• 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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

133 Neutral

About thed77

  • Rank
  1. I did have one recommendation. If you are going to go with Visual Studio, use Visual Studio 2013 Community edition. It is the same as Pro but has a licensing limitation on the size of your organization.
  2. Quote:Original post by Daerax Thanks :) @daviangel - all the claims except the complaint of error messages are not really founded. The bugs are fixed and the last CTP made the VS IDE integration much, much better. Visual Studio 2008 Shell mode is free. The person was not used to functional programming, loops are not usually used there. variants with matching are far more powerful than enums - with or without numbers. Im near enough making a game in F#. I too am not too fond of the F# object system. Hey, Daerax, I calling it like I see it. And to add to you and Joh's comments on IDE both #Develop and it's Linux-centric offspring MonoDevelop support F#. Then the hubFS guy sounded like so many from this board when people asked if C# was good for game programming, so I really could take him seriously.
  3. Joh, I enjoy using F# as well. I started using it around version 1.9.4 to prototype some data transformation logic at my current job before translating it to C#. But I didn't stop there as the whole concept of functional programming fascinated be to no end. I've even made an attempt to implement Hughes' Arrows in F#. Check it here. Hopefully I'll be able to put up a few more combinators and a bit more explanation later. BTW Daerax, you dev journal is quite good. THX for sharing.
  4. Here is some the Maybe monad in C#: class Maybe<T> { public readonly static Maybe<t> Nothing = new Maybe<T>(); public T Value { get; private set; } public bool HasValue { get; private set; } Maybe() { HasValue = false; } public Maybe(T value) { Value = value; HasValue = true; } } public static class MaybeExtensions { public static Maybe<T> ToMaybe(this T value){ return new Maybe<T>(value) } public static Maybe<U> SelectMany<T, U>(this Maybe<T> m, Func<T, Maybe<U>> f) { if (!m.HasValue) return Maybe<T>.Nothing; return f(m.Value); } public static Maybe<V> SelectMany<T, U, V>(this Maybe<T> m, Func<T, Maybe<U>> f, Func<T,U,V> s) { if (m.HasValue) return s(m.Value, f(m.Value).Value).ToMaybe(); return Maybe<V>.Nothing; } } The To???() extension method is the equivalent of the mreturn or return or unit, and the SelectMany method is the equivalent of the bind method. Usage: var results = from x in 3.ToMaybe() from y in 2.ToMaybe() select x + y; OR //using SelectMany<T, U> var results = 3.ToMaybe().SelectMany( x => 2.ToMaybe().SelectMany( y => (x + y).ToMaybe())); //using SelecMany<T,U,V> var results = 3.ToMaybe().SelectMany(x => 2.ToMaybe(), (x, y) => x + y); Then there is continuations which look like this: delegate R K<T, R>(Func<T, R> k); public static class ContinuationExtensions { public static K<T, R> ToContinuation<T, R>(this T value) { return (Func<T, R> c) => c(value); } public static K<U, R> SelectMany<T, U, R>(this K<T, R> m, Func<T, K<U, R>> k) { return (Func<U, R> c) => m((T x) => k(x)(c)); } public static K<V, R> SelectMany<T, U, V, R>(this K<T,R> m, Func<T,K<U,R>> k, Func<T,U,V> s) { return m.SelectMany(x => k(x).SelectMany( y => s(x, y). ToContinuation<V, R>())); } } Usage is pretty similar to the Maybe monad. var rn = new Random(); var r = from x in rn.Next(40).ToContinuation<int,int>() from y in rn.Next(50).ToContinuation<int, int>() from z in rn.Next(70).ToContinuation<int, int>() select x * x + z * y * z * z; Mind you this is not my code. This is from Wes Dyer's blog The Marvels of Monads. He provides some good explanations of how to derive the bind function. I would also recommend aforementioned video with Dr. Beckman. It is really easy to follow.
  5. I know around here, the amount is based on the estimated number of hours needed to complete the project. Now with that in mind I have heard anywhere from 50-325USD per hour. What kind of site are you looking for?
  6. Well, think about this a human player can guess your next move from your previous play, however instead of game designers trying to implement this into a game they would rather let the computer cheat to easy victories. It is not the games fault for being told that you can do this, this, and this, but the player can't do the same. It's the designer that has to say we want our AI to acutally have a plan of attack. I mean in strategy game this should be easier to implement as chess algorithms have been around for about 30-40 years. Plus the average strategy game does not require a lot of speed between move does it. Also if the single-player mode is suppose to lead you to the multiplayer/VS mode, why is it that the single player mode unrealistically emulate competition. And I'm not talking about unimaginative play style. I mean blatant You can't do this crap. I believe that one of the few games that I have played that didn't blatantly cheat was Marvel vs Capcom 2. Oh, it still does the CPU avatar doesn't take as much damage as you at higher levels. But then the computer doesn't do things that humans can't do.
  7. A friend of mine and I were discussing how today's games simulate advanced difficulty settings. We found that there are rather fustrating patterns. 1) The super-grunt. This particular ploy is found mostly in Civ-style strategy games. Or games that are based of a Risk-type battle system. What seems to happen is this seemingly weak grunt can take out almost if not all of your attacking forces. This is annoying because it usually tied in with... 2) The super unit factory. It seems that at no matter what you do the CPU player can mass an army in 2 secs, while it takes you 3-4 minutes. Now on game with fog o' war it becomes quite frustrating when you finally make it to the base you find that the opponent doesn't have the resources of the buildings to do what has happened. 3) Psychic countering or blocking. Ever played Soul Calibur 2 on the Ultra Hard level? If you have, you know what I speak of. In several game types not just figting games this happens. In Medevel: Total War the CPU has been known to suddenly have reinforcements to quash your attack. In Soul Calibur II, even the best mixtures of high, mid, and low attacks will be parried by the computer. SCII isn't the only fighting game to do this but most seem to. 4) The overpowered CPU characters. This is usually found in the fighting games. Play Capcom vs SNK, and King of Fighters series. The CPU character will kick your tail up and down screen. The CPU Rugals, Geese, Akumas, and Orochi Iori can take damage like a soldier, however, you play with those characters, they take damage like Mr Glass from Unbreakable. And we have excepted this but should we? And how can it be changed would the approach that SC2's Conquest Mode, VF4, and ESPN NFL 2k5's VIP uses. These three examples use player tendency statistics to emulate actual human behavior and skill levels?