and simulate the sliding by code. i.e: apply force (or impulse?) each frame to keep the ball at a fixed radius and somehow force it to follow a desired angular speed..  later, when I want to execute the falling behaviour, just stop applying that forces and let the simulator and the gravity do their work.. makes sense?
      any advice is highly appreciated!
       
    • 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!
  • Advertisement