• 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.

madshogo

Members
  • Content count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

127 Neutral

About madshogo

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Hi !   At first it looks stylish and all, but I fear it is indeed the way people described it. Here is my experience:   - why is there a robot swinging a sword at the start? Is that a loading screen? A benchmark? - what is "From Soy Sauce"? The studio? If it's the name of the studio then why didn't they write "presented by FSS" instead, or "FSS studio" or "FSS interactive" or something in that vein - Why isn't the game fullscreen? - the menu doesn't appear and when I click somewhere it just launches a game - the game starts really fast, no intro, nothing to prepare you for what's coming - I hear people talking and calling me "commander"? wtf - things are shooting at what looks like a robot that i'm supposed to control - i move and swing my sword around with left-click (also I have to shift+alt in order to switch my keyboard to a US layout because my keyboard has a different layout) - I can't hit anything with the sword, right-click fires missiles that are way too slow - suddenly, a hint appears telling me to press left-click and right-click at the same time for some reason - I do it, big explosions, a robot in front of me doesn't die, yeah whatev - I die   This all took 30 seconds, not counting the loading times (freezes?), so yeah, your game is like, wtf man
  2. This guy has the spirit.
  3. +1. That post about garbage collection and pooling is very informative. Keep adding more!
  4.   There is nothing complicated in his paper. It's even a simplification of the more general case of three-dimensional rigid bodies colliding. At any rate, in both cases, the equations you get from a direct application of Newton's laws allow you to compute the linear and angular momentums at time t+dt given their previous values at time t and the forces applied to the rigid body, just by computing a few matrix products, norms, dot products and cross products. No need for infinite precision, no need for infinitesimal time steps and certainly no need for a supercomputer.   Well, any lower than that would restrict the generality of the algorithms derived from this study. It IS possible to compute good-looking, accurate physics that is not CPU-intensive without resorting to whatever doesn't look too bad, like adding a velocity proportional to penetration depth and whatnot.   @gdoc You may want to have a look at rigid body dynamics in general as some of the formalism used in your paper could be simplified or given broader applicability. For instance, you use the determinant of two vectors for what is actually better conceived as the norm of their cross product (it's the same thing, but conceptually, I think it's better to look at it that way). Also, you regard inertia as a real number I which is good for 2D but laerning about the inertia tensor may be a good investment for the future if you ever intend to make a physics engine for 3D objects. I'd advise that you define A and B as functions of (r, n) and (r, n, p) respectively, just for the sake of clarity. We don't want people to believe they are intrinsic to the object at hand, now do we?   That being said, thanks a lot for your contribution. The formulae are sure to prove useful to anyone trying to tackle 2D rigid body dynamics.
  5. You should start with a simple language to begin programming. I suggest trying Python or Java at first to get a grasp of imperative programming and then object-oriented programming. Then, make very simple applications, text-based. From there you may want to move on to making small games with a simple graphics API, for example by remaking Tetris or the snake game. With that experience, you can try tackling bigger 2d games, with more powerful libraries.   And, regarding your question, to add to what Simon Forsman said, in AAA games there are often many more artists than programmers, therefore the amount of man-hours dedicated to content is greater than the amount dedicated to code (engine or game code). If you're only starting, you are going to spend most of your time programming at first.
  6.   Well the only mention he makes of "corporations" (at least in this thread) is and while I see that players can *have* corporations, I don't see that they are corporations. Also, since when do modern corporations build homes and cars for their workers? I think that instead, polyfrag meant his game as a kind of SimCity where you are some kind of powerful mayor who rules the economy of a city/region.
  7. Could you explain a few things? What is the player doing in the game world, or whom does he incarnate, and what does he have control over exactly? It looks like he's some kind of central bank/half-god that does not control the agents' actions but still controls offer of certain goods like cars and buildings; but then will AI control the labourers' choices? In an auction, for example, the player obviously can't be the seller and the bidder, there has to be an AI involved.
  8. Well, you said it yourself, you found your inspiration in several existing games so not one of these is extremely original and attractive, but that doesn't mean they couldn't lead to good games. About Steal-It!,[quote name='Oxymoron28' timestamp='1355355887' post='5010012'] This idea still requires a lot of work [/quote]well yes it does :[quote name='Oxymoron28' timestamp='1355355887' post='5010012'] you must outsmart the other team and can use distractions and even attempt to get the other team caught by security forces. [/quote]Just how do you do that? The game mechanics would have to allow for moves more or less smart. Are these security forces supposed to be intelligent? If they are, then AI might be a challenge during development, unless you're ok with simple behaviors as in the Metal Gear series. Regarding the worst game in the world, [quote name='Oxymoron28' timestamp='1355355887' post='5010012'] Compete with friends on leaderboard style game play [/quote]What is "leaderboard style game play"? If you simply mean having players ranked according to some score, then this ranking has to be meaningful: there have to be varying degrees of ability leading to higher or lower scores. The game must be able to differentiate players based on talent. A lot of adventure games rarely involve gameplay mechanics that require players to push themselves to win, like finding almost random objects and combining them together or with an entity in the level to move on to the next room or whatever. Either you find them and use them, or you don't. Sometimes there are several possible outcomes, but always in a rather small, finite number. The complete opposite of that is found in classic competitive games like Starcraft 2, Counter-Strike, etc. There's a broad spectrum of possibles levels of play which allow for meaningful rankings of players. Games like Wario Ware are highly repetitive and, after some time, you know them inside and out and hardly fail at the minigames anymore. I feel that's incompatible with players being ranked in any meaningful way. While i don't believe it impossible to make a competitive game with the Wario Ware basic mechanic of minigames, you'd need to describe very specifically in what way the game is competitive. As a programming exercise, and for the lulz, you could very well make such a game, because some game mechanics are truly abused of. Don't forget to add achievements for launching the game, pressing a button and earning your first point. Regarding Space Port Manager, at the heart of the game would lie an economic system. Without it, no game. The idea is not bad, but not good either a priori, but with this kind of game, only after the economic system has been specified, developed and tested can you tell whether the game is any good. All in all, none of these ideas is bad but I think you need to flesh them out before we can give you constructive advice. Cheers!
  9. Ok sorry for the misunderstanding. I can see soooo many alternate endings for this epic saga ! I'm full of ideas. I'm definitely gonna write one and post it in another topic. Ultra-long and complete. Taht would be weird though, because gamedev.net is about developing new games, not about "re-developing" already existing ones.
  10. [quote name='Promit' timestamp='1332463543' post='4924476'] Why are organics and synthetics doomed to fight? Because the dude said so. [/quote] You said it all, and contradicted yourself in doing so, didn't you ? You said that only the synthesis option makes sense, but it has no reason to be in the first place ! So why is this ending any better ? Emotionally speaking, I find it's the most bland of all three... In addition to that, the "we are synthetics and we kill all organics so they won't be killed by their synthetic creations" rationale is not exactly what I'd call sensible...[url="http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af134/gnosblax/yodawgme.jpg"]http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af134/gnosblax/yodawgme.jpg[/url] But that's not what I mean to say here. The only occurrence of synthetics VS organics fight is in Geth vs. the Quarians and reapers vs the galaxy. Turians, Salarians, Asari, humans and Krogans (and Protheans !!) do not hold a grudge towards synthetics in particular just because they are synthetics. They do fear AIs somehow, as shown in several side quests and sometimes in dialogue, but the fight against synthetics is in no way an essential arc of the story, until the ending. It's simply the Quarians' fight. In much the same way as the Krogans' fight is against genophage and against their own desire to crush Turians and Salarians, because what they need is to reconquer their pride as a species, not through war but through reconciliation with the other species, and this is what Wrex has understood and strives for. Same for the Salarians, whose fight is against their intrinsic weaknesses, which they have a history of compensating through the immoral use of technology as a weapon (STG, Mordin's regrets, Maleon's guilt, the Deletress). The Turians' fight is against their contempt towards lesser races like Krogans (seen as brutes) and Quarians (seen as nomads, bohemians) and newcomers like humans, and towards acceptance, because they have to accept cooperation (the Turian councilor in ME1, executor Pallin in ME1, the Primarch, sorry for spelling mistakes i didn't have subtitles turned on). As far as the Asari are concerned, I can't think of any specific ordeal they face, but they tend to alternate between bursts of racial pride and belittling themselves for being superficial, foul beings (the Ardat Yakshi are both powerful and criminal in a dirty way... they epitomize this paradox). The Asari in general are the "promiscuous biotics" of the galaxy... So all in all, I believe this "synth vs organics" pretext at the end of the game was BS. The part of the game that revolves around it is way too small for it to justify the atrocities committed by the reapers. And it's not even the least bit explained. I really think the ending was rushed, maybe because of EA, and that Bioware came up with the "Reapers annihilating everything" story (some time between the middle of the development of ME1 and the start of the development of ME2 surely) without any other reason than just because it made for cool antagonists.
  11. Too many questions unanswered. The list would exceed the post size limit, even without whitespace. But there is more than that. What bugs me the most is this : [b][size=5]*SPOILERS AHEAD [size=4]if you haven't played at least ME2[/size]*[/size][/b] The Reapers have periodically eradicated all advanced civilizations from the galaxy, some of which amounted to trillions of individuals according to Javik the Prothean. Every 50,000 years. For millions of years. Let's suppose it has lasted for 5 million years, and the average death toll at the end of each cycle is one trillion people. That's 500 trillion people dead. So Bioware has created a universe where 500 trillion people died at the hands of relentless, immortal machines who, according to the ones Shepard talks to, have a good reason for doing what they do. This poses a MASSIVE philosophical problem, questioning the very value of life and suggesting the possibility of a superior mode of existence, the reapers', that would justify mass murder of such a scale ! Yet Bioware didn't judge it necessary to provide an explanation. Which leads me to think that they simply do not have an explanation. They had no reason to write this story in the first place, other than becuz it wuz kewl to hav biggazz macheenz destroy everything and make the player fight them. No reason. The truth is, I could come up with several endings each a million times better than Bioware's, and I'm not the only one. They started writing the plot without knowing where it would go. At least they could have winged it somehow and come up with a story at the time they wrote Mass Effect 2 or 3, but no... All they could give their fan base is a deus ex machina telling the player, in essence, "we kill you so you won't be killed".