Jump to content
  • Advertisement

TerraSkilll

Member
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

249 Neutral

2 Followers

About TerraSkilll

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Role
    Programmer
  • Interests
    Art
    Audio
    Business
    Design
    DevOps
    Education
    Production
    Programming
    QA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. TerraSkilll

    What is the best video game HUD ever?

    I don't remember now. But, if the game has a tactical component, it would be harder to integrate to the scene. Maps generally have a lot of info, that might overwhelm the player. The game is heavilly tactical? Or is it more fast paced? For a slower game, you could look also to Alien Isolation. I agree. My suggestion was under the scope of sci-fi/FPS that Esteban5XG. But those kinds of HUDs are harder to get right. The Dead Space one is very simple (just amno and health) and that helps a lot. But if more information is neeeded o screen all the time, this does not scale well.
  2. TerraSkilll

    What is the best video game HUD ever?

    Best is relative, but I think, for a horror/sci-fi/FPS, you could take a look at Dead Space. The HUD is minimal and integrated to the character (amno counter is in the weapon, health is show in his armor). For a FPS, you could add a health monitor to the wrist of the character, changing color and animation according to the damage taken, or showing the current status with a keypress. To make it a little scarier, you could show blood on his hands and weapon, and convey that with the hand movements and sound (not HUD related, but it helps).
  3. TerraSkilll

    Help me choose an engine

    No code at all is technically impossible, regardless of the engine you choose. Even visual programming (like Unreal Engine Blueprints) is still code, just that you code using connected blocks instead of text. That said, if you don't have any experience with programming (of any kind), this game might be a bit too much for you to start. But any decent modern engine should be enough to do a game like this, so it's up to you to choose one you like. Unity and GameMaker tend to be popular choices for beginners.
  4. TerraSkilll

    Game Design Course - For Everyone! 40% OFF

    One small critique to the name: the content of the course doesn't seem to match what the industry understands as "Game Design". Your course focuses on tools (Maya, Photoshop) and developing a game, not teaching game design principles, such as creating rules, balancing, game design documents, scope and a bit of project management (which was what I tought when I read the course name). A more fitting name would be something like of "Game Development Course", I think. I understand that design and development can be used interchangeably in many contexts, so don't take what I said as a rule.
  5. TerraSkilll

    What "THS" mean?

    "Tactical Homeostatic System", which is a system developed for the Conan boardgame. They are using it as a base for the Batman game.
  6. TerraSkilll

    theory of making a weapon from step 1

    It's not a complete answer, but you might want to take a look at World of Guns: Gun Disassembly, which is a free game that shows all the parts of many guns, allowing you to see them in 3D, assemble and dissassemble them, see in "x ray mode" and explains how the gun works. Will give you a general idea of how to do that. That said, I'm curious as to how this mechanic will work on your FPS. Or are you looking on how to make your own guns for the game, like those in Call of Duty or BattleField? If so, most of these FPS's don't go too deep on the details on how a gun works. Theyr models are very detailed externally, but internally they're mostly empty. Only the visible parts require much detail. Sound can be tricky. As far as I know, big companies record those with the help of gun experts, in controlled environments. For your questions: 1 - you would model all the parts of the gun in a 3D software (Maya, 3D Studio Max, Blender), using photos and blueprints as reference, then export them to an engine, where you can program interaction with the model (rotation and location mostly); 2 - obj is a 3D model format supported by many modern engines and 3D modeling software, so it's a common choice as an interchangeable format. tga is image file commonly used as texture, which gives color (among others things) to a model. You can use other formats (such as png and jpeg); 3 - it depends. You can try to do that by yourself, but if you don't know modeling or game development in an engine, you would need at least a 3D modeller and an engine programmer (some people can do both, of course); 4 - there are many others. Almost all popular image formats (png, jpg, bmp, tiff) can be used instead of tga. Obviously each one can suit better certains needs than others, and require engine support. There's a less options for 3D model formats, but you have options like fbx and collada; 5 - don't know your goal or experience, so my advice would be starting to do simple games, trying to build your own models. Note that these are simplified answers. There are a lot to talk about 3D modeling alone.
  7. TerraSkilll

    Need help and advice

    3. 😃 It's hard to suggest something without knowing how the game works, what constraints does the player have, etc. For example: can characters die and the game carries on? Or any death result in game over? is there an ending or it's more like The Sims, almost infinite? what is the main goal? Survive X days? Recruit/save 100 people? Build a spaceship? Develop a cure? the plot requires certain characters to survive till the end? are all playable characters equally skilled? Or each one has different stats (stronger, faster, better at building) or classes (medic, soldier, farmer)? I recomend you build the core aspects of gameplay before deciding this. Then you can playtest with different configurations and see what works best. One game you might take a look is This War of Mine. It's kind of hardcore survival, and looks similar to what you described. You start with 2 characters, and anyone can die at almost anytime. Each one has small differences from the others, so you can better use their strengths. I don't know much about the games you cited, so forgive me if theyr mechanics already cover something I said above.
  8. TerraSkilll

    Increasing difficulty algorithm

    Yes, game balancing involves that. But you're not completely in the dark. Based on my idea of ideal play session (after X minutes or Y waves), first you can try to define what would be the scenario when reaching these milestones (X and Y) when playing. How hard will the game be when the player gets there? Say you start with scenario Z: 10 enemies with toughness of 1 (1 hit kills); enemy speed of 1.0; powerup spawning of 1 in 10; And your target (when in X or Y) is scenario W: 30 enemies with toughness of 3 and 10 with toughness of 4; enemy speed of 5.0; powerup spawning of 1 in 30; So you would try to create a function that, given X or Y, outputs W for a start point Z, with more or less 10% variation. But the in-between results probably will not be linear, and some waves will be a little more hard than others. For example, you can "toughen up" 10% of the current enemies after 5 waves. The function output the parameters for any wave, but its optimal scenario is between Z and W. Waves bellow Z of after W may not be scaled well, but that's not a big problem, because you have reached your ideal play session. Those are general ideas. You may want to take a look at https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/KristerKarlsson/20161108/285010/Balancing_the_sh_out_of_our_shmup.php , for more ideas.
  9. TerraSkilll

    Increasing difficulty algorithm

    I think it's not bad to ramp up the parameters you have set, but you should do it more slowly, and try to match a ideal play session for your game. For example, if you want the average play session to be 10 minutes, or 25 enemy waves, you adjust the progression so when the playtime reaches 10 minutes, the game is hard: enemies are really fast and tough, and powerups are scarce. Sure, some gamers will find the game difficult before this point, and some will reach easily 20 minutes or 100 wave (insanelly difficult, in theory). But you should aim for the average players, the ones in the mark 8~12 minutes or 50 waves, depending of your play session criteria. Then don't do that. Change parameters at different paces. Your parameters are dependent of each other, so you can't have a single function for all of them. For some, like number of enemies, you probably can increase 5% or less at each wave. Others, like powerup scarcity, would be almost the same in each wave: the increase in enemy numbers automatically makes then scarcer, because each wave takes more time. An increase in powerup total by 2% at each wave can be enough. Enemy toughness and speed also depend of the number of enemies: in some waves, instead of adding many more enemies, you recreate a previous wave and make some enemies tougher or faster. So, instead of adding 5 enemies, you add 2 tougher ones. This also let the player know the differences between them. So, instead of a function that changes all the parameters at each wave, you can have one that, based on the previous change, calculates the next one. If the previous wave added 5 enemies (from 15 to 20), the next one can also have 20, but 3 of them are stronger than before, or all of them are 5% faster. It may seem like a small increase, but remember to aim for the average play session you want the players to have, not to the current one only. Also, add some randomness to the function, so each play session is not the same, which can make the game boring. You can run the math in Excel, and create a graph of the progression, to have an idea of how it would work, before implementing on the game.
  10. TerraSkilll

    Problems of designing a story driven game

    Why do you think it creates a strong disconnect? If Garrus dies, the options are (if supported by the game, of course): 1 - continue the story without him (yes, dialog and other events will change to reflect this); 2 - trigger a failure condition/game over (allowing him to die is not optional in this mission, so the player must save him); For the first one, if the player wants and the game don't autosave right after the mission, he can reload the game and try to save Garrus. This is also player choice: he chooses to spend time trying again. Yes, it removes the part of challenge (the player can try again forever). For the second one, it's not uncommon even for story-driven games (after all, you can't plan for every scenario). Some missions might require the player to suceed to continue the story. If there's no game over scenario, then there's no challenge also. So its a matter of you (as a designer) choose one approach. Some players will like one, some will like the other. It might break the story you were planning to tell, but if you want your story to have only one path, don't give choices. Don't branch it. Each one has pros and cons, I don't see a perfect answer for this. So you seem to be more inclined to the option 1 I mentioned above (continue the history without a character, which is a stake at that mission). It's fine, as long as the player know that. Kind of like Fire Emblem or The Witcher series (see below). It's not unfair if the player knows and accepts that as a part of the game. He may be frustrated for a moment, but if he knew that some missions can have unfavourable or undesired outcomes, its not unfair. This is the part I think you're trying to protect the player too much. Of course, you can design the campaign in a way that teaches the player what he is getting into: that some choices will be definitive, and the player should be ready for them. In initial missions, give the player choices that change future events, but not in harsh ways. Get progressively harsher. These first missions should tell him "ok, you choosed X, so you won't be able to get Y anymore", but X and Y should not have be much different. The Witcher series does something like this. Many quests and dialog choices affect future events, dialogs and NPC interactions, to the point of friendships becoming hostilities. There's is an "optimal story path", but you're not forced to follow it. (Note: in Witcher games, at least the first one, you can save at almost anytime and try again as much as you want after any choice). And allowing the player to practice a mission before going "for real" is, in my opinion, worse than allowing him to retry after a failed mission. The outcome is the same, but now the player must go through a repetition loop (practice until perfection) that doesn't have benefits (the player character doesn't get better/stronger) and does not garantee success in the real mission. It's a waste of playtime. The player might be good enough to beat the mission in the first try, but if he wins in the practice mode ten times and fail in the "for real" scenario, loosing the stakes, wouldn't been better if the practice scenarios were for real? That's the same thing of letting the player retry the mission. Playing for real, failing and retrying is the same thing as practice.
  11. TerraSkilll

    Problems of designing a story driven game

    I think these are interesting problems, but you are overthinking them a bit. Looks like you want to do a game with really deep and meaningful choices, which is something the industry is struggling for a while now (for an example, just check some recent reviews of Telltale games). My first point is: why do you want to protect the players from frustration so much? Frustration is part of a gameplay experience, as any challenge in a game can be a point of frustration (and relief, when they're overcome). For example, in Dark Souls games, the frustration of loosing is almost a core mechanic (and you do feel awesome when you suceed). It makes you learn to fight more tactically and be more patient. It teaches the player that it is not a simple hack and slash. Note that I'm not talking about deliberately making the game frustrating (though it can work in certain contexts, think Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy). But don't take away all the frustration of a game, or you end with something less than a walking simulator. From the narrative aspect, any game with multiple relevant choices is hard to design properly. The branching could be overwhelming. Even more if you want to plan to every scenario, even the ones that are total disaster ("Normandy crashed onto a star, all of your crew died, and now you're alone in a unhospitable planet: how do you proceed, Shepard?"). It comes to a point where you try to every possible scenario, which is an almost impossible task. There's a point where you need to say: that's enough. Also, how many really different choices you want to give the player? Do most of your players will care? Sure, there will be ones that say "thats' cool", but how many of them? Are they your target group, or you would like to have more players who enjoy your game, even if it has less choices? Maybe focusing on the really good ones is better. Example: it's a strategy game, after 10 hours of play, do I make alliances with Germany or with England? Each ones open new storylines (almost linear from that point, but different nonetheless) and missions. There's GDC talks about Mass Effect. You could look at them and see how they approached this. And for reloading the savegame when failed (or when made a bad choice), that's something I wouldn't take away from players, unless you're ready to defend this feature and it adds something to the experience (it's not just an artificial difficult feature). It's a tough design choice, and it will probably divide your players. Some will like, some will dislike.
  12. TerraSkilll

    A Battle GUI? (Input)

    Now I understand. I knew these by other names (something like "turn based strategy games", but not exactly the same). And that changes a lot the possibilities of the UI. My previous answer was based on a more classic JRPG, like older Final Fantasies or Golden Sun above. Good. Those numbers will help your players also, especially in the case of a tactical RPG. For this types of games, numbers are generally very useful. Don't hide them from the player unless they're completely useless (like having a "one-hit-kills-instantly" mechanic for all battles). For all the games of this genre I played, numbers were way more useful, and bars something like "quick reference". What other tactical games did you looked at? There's plenty to use as a reference. Or you're looking for something totally different from them? In your game, the "bar" format can be whatever you want. If it's not deeply tied to your code, you should be able to change it easily. Could be bars, circles, arcs (kind of like Grandia above), etc. It's better to come up with some rough ideas and show them to others (to your team, here in gamedev.net or even to friends). Do you have a full battle screen (even if the game doesn't work)? If yes, paste your bar over it and tweak some variations. If not, create a mock battle screen and test it. Consider also other aspects of the gameplay, and how much info the player needs at a given time. For example, does the bars need to be shown all the time or it is enough to show only when a character is selected (and the player can see the stats for any character at theyr turn, as there is no time pressure) ? . Are the battle parties big (+20 characters in a single battle), which makes the screen crowded? For not selected characters, is showing the health bar of enough or the player also needs to see the character mana/MP? My comment wasn't that your art is bad. Far from that, it looks good for me. It's just that I've seen it so many times (not only in games) that I'm kind of tired from it, and it doesn't stand out alone. But maybe your characters in the battle field (not in the avatars) look better, so they may compensate this. But, looking only to this image, I can't know that. But for the art part (colors, shading, etc), I suggest you create another topic. Focus this one on UI.
  13. TerraSkilll

    A Battle GUI? (Input)

    What's the difference from a tactical RPG from a non-tactical one? For me, any RPG has some kind of tactical component, just some have more than others. It's a little hard to understand what your problem is based on that image. It looks like you just opened the character avatar image and put two bars over it. But how the rest of the battle screen fits over it? How are the enemiws and characters positioned? Are they side by side (think Final Fantasy 6) or the enemies are in front of you (like EarthBound)? Will you show enemy heealth? Will show numbers or just the bars? Can you create a mock up of the whole battle screen (with backgrounds, player characters and enemies)? Doesn't need to be detailed, just so we can see what you're trying to achieve. Don't just test the bars and avatars, test also menu positions and messages. Did you took a look at other RPGs, to get some inspiration? Check for example Grandia: The numbers are big probably for readability, you could try something smaller. Or Golden Sun: If you want to show avatars next to the bars, you could cut the lower part, showing it like a bust statue. Something like this (mocked quickly): Also, keep the numbers. Bars are ok, but numbers are better to parse. In a bar (especially in a small one), its hard to tell the difference between 300 and 500 when your max hp is 10000. Also, I would recommend you to create another topic to ask about the art style, so you keep the subjects separated. And show more of the art, because we have a small sample to critique (only one image). Based on this single sample, I say it's ok, though a bit much "generic anime character" for my taste. If thats what you want, go for it.
  14. TerraSkilll

    Game Funding Conversion

    Which results would be enough for you? 1%? 10% No company can guarantee 100% conversion rate, even if the product is the "Most Awesome Game Ever With The Most Incredible Campaign Ever" ™. If they offer that to you, or something among those lines, get away. How much is expensive for you? Generally, it's nor cheap, but they can work with budget tiers (for budget X, they offer Y, for X3, Y3, etc).
  15. TerraSkilll

    Why Is Animation so Under-utliized as a Medium?

    Are you talking about animated movies (Ice Age, Toy Story, Despicable Me) or CGI/special effects usage? Because your post doesn't seem clear about that, at least to me. When you talk about diversity, which animations are you talking about? Can you cite some? Are they focused on really big markets or are they simple or niche works? Also, why do you think it is under-utilized? What do you mean by "something more"? Are you talking about plots/themes or animation styles? To me, animation usage is increasing really quickly, but high quality CGI animation is still very expensive. That's why you see a lot of short stories in animation (check CGBros on Youtube, for example) with many different themes (some more serious, some not), but almost never a full length movie with those themes. Big budget movies need to sell and making a movie like Arrival or 12 Years a Slave in CGI would probably not be worth the cost.
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!