• Advertisement


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

356 Neutral

1 Follower

About JulieMaru-chan

  • Rank

Personal Information


  • Github
  1. how get over this feeling?

    If that's a problem, give up game development. It's largely thankless, so if you're not doing it for yourself, you shouldn't do it at all.
  2. Over-ambitious projects

    Beginners don't understand how game development works. They think game X hasn't been made just because no one thought to do it; they never think that it wasn't made because it's either unfun or too difficult to program, or both. There are people who do the same with science, assuming that the only reason science doesn't accept something is because no one came up with the idea. It's a form of the Dunning-Krueger Effect, really. Beginners also tend to underestimate costs and assume that because their idea is obviously so perfect, people are going to swarm in and volunteer to do all the work for free just for a cut of "the profits", which they imagine must be millions and millions of dollars that just keep on coming. So they don't understand how markets work, either. More Dunning-Krueger here. I'm not innocent; I was one of those idiot beginners.
  3. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    Quite a bold statement given that your sample size is 2, and I don't hate either of them.
  4. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    A history of disobeying orders wasn't shown. He was just shown doing something stupid one time. Yes, it was monumentally stupid. Maybe he should have been locked up (which she didn't do). But he wasn't a spy or anything like that, and he was desperately pleading for her to tell him that she had a plan. She was pretty much asking for a mutiny with that. No matter how your slice it, there was no good reason in-story for her to act that way. It was nothing more than a weak excuse to make a mutiny happen because that's what the writers wanted. They easily could have done it better. I don't mind recycling old ideas at all, but it needs to be done well or it's just a waste of time. The Force Awakens did a decent, but not altogether that great job (A New Hope is mostly better and has pretty much the same story). I didn't get this from The Last Jedi. All these throwbacks to The Empire Strikes Back and the rest of the OT struck me as forced (no pun intended).
  5. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    I thought it was a cash-grabbing pile of garbage. The plot didn't make any sense in context with The Force Awakens, and not only the whole thing, but multiple scenes seemed to be predicated on copying the OT. I swear there was even a point where they did shot-for-shot recreations of Yoda scenes from The Empire Strikes Back. At the start, I was thoroughly confused at the premise. Since when was the First Order winning? Since when was the new Republic dissolved? Did the entirety of the Republic live on those few planets that the Star Killer destroyed? It doesn't make any sense. Now all of a sudden the First Order has inexplicably, after having a major planet-sized base destroyed, you're telling me they're ruling the galaxy? The only reason I can think of for this circumstance is that the writers wanted to copy The Empire Strikes Back, which kind of had the same sort of thing, but the difference is that the Empire was a well-established official governing body, ruling over the galaxy for decades. In The Force Awakens, that would be the new Republic; the First Order was just a terrorist group. And in the last movie, this terrorist group lost. Sure, they blew up a planetary system, but they lost a massive stronghold. What follows should be mass civil unrest or possibly a civil war because of the carnage, not a sudden regime change. Most of the movie was centered around that chase scene where the rebels are running out of fuel. All the leaders die; fair enough. What doesn't make sense, though, is what the new leader does. It's made clear later on that she has a solid plan. Why doesn't she tell anyone? Why does it have to be a secret? If she had just opened her mouth and told that guy what the plan was, he and the other guy wouldn't have gone off and ruined the whole thing. The movie's recurring theme is challenging what good and evil are... and yet, it just randomly drops this at some point in the movie, returning to the simple good and evil story of the original trilogy. What was the point of that? And most importantly, the only good characters are Luke and Leia. Everyone else is poorly developed and not very relatable. I'll give it one thing: it's better than The Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones. It's not any better than Revenge of the Sith, though.
  6. Struggling

    Makes sense. Almost everyone who comes into game development loses out financially. Often big-time. Don't go down a career path you don't want to, but the only reason you should get into game development is because you like it enough to be willing to take the massive financial risk. And you should have something to fall back on that isn't pretty much statistically guaranteed to be a financial disaster.
  7. Note: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. That wouldn't be trademark infringement as long as it is perfectly clear that you are not affiliated with the movie in any way. Whether that's clear or not would be for a court to decide (anyone can sue anyone for anything, but it's a matter of how likely they are to win). To be perfectly in the clear, I would do one of three things: 1. Ask the company that made the movie if they would be interested in an advertising deal. Not very likely for an old movie, but if they are interested, you could get something out of it. You could even search for another party interested in such an advertising deal if you choose to go this route. 2. Put a notice indicating that the game has no affiliation whatsoever with the movie. 3. Remove the line, or replace it with mention of a movie that doesn't exist. I suspect the main reason you see so many TV shows and video games just making up their own brands is because they don't want to deal with it. It does have one positive effect, though: it makes the work a little more timeless.
  8. Struggling

    Right, my post was in response to Scouting Ninja (or rather, adding to it).
  9. Struggling

    Programmers need feedback, too. It's hard to notice if your code is an unreadable pile of garbage, and it can also be hard to notice that the game engine you developed has unworkable, frustrating physics.
  10. Those would be software patents. Regarding those: http://patentabsurdity.com/ Just to be perfectly clear, software patents are a problem for all programmers. The sanest response, ironically, is to shut your eyes and NEVER. EVER. look up or read any information about any software patent. EVER. Because: 1. There's no way you're going to look through them all. 2. There's probably no way you're going to be able to avoid them. Someone was able to patent calculating spreadsheet cells correctly (look up "natural order recalculation"; it's a long expired patent, so this one is safe). 3. For your efforts, you get additional liability, triple damages. Note: I am not a lawyer. Don't take this as legal advice. This is just my personal policy, as a software developer. One more thing of note: the way big companies depend against patent suits is to build up their own arsenals of software patents themselves, then cross-license with anyone who threatens them. Sort of like nuclear weapon stockpiling for mutually assured destruction, really.
  11. 2D Tiled SDL 2D Tilemap Glitch

    Yep, that's exactly it. You should "floor" (i.e. round toward negative infinity; note that this is not quite the same as truncation) every position before drawing there. Otherwise some go to the right and some go to the left, and what you end up with is a mess.
  12. Note that there are two things at play here: copyright, and trademarks. These two are not the same. Copyright is about incentivizing creation by giving authors monopolies on copying specific works which have been "fixed in a tangible medium" (e.g. books, movies, images, songs, games). Trademarks are about designating how brands (e.g. names and logos) should be used for the purpose of protecting consumers from confusion (e.g. masquerading as competitors). Most people who aren't making fangames have the trademark aspect down (lots of fangamers commit rampant trademark violations left and right, ironically because they think it's "giving credit", which is exactly the sort of thing trademarks are supposed to prevent), so in reality, it's just copyright you're dealing with. Gameplay mechanics (or "features", as you call them) are not works. Therefore, gameplay mechanics are not copyrightable. Copyrighting a gameplay mechanic would be like copyrighting paragraph structures or colors or musical notes. These aren't works; they're fundamental components of works. Now, if you were to reverse-engineer Space Invaders and make a pixel-perfect wholesale copy of it, that would be copyright infringement. But that's because you would be copying the game wholesale, not because it has the feature of aliens moving left or right and then down, or the feature of shields that you and the aliens can destroy, or the feature of you and the aliens shooting at each other. If you instead took the general idea of aliens coming down at a ship and the basic features, that would be fine, and what you would end up with is something like Galaxian. Note: I am not a lawyer and of course, none of this is legal advice.
  13. Nested namespaces useless typing?

    Using C++? Use namespaces. Using C? Namespaces are unavailable, so don't use namespaces. However, that doesn't mean you need to have a category for everything you can possibly imagine. You should choose your namespaces based on how many functions/classes/variables/whatever are in those namespaces. In some cases, yes, nesting namespaces is a good idea. I'm going to reference Python since I am very familiar with it. In the Python standard API, one of the basic modules is the "os" module. A module such as this in Python is roughly the same thing as a namespace in C++. The os module has a sub-module in it, "os.path", because there are a sufficient number of functions in that module to warrant the separation, but closely enough related to the os module to not warrant it being a completely separate module. This is a good example of namespaces done right. So going back to your example, no, I don't think that level of nesting is necessary. A lot of it is superfluous, and superfluous is inefficient. If you only have two things, keep them under the same namespace. If you actually have 20 things in each, change my::system::io::path to just my::path. But ultimately, do what's best for you and anyone else working on the program. The key point is to make the code readable, not to adhere to a particular style doctrine.
  14. Pitfalls of pixels as unit in game

    That's not going to factor in to this realistically. No human can possibly be precise enough to be pixel-perfect on a consistent basis anyway. It might even literally be impossible if the speed is too high. So I wouldn't worry about an edge case such as this.
  15. Pitfalls of pixels as unit in game

    It depends on the engine. The first pitfall to using pixels directly is that, of course, you can't easily change the resolution. However, this might not necessarily be true if you can just set the old pixels as "world units" with little hassle. So that's going to depend on the engine. The second possible pitfall is that pixels are by definition integers; you can't have a real half-pixel, so you can't be at pixel position 4.2. This is of course imprecise. But it's trivial to just keep pixel positions as floating-point and round or truncate them at display time. It's just a more simplistic "world units" conversion at that point, really. The engine itself can even transparently handle it. Personally, I prefer to define the game at a particular resolution and just use pixels for distances and movement and such, for two reasons: It's more simple to do it that way. It means there's no need to worry about whether I'm talking about the display or the game world; it's all the same. Changing the resolution would involve changing each individual image anyway, so making it easier to code that change would be of little consequence as I see it. Of course, this is for 2-D games that use raster graphics. If you use vector graphics or 3-D graphics, I definitely see merit in not using pixels as a measurement; after all, you're not working with pixels in that case.
  • Advertisement