• 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.

speciesUnknown

Members
  • Content count

    2271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

527 Good

About speciesUnknown

  • Rank
    Not technically human
  1. I might have given you the lecture before, but anyway, the one thing I can think of is, what will you do to set your game apart from the rest of the crowd? There are plenty of futuristic racers out there - all fairly similar to wipeout: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/PSX_Wipeout.png[/img]# What are you going to do that is "different" as opposed to better (n.b. everybody thinks their game is better) from games such as this? OR these, [url="http://store.steampowered.com/genre/Racing/"]http://store.steampowered.com/genre/Racing/[/url] Think hard about this.
  2. I once read a statistic which said that if all the lawyers in the world were laid end to end around the equator, the world would be a better place.
  3. [quote name='NaturalNines' timestamp='1345040313' post='4969838'] How about a Sling? Incorporates the plentiful ammo aspect of rocks as well as can utilize a unique firing method, such as holding the button down to start swinging the sling, which gains power, then release to throw. You could even add in aim disruption as you hold the button for longer to increase the difficulty of power shots. Make it weak with extra damage to the head and an additional bonus when undetected by the enemy. Difficult to use effectively, but infinite ammo and stealthy (unless you miss, of course). [/quote] I like this idea, I've certainly not seen a sling used as a weapon in this capacity. I remember having sling weapons in rogue-likes but those were purely probability based.
  4. This is the game in its current form. Note that bullets have travel time. [url="http://www.zombiebovine.com/playgame"]www.zombiebovine.com/playgame[/url] I'm currently upgrading the zombie AI and I want to add a system where zombies hear gunshots nearby and charge toward the player; to balance this out, I need a dedicated stealth weapon. But I don't want something that has been done recently in a big game - I want something that sets my game's stealth sections apart. Here are some ideas that I've had so far: Boomerang - after hitting a target it returns and you have to catch it. if you don't hit an enemy, it wont return. Throwing knives - when you throw knives in real life, you need to take care of the rotation of the blade; so some kind of mechanic of charging the spin by the right amount might make this a challenge. I throw knives in real life (although I'm not very good at it) and can reliably stick a knife in a target blade first, but this takes serious practice and concentration. Whether you go for one spin or multiple spins, you need to ensure the spin is correct. Crossbow - How can I make this more of a challenge than just a plain old crossbow? Longbow - Again, how to make this a proper challenge? Dart gun - the same problem applies here, I want the stealth weapon to be harder to snipe with than other weapons and a dart gun is just too easy if its similar to a normal gun. Any ideas are welcome, thanks for reading.
  5. Who cares if he overloads the , operator anyway? Its not like he is going to be doing anything useful for the next few years, given his choice of language. As an empiricist, I say let him do it and learn the consequences for himself.
  6. [quote name='Codarki' timestamp='1342815230' post='4961444'] [quote name='Inferiarum' timestamp='1342806244' post='4961384'] if you put logic and data into one component the logic inside the component can only use the data which is also inside the component. That means you have to implement a message system to send messages between components or something similar. And there will be a lot of messages. [/quote] But what if you make the components self sustained, so they don't have to access data from other components? This can of course mean moving of more data. Or do you mean the order of updates to data in components depends to data in other components? You'd have to order the updates anyway, either in logic in system, or by building ordered update of components so no stale data is accessed. Also, surely a system only access the components in it's own domain, and passes messages to other systems? The way I see it, you don't want components to communicate to each others, becouse that would be logistic nightmare. And you don't want to put all component's logic in one system, becouse you'd have one system per component type (or one massive system per multiple component types). Maybe some kind of subsystem, recurse the general idea. [/quote] That's actually a good argument. I can already think back to times when the message passing overhead inside an object has gotten to silly levels.
  7. [quote name='Xelvair' timestamp='1342800746' post='4961356'] I've been thinking about this Problem, too, but I believe I've found a Way to solve ist: The Strategy Pattern. Yes, ist is a tiny violation of the Paradigm, but I don't see any disadvantages. There would be two ways to go about ist: 1. Have an AI Component that has the Fields it needs (Aggro List, ...) and additionally,it has a function pointer to the ai subroutine it uses. 2. Have an "ExtendedFunctionality" component that has a vector of std::functions that are to be executed each frame. One being the AI routine.. These functions take their entity as parameter (imagine it being the this pointer), and then do their magic without virtual functions and inheritance I'm aware this breaks the "No Logic in Components" rule, but it's the most sensible thing i can think of. Maybe someone else knows better tho... [/quote] I'm not sure where this rule of "no logic in components" comes from because it makes no sense to me. Logic needs to go somewhere, so if it doesn't go in components, where does it go? As yet, I've not seen a good argument for behaviours and components being separate, other than vague claims that separation is good therefore separate logic and data is good.
  8. [quote name='ZBethel' timestamp='1342661330' post='4960755'] Is adding a bunch of objects to a list every frame really going to cause performance issues? You don't need to allocate space for the array every frame, you could have an array that grows (like a variant of std::vector, or just use that). Besides, you could have one renderable for a set of instanced meshes if you're going to have tons of similar objects onscreen. [/quote] In a word, no. Filling a preallocated list is incredibly cheap on modern hardware. It's an O(n) operation but you can cut down on that N by using some culling in the scene. What might be more of a concern is the order that things are added, because you might want to batch things up according to their material, or their mesh, etc. In the past, I've used std::multimap to sort things by their material, where materials consist of a pair of shaders, and a list of textures. For a small game, the multimap solution (with a predicate based on the shader ID and then the texture ID's ) is plenty fast.
  9. [quote name='yannbane' timestamp='1340641439' post='4952694'] [quote name='speciesUnknown' timestamp='1340641132' post='4952692'] Try out box2dweb, its the as3 version of box2d converted into JS. The way they work is that you put bodies into the physics world, and then step the physics simulation - it will resolve collisions and things to give you the new position of your rigid bodies. Let your logic entities put rigid bodies into the physics scene when they are added to the world, and remove them when they are removed from the world. When you update, update the physics system first, and then let your logic entities get their new positions from their rigid body or bodies. This will all make sense once you have done it for real. [/quote] So basically the physics engines don't and shouldn't work with real game entities, but abstractions? I'll look into the API, because that would be great! [/quote] That's sort of how it works; they would have a hard time understanding your game entities. Its more a case of specialisation than limitation though. If your objects can be represented by rigid bodies, or processed using queries, you will go far.
  10. Try out box2dweb, its the as3 version of box2d converted into JS. The way they work is that you put bodies into the physics world, and then step the physics simulation - it will resolve collisions and things to give you the new position of your rigid bodies. Let your logic entities put rigid bodies into the physics scene when they are added to the world, and remove them when they are removed from the world. When you update, update the physics system first, and then let your logic entities get their new positions from their rigid body or bodies. This will all make sense once you have done it for real.
  11. [quote name='BeerNutts' timestamp='1340631354' post='4952654'] [quote name='speciesUnknown' timestamp='1340625854' post='4952624'] [quote name='BeerNutts' timestamp='1340593256' post='4952527'] Look into a 2d physics engine. I use chipmunk-physics, but others use box2d. Google 'em [/quote] They don't have any collision routines for a pixel map. [quote name='szecs' timestamp='1340541746' post='4952298'] You can even have a screen size buffer, so that your collision check becomes simply this: if( ScrnBuffer[x][y] != EMPTY ) { Explosion!!! } ... [/quote] The direct sampling approach is also no good because of tunneling. Projectiles will be on one side of a thin barrier on one frame, and the other on the next. What you need is to cast a line into the grid, from the previous position of the projectile to its calculated next position. The point of collision is the first pixel that it hits along (the one with the smallest T value). Bresenhams line is one way to do this. Test each pixel that the line passes through until you get a hit. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bresenham"]http://en.wikipedia...._line_algorithm[/url] When an explosion occurs, you can remove pixels from your pixel sized grid to damage the level. For characters walking, a ray cast downward will suffice. Let them fall through gaps of 1px (these will be rare though, if you are blowing holes in the terrain with explosions). You can do a brute force iteration over a square area that covers your circle, doing a distance-from-centre test to ensure you don't fill out the corners. Performance here is acceptable, don't try to optimise that yet. The last thing you need to remember is to use a grid of smaller textures, don't try to do it with a single huge texture, because you have to modify textures when they get holes blown in them. Textures that stayed intact can be left unmodified. For a basic implementation, this is the only optimisation you really need. [/quote] That's correct, but you can generate the lines under the map to match almost perfectly. And, what you'll gain from the physics library is immense time and brain saving. The implementation you suggest has many difficulties, whereas the physics engine will handle everything movable for you (walking, shooting, colliding, etc.). The main difficulty with a physics engine is handling creating the craters from explosions. But, I'd say even that can be modified via small line-segments. That's how I'd do it at least. [/quote] Physics engines are designed to do one thing well - rigid bodies. If you don't have rigid bodies, attempting to force them to use a different paradigm is not worth the time they will save you. Box2d does not have built in character controllers, and even if it did they would be for use in a rigid body simulation. There is a fine line between sensible code resuse and trying to force a tool to do something it cannot do. You will spend more time on your line segment hack, and making that support terrain destruction via explosions, than you will save by using the physics engine. You will still have to implement you character controller manually, and you will still need to write the projectile system yourself, to use line segment queries (if you use rigid bodies to simulate projectiles, they will tunnel)
  12. [quote name='BeerNutts' timestamp='1340593256' post='4952527'] Look into a 2d physics engine. I use chipmunk-physics, but others use box2d. Google 'em [/quote] They don't have any collision routines for a pixel map. [quote name='szecs' timestamp='1340541746' post='4952298'] You can even have a screen size buffer, so that your collision check becomes simply this: if( ScrnBuffer[x][y] != EMPTY ) { Explosion!!! } ... [/quote] The direct sampling approach is also no good because of tunneling. Projectiles will be on one side of a thin barrier on one frame, and the other on the next. What you need is to cast a line into the grid, from the previous position of the projectile to its calculated next position. The point of collision is the first pixel that it hits along (the one with the smallest T value). Bresenhams line is one way to do this. Test each pixel that the line passes through until you get a hit. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bresenham"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bresenham's_line_algorithm[/url] When an explosion occurs, you can remove pixels from your pixel sized grid to damage the level. For characters walking, a ray cast downward will suffice. Let them fall through gaps of 1px (these will be rare though, if you are blowing holes in the terrain with explosions). You can do a brute force iteration over a square area that covers your circle, doing a distance-from-centre test to ensure you don't fill out the corners. Performance here is acceptable, don't try to optimise that yet. The last thing you need to remember is to use a grid of smaller textures, don't try to do it with a single huge texture, because you have to modify textures when they get holes blown in them. Textures that stayed intact can be left unmodified. For a basic implementation, this is the only optimisation you really need.
  13. I'm not totally unconvinced when people say they plan everything in their heads. If you were to ask me many years ago how structured a game, I wouldn't know, and would have to mess about with UML first, but if you asked me to do the same now, I could build you a high level UML from scratch, without pausing. Some things stick with you if you do them a couple of times, including structures. But this is not really the same as planning - there is still a component of planning the order you will implement things in, or divvying up labour, which requires turning your map based diagram into an ordered list of tasks to be performed. For example, anybody who has owned a bicycle could do a crude drawing of one from scratch without references, probably starting with the frame and working their way out, because the high level details of the structure of a bicycle stays in your memory once you fix one a couple of times. Once you have the most basics (frame, front forks, wheels) I could then ask you to add details one by one; you would know where to put the gear hubs, the chain, the pedels, the brakes, the seat, etc. because you know the relationships between all the relevant objects and because your brain can project that relationship into a higher or lower order space, in this case 2D. Putting a bicycle together in real life, however, requires that you have an ordered plan, and this is probably where those people are falling short - code will suffer from growing pains and excessive refactoring if things are added piecemeal with no consideration to the order they will be required. You might come to paint it and find that you need to remove the bearings, because you didnt consider what order to do these things in. This happened to me when I built my PC. I screwed the motherboard down to the backing place, then came to put the CPU on, and found that the force required to put the CPU on was bending the motherboard; I had to take it off again and rearrange the little columns they give you to space the mobo from the backing plate. I knew where everything should go, but not the order of construction, and wouldn't have been able to divide labour up between individuals in a team for the same reason.
  14. I've been messing with the stickman game; what was your plan for this? There seem to be a few players ther,e but I dont know if they are human or not, they arent talking.
  15. I don't trade stocks, but my instincts here told me that FB was overvalued; their actual profit is only via ads. I expected it to perform poorly and gradually drop over the course of a couple of years as people realised the hype was unfounded. Wasn't expecting such a drop, though.