Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

121 Neutral

About dertharino

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. dertharino

    3D or 2D Stealth?

    Ahhh. I understand now. That's a good point. Thanks!
  2. dertharino

    3D or 2D Stealth?

    Ahhh I didn't know this. Very interesting. Sorry I'm a little bit confused about what you mean here. Are you saying that players should be given the ability to see through walls? Like those spidey-sense mechanics you see in games like far cry?
  3. dertharino

    3D or 2D Stealth?

    Why do you think first person isn't good for stealth? Not meant as a malicious question; I'm just curious to know your reasoning.
  4. dertharino

    3D or 2D Stealth?

    Hi everyone. I'm currently planning on making a stealth game of sorts and have been spending a lot of time thinking about whether I should make a 3D or 2D stealth game. On one hand, having a 2D game can mean a lot more transparency in the mechanics. Mark of the Ninja, for example, has visual cues for the sound of your footsteps, your current lighting state, as well as well defined vision cones for guards. This makes planning an approach to a situation far more reliable and so pulling off your plan just feels that much more satisfying. Furthermore, because there's usually less complexity, it's easier to design maps that can lead to interesting interactions. However, 2D does kind of lose a lot of complexity. Comparing the levels of Mark of the Ninja to something like Thief 2 can show how adding 1 more dimension can lead to a whole different stealth experience. That's not mentioning potentially more immersion in the game; I've never really felt too immersed in a 2D game. But once more, those games can kind of just feel like trial and error because of the vagueness of the system... Long story short, I'm interested in your guys' thoughts on 3D stealth games vs 2D stealth games. Which do you prefer and which do you think would be good to pursue?
  5. dertharino

    When To Use Pointers?

    That makes a lot of sense too. Thanks again! Haha this is a really good graphic. Thanks for that!
  6. dertharino

    When To Use Pointers?

    Ohh, that makes a lot more sense, thanks! On a side note, I was wondering on whether it's better to use smart pointers vs raw pointers when developing games. I know lots of people recommend using smart pointers to avoid the hassle of raw pointers, but when it comes to developing games, would having the additional control over when to free the pointers be worth the trouble?
  7. dertharino

    When To Use Pointers?

    I've just moved from C#/Java to C++ and, as you might expect, a big problem I'm facing is understanding when to use pointers (I know that Java and C# use pointers under the hood but I never needed to understand them to program :P). I understand conceptually what pointers are but I can't seem to think of when to actually use them over just plain objects, except for perhaps arrays. What makes it worse is that while most people on the internet say to avoid pointers when possible, whenever I read source codes for game engines and for games developed in C++, I see pointers everywhere. For example, an excerpt from Game Programming Patterns: class GameObject { public: int velocity; int x, y; GameObject(InputComponent* input, PhysicsComponent* physics, GraphicsComponent* graphics) : input_(input), physics_(physics), graphics_(graphics) {} void update(World& world, Graphics& graphics) { input_->update(*this); physics_->update(*this, world); graphics_->update(*this, graphics); } private: InputComponent* input_; PhysicsComponent* physics_; GraphicsComponent* graphics_; }; Why shouldn't InputComponent, PhysicsComponent, and GraphicsComponent just be objects? I guess all I'm asking for is help understanding why and when to use pointers. Thanks (sorry for all the text).
  8. I see how that could work. Would being able to check the velocity in the collision system be an example of the collision system knowing whether the object intends to move work? Also, would there be a need to ensure that the collision system ticks at a certain rate relative to the object? Or is it ok if the collision system ticks at a different rate from the object?
  9.     I've been playing around with collision detection methods for my game and have become interested in seeing how one would implement a collision system separate from the movement logic. A lot of collision systems I see depend on the object storing its future position after moving and checking if that future position collides with the map and modifying that position accordingly before finally moving to that new position.     However, I know that some games separate the collision logic from the movement logic so the object just moves to its future position and instead a separate global system loops through objects and handles collision itself. Does anyone know how I could go about implementing this type of system? 
  10. That's a really good way of thinking about it! I think I see where you're coming from, thanks!
  11. The idea that there is "one correct way" to implement an entity system, with or without components, is wrong. If your design calls for this kind of association being done via something called a system, sure. But valid designs exist that don't involve anything called "systems" as well, and the beauty of the design being yours is that you can change it. And you should: your designs and your code should suit your needs, not some arbitrary "ECS" dogma you read about on the internet.    That's a good point. Thanks. I'll be sure to experiment more. I guess I'm just trying to see what others do with ECS so I can try those methods out and see which works for me.
  12.     Just have one component: MotionComponent, that specifies the entity's velocity. Why would you separate horizontal and vertical? Then maybe have some PlayerController component that is responsible for knowing when the player is jumping or running, and poking the Motion and Animation components so that the correct motion and animations are applied.   Would there not be a problem having a component (PlayerController) having references to another component? Shouldn't that be done via a system? Or are you suggesting that I have a playercontroller component that would having properties like running, jumping, falling etc and create a system that would update the animation component based on the motion and playercontroller?
  13. I'm currently trying to make a 2D platformer in Monogame in the style of Castlevania. I wanted to try out using an Entity-Component-System organized game so I implemented a pretty rudimentary ECS that's working well for my purposes. Instead, I'm having some trouble actually thinking of how to divide the logic into systems and components. For example, when I'm creating the motion-aspects of a character (moving, walking, falling, jumping, etc.) I'm having trouble deciding how I should split the logic, especially when considering how to switch between the animations for each movement state. Should I create a component for each movement type (WalkingComponent, FallingComponent, JumpingComponent, etc.) or should I just have two components (HorizontalMotionComponent, VerticalMotionComponent)?  In a broader sense, does anyone have any tips on how to organize logic into components and decide what components to create?  
  14. dertharino

    Help implementing an Entity Component System

    Oh that's a good point. 
  15. dertharino

    Help implementing an Entity Component System

    Ahh I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
  • Advertisement

Important Information

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

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!