Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

140 Neutral

About Argus2

  • Rank
  1. Quote:Original post by DevFred This prints "class A". Is there anything else I can write in the commented line that will make subclasses of A print their own class instead of A? I tried getClass(), but that doesn't work in a static context. My ultimate goal is a static method that reflects on subclasses. I don't think you can do this with one "inherited" static method. A static method isn't really inherited in the way that instance methods are inherited, it's just for convenience that you can reference the static members of superclasses from a subclass. So unless you shadowed class A's print() method with a static print() method in class B, you won't get any different behaviour out of it - the object that print() is being called on will always be the class object of A, and that object only contains the static members of class A. I'm not sure what your goal is, that you can't use getClass() on instances where you need to. I believe best practice would expect that you always reference static members by [classname].[member], i.e. you should only call A.print() to avoid confusion.
  2. Argus2

    Resetting, Interactable world Online RPG?

    By resetting the world, you lose persistence, and RPG players tend to like persistence. If you reset the world under certain conditions, isn't that a bit like a victory condition in an RTS game, or any other game? So it ceases to be a differentiating factor - or rather, the difference is that your game becomes like other (non-persistent) games.
  3. Quote:Original post by Trapper Zoid Even back in Quake's day, people bought more games like Myst, Rollercoaster Tycoon and Lego Island. These days most gamers are into casual games and games like The Sims. FPSes were always for the hardcore segment, one which is now fairly niche. I think you might be going a bit far there. That "niche" hardcore segment includes the Killzone, Farcry, and Halo franchises, which are all posting respectable sales figures. RTS games you might say have passed their heyday, but we have Dawn of War II, Halo Wars, and of course Starcraft II incoming. All of those published have been number 1 sellers on their respective platforms. MMORPGs aren't casual either, and the amount of gaming dollars going in their direction is not insignificant. "Most gamers are into casual games" is true iff you dilute the term 'gamer' to apply to anyone who picks up a copy of Wii Fit. And in any case, the dollar votes going to non-casual games are very significant, perhaps moreso than the casual segment.
  4. From my understanding: 1. I believe you can contact the author(s) to request a copy of the code under a different license, possibly for a fee (commercial license). 2. You can make your code hard to read (obfuscation), although this violates the spirit of the agreement, if not the letter. 3. You can use the GPLed code on a server, or to generate output, without any GPL requirements (which only come into play when you distribute GPL code).
  5. I only vaguely remember playing North and South, but your game concept sounds like a lot of fun - definitely try it out, although I think two people on a keyboard is pretty rare these days. Basically I think consoles dominate the face-to-face multiplayer scene, whereas PC multiplayer tends to be networked. That's just my perspective though. Quote:Original post by loufoque I hardly see how you can turn a highly strategic wargame into a casual game. A bit like this (IGF game of the year 2004).
  6. Yes, if you do things that way, then Building's canRotate() method will override Item's. public class Item { public boolean canRotate() { return false; } } public class Building extends Item { public boolean canRotate() { return true; } } (test code) ArrayList<Item> items = new ArrayList<Item>(); items.add(new Item()); items.add(new Building()); for(Item item : items) { if(item.canRotate()) System.out.println("This item can rotate."); else System.out.println("This item cannot rotate."); } In this situation (and it may not fit what you are trying to model), Building *is* everything that an Item is, and more. AbleToBePlacedOnAGrid was just an example class, you don't really need it. If you wanted to inherit from a general superclass for your game model, then you should call it something like GameObject or Entity or GridObject (Building extends GridObject, Item extends GridObject).
  7. Yep. This might be confusing because in Java, if you don't declare a constructor, then the default no-argument constructor (Entity()) will be added for you behind the scenes, but if you do declare a constructor in Entity (as you have), then no default constructor will be added. So you either need to create a no-argument constructor in Entity to match the super() call, or alter your call to super to match the existing constructor (super(int, int, int, int, int);).
  8. Marsch said that both of your items were able to be placed on a grid (AbleToBePlacedOnAGrid), some of which can be rotated (class Item extends AbleToBePlacedOnAGrid { boolean canRotate(){return true;} } and some of which cannot (class Building extends AbleToBePlacedOnAGrid { boolean canRotate(){return false;} }. Both Item and Building are AbleToBePlacedOnAGrid objects. Antheus said that a Building is an Item (Building extends Item), and a Building is also a Rotatable (Building implements Rotatable) (he misread your post I think). The 'instanceof' operator tells you whether an object "is a" (some other object). If you were checking an object o that was really a Building, then: o instanceof Rotatable returns true, but if it was an Item, then that would return false.
  9. Argus2

    Game Theory, the mathematics topic

    Quote:Original post by impulsionaudio I wouldn't expect players to analyze the mathematical rigor of a game. The question is can some game that is fun/enjoyable/whatever to some group of people be analyzed in terms of game theory and can you then use game theory to design games that are fun/enjoyable/whatever, rather than saying "Hey, I have this cool idea for a FUN game. Let's spend millions of dollars and a couple years making it. Hope I'm right." I would expect big game houses to know the answer to this but considering the quantity of muli-million dollar shit that gets produced every year for the major consoles I am guessing most don't. From this and your other posts I think you'd be much better off studying psychology, because you want to quantify the level of enjoyment of a particular game. Game theory won't be much use because it won't help you develop effective reward mechanics for human players. As for big game houses producing lots of garbage - running a business is tough, don't knock them until you've published your own games or run your own business.
  10. Argus2

    Game Theory, the mathematics topic

    Quote:Original post by Radan I think most people might be confused. Mathematical game theory has far less to do with games than its name suggests. I'd say mathematical game theory has everything to do with games and the confusion is in believing that story-telling and simulation constitute part of a game system.
  11. An object becomes eligible for garbage collection when there are no references to it. A list holds references to all of the objects in the list, so if your program has a reference to the list, none of the list's objects are eligible for garbage collection. If you remove an object from the list, then the list no longer has a reference to it, but the object may still be referenced from somewhere else (another list, for instance), in which case it won't be garbage-collected. New data (in the form of Objects) is "created" with the 'new' keyword. An ArrayList is a List, so if you add something to it, it doesn't overwrite anything that was already there (unless you use the 'set' method). If you're wanting to replace objects at particular positions regularly, why don't you just use an array?
  12. Argus2

    Game Theory, the mathematics topic

    I think designers should be familiar with the basics at least, especially if they intend to design games that involve competition, or games that try to model competition. But I wouldn't do an entire course on it, unless you're planning on being an economist.
  13. Elements of chance tend to extend interest in a game because it takes longer for optimal strategies to be played, and it does tend to promote more variety in played strategies. A corollary of this is that it's effectively harder to balance a deterministic game. Even in a purely deterministic game, elements of chance can be added through incomplete information, like not being able to see your opponent's setup. Turn-based strategy games are so slow-paced that it probably doesn't matter a great deal though, but I'd always have a reasonable amount of chance-based elements in a game to force players to adapt. One thing to bear in mind from a business perspective is that it may be hard to legally run competitions with prizes if your game involves luck-based elements (it may be classed as gambling).
  14. Quote:Original post by Wavinator Quote:Original post by drakostar A player can spend his points wisely or unwisely. If I add the option of redistributing those points, sure, the player who made a good character build might be less sure and less satisfied with his choice, but the players who made bad choices will be relieved that they don't have to scrap all their work and start the game over again. And what this amounts to is hours lost because you didn't understand the universe the game was presenting. In Diablo 1, I tried making a Rogue that didn't use magic at all and died once I got down to the caverns. The game let me make a choice which was suboptimal but not obviously so. I wasn't unhappy because I was given a choice, I was unhappy because there was an implied assumption in how I could play the game which wasn't true. It's not always a bad thing. Most choices are going to be sub-optimal, and *many* players enjoy trying to find the optimal choices. In an FPS I can choose to use all of my ammunition shooting into the sky, which is a sub-optimal decision, but I can't really blame the game for allowing me to shoot the sky even though it would be impossible to win by doing so. Finding optimal choices may involve lots of deaths and failure, which some players will like, and other players will hate, so I'm agreed with Drakostar - it depends on the player.
  15. Argus2

    Diablo In A Tank

    Quote:Original post by Wavinator One promising twist I see would come from movement style. There's a small tactical consideration of facing direction, as tanks don't sidestep easily. Turret weight vs. rotation speed as well as sub weapons would be a factor. I could even do armor types per facing direction, which might give combat far more depth than "stand off and plug enemy ad naseum." Be warned that this might not be as player-friendly (fun) as you might imagine. You may want to look at successful tank AIs in the programmer's game 'robocode' to see what the gameplay will eventually devolve to, and I think it might involve a bit too much concentration for your average player. That said, the 2D GTA games worked fairly well, so it may be that if you can find an intuitive control scheme, it will all work out well. Also, maybe try out the Mech Commander games if you haven't already - those are probably closest to what you're describing.
  • 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!