• 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.

zeybey1

Members
  • Content count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

464 Neutral

About zeybey1

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I tried to do as many random things as possible to find any extra glitches or problems, but other than the few things mentioned above, the game is pretty well made.   One little thing, if you press the boom button before placing any TNT, the button will stay down and you won't be able to push it later. So if you accidentally click it, then place all the TNT, you'll have to hit the redo button because the boom button won't work, which could be kind of frustrating.   Another thing I would do is make the line be drawn slightly below where it actually is, by a few pixels or so. There were a few times where the building looked almost like it was below the line but it wasn't, like this:     This was counted as being above the line, and you can kind of see that it is, but it would be conveyed better if it was more obvious, so that the player will never get frustrated from thinking they won but didn't
  2. [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1354943823' post='5008379'] Have you played Dear Esther? [/quote] Just looked it up. Pretty interesting that someone has tried this before, thanks [quote name='jbadams' timestamp='1354944541' post='5008382'] Interactive Fiction is a lot like what you're describing. [/quote] Somewhat, I was thinking more about using graphics and sounds in it as well though
  3. I was watching a Let's play on Youtube today where one of the players said they would probably like Final Fantasy 9 more if it was only a story. While it was said somewhat jokingly, it got me thinking. Would it be possible to make a game that was barely based around fun gameplay and more based around the story and artistic features of the game? Instead of having any sort of big and complex combat system to play throughout the game, you would have smaller minigames and puzzles spread thoughout, some of which could be optional. The game would be more like watching an anime or movie than actually playing a game My ultimate question is, in a story-to-gameplay balance, if you made a game that was almost all story, could you still make that game really immersive and fun, or would it seem smarter to just watch a movie/read a book? Of course, you could have gameplay elements and exploration that would make a mostly-story game meaningful. Like what if between sections of a game, you could visit old towns and see how they've changed over the span of what has happened, or make it so the player has to emulate things that the people in the story would do(like rapidly press a button when a protagonist has to do something hard and physical). Games like 'To the Moon' and 'Farenheit: Indigo Prophecy' are somewhat like this, but I'm still curious about if you could go even further in the direction of pure story. Thoughts?
  4. Nowadays, one thing that deters me from putting lots of effort into one game is how long that game will be playable. The first few generations of gaming can be easily emulated(like how they are on wii virtual console), and are still played today. I'm focused more on directx and java. If i made a game using either of these 2 systems(which I find most appealing), would that game stay playable on newer computers? I know directx and java are supposed to run older versions, but I've seen a lot of topics and things on the internet where people have needed to downgrade to play old games, or where newer versions run older versions with less quality, causing glitches. I know enough about c++ and how games work, so I'm sure I could learn whatever's needed. So say if I made a game today using c++ or some other powerful gaming language, would that game be reasonably easy to play on future computers?
  5. [quote name='phantom' timestamp='1343508344' post='4964093'] [quote name='Orymus3' timestamp='1343504313' post='4964057'] This makes it a construct of their mind rather than an abstraction, and its very hard to adapt to that, thus, feel involved. [/quote] Really? Because I find it easy enough to immerse myself in games still and feel involved; I'd hesitate to say more so than in the past but certainly going back and playing a few games from the past (such as Deus Ex) I couldn't get into them as the quality of the graphics, compared to modern games, was just so poor to be jaring and keeps me from dropping in. The point is there are no definitative statements which can be made here; everything depends on the person, the game, heck in their mood when they play. (I've had games I've tried to play which one day I've disliked and then returned to a few months later and couldn't put down). I dare say if you could provide some kinda of normalised scoring of games over the years (taken at the time of release) you'd probably find that in general the proportion of 'good' to 'bad' games at the very least remains the same - now, there might well be more in numerical terms than Back In The Day but that's by the by. [/quote] Games today use generally better game design(no more NES LOGIC), and there are lots of very good recently made games. I just feel like the biggest desire nowadays is about who has the most technologically advanced game, regardless of the game being fun or immersion, while the technology already out there can already create amazing gameplay and immersion. Along the lines of abstraction, i've always thought it was more about what the story left out, and not graphical or sound details. Final fantasy ix has quite detailed pre-rendered backgrounds, but still is very abstract because it doesn't explain a lot of story elements(a lot of people hated that about it, but I thought it made it much more fun to fill in the holes yourself).
  6. Yeah, I guess it's more about the developers adding useless additions, where the technology could be used in really cool ways
  7. How much does more advanced technology really add to a game? I know minecraft and other innovative game designs could never run on older gaming consoles, but do better graphics and faster computing really make recent games more fun to play than old style NES-SNES games? To me, it just makes games harder to make and play because of the higher production cost and tougher system requirements. Maybe it's just nostalgia, but older games feel, both atmospherically and fun-wise, very similar to newer ones, and since its harder to make this current style of games, game designers take less risks and have to use a more systematic gameplay(quest systems, campaigns) to make them easier to manage. What are your thoughts on this?
  8. It's more of a way to get around OS specific issues and essentially total wipe out the idea of cross-platform games. Instead of having libraries and other game-specific things that allow a game to be on Windows, Mac, and Linux, you could just make a new emulator for a certain type of platform and every game made for this virtual console will be available on that platform. You could also run them in browser by making a java emulator. There would be less DLLs or things that had to be installed. It would just simplify a lot of problems and make playing games easier. Also, along the lines of memory and speed, I was thinking of a way where each game ran in a certain "mode" determined by an index at the beginning of each ROM file. Different modes would process data in different ways. Of course it still would be slightly slower than a regular computer game because it's all emulated.
  9. In Notch's new game, 0x10c, you're in a spaceship and have your own "virtual" emulated 16-bit computer called the DCPU-16. The game isn't even out yet and people have made all kinds of things for it, like simple operating systems and games like minesweeper and a basic 2d "minecraft". The DCPU-16 isn't very powerfull though. It can only display big 4x8 sprites, and each individual sprite can only have 2 colors each out of 16. It can also only register 1 key input at a time. You can read more about it here: [url="http://0x10cwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page"]http://0x10cwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page[/url] The DCPU-16 wasn't made to be that powerful though. It's made to be ran online on the game's server, so even while you're away, it will be able to process code. Seeing it gave me an idea though. What if I made a virtual console that was much better than the DCPU-16(about N64/PS1 level) that could run "rom" files that people created with a low-level "virtual console language"? It sounds like a dumb idea, like, why should we go backwards in technology? In my point of view, it would: -give the programmer low-level control over every aspect(video data, sound, input, all memory) without needing anything except the basic synthax, so they could focus more on the game and less on technical stuff. -since all the game files would be in the same format, it could easily be emulated on any platform or any scripting language. -allow people to make libraries that could easily be implemented and examine, so the programmer could see everything happening at the lowest level -It would be free of any real hardware, except the hardware the emulator uses on the computer its running on, making it run on more computers more consistently, and allowing the programmer to not worry about anything except the game data itself. -Have a "mode" feature, where if the game creator needed to use more memory/speed, they could easily do so by changing the game mode to a higher "level" -Allow for the game "rom" files to be made in any general way(with other programming languages), as long as the file itself turns out in the same format. In my mind, high-end graphics don't add as much to a game as people say they do. I think this would allow game makers to be more creative, while allowing these virtual console games to be much easier to make and play. It would be more of a "just for fun" thing. The "virtual console" would be less of an actual program, and more of a "standard" that others could make emulators and roms for. I have started work on my own emulator for this, and have thought quite a bit about how everything would work(engine specs, synthax for game code, how user input and video RAM work) So what do you think of this idea? Would there be any chance of getting a small community of people that played around with this?
  10. I got it to work. I think either my tile object was too big or I was making too many(as I was dynamical making them based off the size of the room). Now I'm just using integers for each tile id, while before I had a rectangle for each one, which didn't make nearly as much sense. It had to be size because I did a test with 100 and it worked fine, but after doubling the tile amount I got a memory allocation error. And yes, I'm using c++. Probably should have specified that. I'll spent more time debugging before I post a topic next time [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.png[/img]
  11. I've been working on a tile engine for a game I'm making, but have come across a problem. I have enlargened the maps to be about as large as they will be once they are done, but the program is crashing because the arrays are too big. I've heard the max an array should generally be is about 1000, but my program is crashing only at 400. I even tried organizing the tiles into chunks, but to no avail. How would i be able to hold the information of a level in memory without using an array? How do most people go about this?
  12. thanks! Had no idea that function existed.
  13. So I've started on a simple top down game engine and am now starting work on a level editor. I'm trying to find some way to get user input so I can type out which files to load and save. I've learned a lot about SDL and c++, but still am not sure exactly how to accomplish this. My question to you: Is it possible to use Win32 windows made with the .net framework and SDL in one application? So that I can open up win32 popup windows that say "Which file would you like to open", or use other things in the windows toolkit. It would be much easier then using the SDL's true type font library and programming all the buttons and things manually. I've heard you could directly use SDL for this sort of thing(?).