• 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.

Fox89

Members
  • Content count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

145 Neutral

About Fox89

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I plan everything in plenty of detail for the final game. But when prototyping I give myself a rough list of objectives and then wing it. Personally I find it helpful to come across some of the problems this leads to and helps me learn from my mistakes before it actually matters. And then I can make changes to my design document to help me avoid the issues I uncover when prototyping. Such as not keeping every single one of my variables in my player's Pawn... That one was a rookie mistake!
  2. I'm working on my own RPG, in fact we've nearly finished our initial prototype that will demonstrate some of the core systems of the game. I certainly understand the feeling of being overwhelmed, as there is so much to keep track of. To keep on top of it the two things that I have found most important are: 1) Use other people. Having friends to bounce ideas off or do a bit of documentation for you will make things much easier. It's much less overwhelming to edit what somebody else has written than it is to create something from scratch, and if you get stuck some outside input is always helpful. 2) Break things down into as many sections as possible. If you just have a page entitled "RPG DESIGN DOCUMENT", then you wont get very far as you will have no idea where to start. But if you break it down into the various different areas you need to design; Narrative, Exploration, Combat, Trade, UI (for example). And then break those categories down even further, it's much easier to tackle things as they come. Take the 'Abilities' section of my doc, for example, that's probably 5 pages on its own with about ten sub-categories, and that doesn't even contain the ability list for the game (which I have a separate spreadsheet for). But working through each of those sub categories isn't too daunting. - How will abilities be equipped? - What will abilities cost to use? - How do I balance weaker and stronger ones? - Do they 'level up' with use? How does that work? etc. At the end of the day, even the largest and most complex of projects can start very simply and be broken down. Take Fallout 3 as an example. "I have an idea for a game. It'll be a first person open world RPG set in a nuclear wasteland." From there, you start breaking the idea down into its core mechanics. And then go through each of them in turn to flesh them out. If you struggle to do that though, practice with smaller projects first. They're complicated enough to design as it is. Finally, if you're just starting out, learn some scripting and how to use level editors. UDK is good and free for both of those. Learn some Java as that will give you an excellent grasp of scripting principles, which I promise you will find useful when it comes time to implement this great mechanic you designed, but can't find anyone willing to code it all for you.
  3. I'm not going to go into masses of detail here as I don't want to get into [i]heavy[/i] debate. But I think the article I linked quite a bit earlier actually covers a lot of this. Basically the entire "WTC7 was supposed to be controlled demo" hypothesis come from the lease-holders use of the phrase "pull it" in a sentence. Conspiracy theorists claim (rightly in this instance) that 'Pull' is a type of controlled demolition. So when the guy says 'pull it' he is saying 'blow it up'. But, when read in context (and especially when in the quote he says he was talking to the fire department chief), makes much more sense to mean "Pull it (the efforts to save the building. In other words: abandon firefighting efforts and evacuate)" rather than "Pull it (use controlled demolition to bring down this building that is already on fire and near collapse)". Also, if he was ordering demolition, he wouldn't be asking the fire department to do it. They don't really specialize in that kind of thing! [quote][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]even Fox reported (in 2010) that permission was sought on the day to bring it down using controlled demolition[/size][/color][/quote] If FOX News report something, it should instantly be disregarded as fiction unless we have very good reason to believe otherwise [quote][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]What about in the context of WTC7, who's collapse can be shown side-by-side with controlled demolition footage? Is that more forgivable?[/size][/color][/quote] Controlled demolition footage has explosions for a few second before the buildings collapse. WTC7 doesn't. Similar results =/= similar methodology. Controlled demo buildings fall in a similar way because the vital structural supports are taken out. If the same effect occurs by accident through debris damage and fire, you'll get the same result. Physics doesn't act any differently just because in one case the cause is SEMTEX and in another case the cause is fire and debris damage. Take out the same structural supports and physics will act in the same way.
  4. That was pretty damn badass. Nice one ;)
  5. [quote][color=#1C2837][size=2]Well I dont think anyone is going to be swayed to think differently from what they already know.[/size][/color][/quote] Anyone who is not persuaded by persuasive arguments can't have their opinion taken seriously. If people stubbornly ignore the evidence put before them, how can they ever hope to find the truth? [quote][color=#1C2837][size=2]No 3 day demolition setup with double checks to make sure the buildings will collapse straight? Because apparently it takes thought and people get paid salaries to drop buildings that perfectly.[/size][/color][/quote] Indeed it does. But look at similar controlled demolition videos on youtube and a common theme you will see is [b]several seconds[/b] worth of distinct explosions as the supports are taken out before the building collapses. I highlight 'several seconds' to ward against the inevitable 'but there were explosions from all the WTC buildings half a second before collapse! Look at this video!' I shall refer back to my previous website for the details on that one if there are any such queries!
  6. [quote name='dpadam450' timestamp='1315857059' post='4860839'] The idea that everything happened all perfect is a theory itself. I looked at the debunking link and unless I did not read far enough, their claim is that fire weakened the building and apparently every piece of steel collapsed at once bringing it straight down. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTTkwu2HQ3s"]How all 3 buildings should have collapsed.[/url] ........randomly buckling. [/quote] You did not read far enough. The page I sent you to clearly shows how the weakened side of the building (due to having a massive hole gouged in it through flying debris) caused that side to collapse first. The loss of structural integrity at that moment then caused the rest of the building to go. The building then pancakes onto itself, as the weight of each floor becomes too much for the one underneath it, and the process accelerates until the entire building is down. As for the video you posted...that is not at all how the buildings should have come down. The steel support structures throughout the building were melting in a similar place. It only takes one to fail, and in a fraction of a second all of the weight that the failed support was holding is transferred onto the other supports. Which, in turn, causes them to fail, and all the floors above the breaking point to come like removing the final middle block from a game of Jenga - vertically. Had the failure been lower down and only on one side then the collapse would have been as you linked, but because the jet fuel caused the fire to rage all around the building and weaken all the steel supports, once one went the others put up no resistance.
  7. [quote name='dpadam450' timestamp='1315843171' post='4860719'] [quote][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]the people who cry '9/11 was an inside job!' tend to be the same ones who still don't believe we landed on the moon. [/quote][/size][/color] [color="#1C2837"][size="2"]Yea nobody cares about those people, they usually are more worried about keeping their mohawks gelled up with hot topic products. You have to love the other side though. "Oh yea ahahah ok steel doesn't melt at that temp.......your an idiot." People will completely disregard science at all and there are more than a handful of scientific facts that don't add up.[/size][/color] [color="#1C2837"] [/color] [color="#1C2837"][size="2"]No matter what side you are on, the fact that there is no explanation for this, makes no sense:[/size][/color] [color="#1C2837"][size="2"]A building fell that day that was never mentioned and never hit by a plane. I think that is the biggest questions: why would you only report half of the casualties and ships sunk at pearl harbor? Well you don't. Why would you not report 1/3 of the buildings that fell? And why hijack and airplane if you could do it so easily from the ground. I mean the planes took an hour to collapse a building, the other building fell immediately. Thats just my terrorist logic.[/size][/color] [/quote] WTC7, right? [url="http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm"]http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm[/url] It wasn't the planes that brought down any of the buildings, the structures were designed to withstand those impacts and they duly did so. The problem was the fire, and this was true of WTC7 as well. I recommend this website, it is well structured and generally backs up the points it makes with evidence from several sources.
  8. I think there's a bit of a 'crash' on the AAA side of things. Blockbuster games just keep getting more and more expensive, and that is not a sustainable environment for a very large number of developers and publishers. In terms of the Indie scene, with lower costs to developers and consumers, lower expectations in terms of production values and the ease of distribution thanks to Steam (and, to be PC, other digital distribution solutions), we're seeing a boon. Not a crash. The App Store is the closest thing that exists to a get rich quick scheme!
  9. I'm from the UK, a skeptic and rational bloke, and I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories. Except of course the official one: that Al-Qaeda evil extremist nutjobs hijacked 4 airplanes and buried them into the WTC, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania thanks to the heroic actions of the passengers. The resulting fires from the twin towers are what brought them down. I don't want to go into too much detail on the matter but... put it this way; In 10 years of personal experience, the people who cry '9/11 was an inside job!' tend to be the same ones who still don't believe we landed on the moon.
  10. Yeah games don't really 'teach' do they? For the most part. They just pose interesting questions and make you think. Which I suppose is for the best really. Media that forces you to think for yourself and draw your conclusions is generally, I think, far superior to the kind of thing that gives you all the answers. But there are so few games that explore these themes in any kind of depth, and even fewer who make that interesting exploration of philosophy or morality their main focus. I've been thinking lately that games have an inherent problem, in that everyone expects certain kinds of 'game mechanics'. There has always got to be some kind of objective, or some kind of puzzle to solve. It's very difficult just to have a 'drama' game. Where a TV series, book or movie can make characterization and dramatic story telling the main focus (See "The Wire"), video games can't really do this all that well. What current games CAN teach us more than other forms of media, is more about ourselves and our own morality. Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Heavy Rain, all reflect in game not only our performance when completing objectives, but the conscious decisions we make along the way. This can teach us something about the kind of people we are, although having said that it's difficult to find a game that makes you really care about getting it right (many moral people would go total Renegade in Mass Effect just for fun...but Heavy Rain was more successful in this I think). Portal was very strong when it came to player psychology as well. Making people genuinely care about an inanimate cube was genius. Oh, and for some self-referential thought provoking genius, play [url="http://www.moddb.com/mods/the-stanley-parable"]The Stanley Parable[/url].
  11. Hidden content is always a good one. Coupled with additional options to get through levels. Deus Ex was always a good one for finding new ways of doing things or discovering new secrets even on your 4th and 5th run throughs of the game. [font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"]Procedurally generated maps etc are always good, because then the challenges you face are always different.[/size][/font] [font="arial, sans-serif"] [/font] [font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"]And a killer (and lengthy) plot are useful as well. I replay Final Fantasy IX every so often even though I can more or less recite the entire script by heart, just to re-experience the story and the characters. It's not about finding something new there, it's just about getting it done and taking in every glorious moment...[/size][/font]
  12. The End. The end [i][size="1"]P.S: Especially when trying to tranq him for photosynthesizing (wow I spelled that right apparently) camo![/size][/i]
  13. Yeah this is testing your problem solving skills, so answers from here won't be very beneficial. You say you don't know what the first question really means though, so I'll help clarify with that. Say you have a main menu with 4 options: - RESUME - EXTRAS - OPTIONS - QUIT By default, 'Resume' is highlighted. The question speaks of the highlighter 'wrapping' from top to bottom. So in this menu, if 'Resume' is highlighted and you press 'Up', the highlighted option will become the 'Quit' option. The question is asking for the pros and cons of this system versus the alternative (where the highlighter would remain on 'Resume' when you press the up button), and examples of games where you have seen each. Hope that helps you make sense of it.
  14. I've decided that this game (which I rate as an A+, did I mention?) could be vastly improved by the elimination of the XP system altogether. Not the Praxis system, that works great. But stop collecting XP and just award more Praxis points at the end of objectives, and hide some more Praxis kits around. First time I played through I didn't notice the issues, but second time? Even when I have the passcode to a door, I hack for the XP. Once I've accomplished my objective I go and find all the alternate routes I could have used...just for the XP. Which isn't the way this phenomenal game is supposed to be played. You're supposed to improvise and experiment. Difficult hack ahead? Well, why bother, you have grenades! Just blow the door of its hinges! You can do that kind of thing in the game, but why would you? There's no XP in that. So yeah, that would be my number 1 change
  15. Hey guys. I've not posted in this thread yet because...um...I've been too busy playing Deus Ex to visit this website! Suffice to say, I love it. I am on my second playthrough (and I'm in the UK so only got it on Friday!) and have invested 40 hours total so far (Steam tracker). What a shame. I mean game. ;) I've added this to my small but illustrious list of games that I would award an A+ rating to. It's just...genius [spoiler]@Sirisian: Cheapest way of beating the first two boss fights? Upgraded Typhoon! [/spoiler]