• 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.

Nathan Baum

Members
  • Content count

    2076
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1027 Excellent

About Nathan Baum

  • Rank
    Contributor
  1. Quote:Original post by Oluseyi Quote:Original post by Nathan Baum <crap> Voila, encapsulation in C. How is that any different than what Win32 does? Are you just arguing to argue, or do you realize that by "encapsulation" Crypter really meant data hiding? (He was, after all, talking about public members. Show me a C equivalent for private, I dare you.) Riiight. Because hiding data isn't data hiding. WTF? Are you just arguing to argue? It's perfectly clear that my sample implements encapsulation. Quote: Quote:Xlib? No "reserved for future use" structure members in Xlib. Try using today's Xlib against X10. Why would I do that? X11 isn't intended to be backwards compatible with X10. X10 was barely more than a collaborative research project. I'm not complaining that Windows Vista isn't backwards compatible with pre-release development versions of Windows 1. Quote: Quote:Yes, I'm sure Xlib isn't perfectly backwards compatible, but neither is Windows. Whatever happened to GetInstanceData? Read. That was what we call a rhetorical question. I know what happened to GetInstanceData, but the point is that any program that previously relied upon GetInstanceData no longer works properly. Quote: Quote:No, that's stupid. Just because the language specs say you're allowed to do something doesn't mean you should. There's no practical merit to changing the entry point to WinMain: it's just change for change's sake. The same applies to PilotMain. Convenience. The arguments to WinMain are a system-supplied instance handle, a now-unused parameter, the command line that invoked the program, and a flag indicating what show state the program should start up in. Now, sure, you could pass all of that in via argv, but then every single Windows program that had use for those arguments would need to parse argv the same way, so much so that Windows would have to supply a standard function for it... which is the real stupid. Yeah, that'd be real stupid. It's not as if there's a standard format for command-line options in Windows, and that a standard function for parsing options would be helpful with parsing all the other options a program might want to parse. That's irony, by the way. Quote: Are you going to nitpick all my posts, erroneously? Oh, I'm sorry. I must have mistaken this for a discussion forum.
  2. Quote:Original post by Oluseyi Quote:Original post by d000hg Imagine writing a game engine and then trying to keep modifying it over 20 years for the games you want to write. It would be horrific. Not necessarily. I mean, that's basically Unreal Engine... Now, that's only 9 years. And can you run the original Unreal on Unreal Engine 3 without changing the game's source? Also, an observation on the "ha ha ur stupid for not installing the platform sdk lol its not microsofts fault retard lol" argument: Microsoft know that many people install VSC++ without the platform SDK. Microsoft know that VSC++ is basically useless without the platform SDK. So VSC++ should tell the user when they try to compile a program on a system which lacks the platform SDK. Maybe it could even offer to download and install it for them. This isn't rocket science.
  3. Quote:Original post by Oluseyi Quote:As all members are public, and are in no way abstracted, this breaks encapsulation. Syntactic encapsulation is an object orientated language concept. C can be used to author object oriented systems (such as the Win32 API - yes, it's OO), but it has no language support for concepts like encapsulation. struct Foobar { int public_int; }; struct FoobarInternal { struct Foobar public_part; double internal_double; }; Foobar *make_foobar (int x) { FoobarInternal *fb = malloc(sizeof(FoobarInternal)); fb->public_part->public_int = x; fb->internal_double = 42.0; return fb->public_part; } Voila, encapsulation in C. Quote: Quote:Of course, this does not include the many members that are "reserved" for "future use". You try authoring an extensible general-purpose Windowing API for use over 20 years. Xlib? No "reserved for future use" structure members in Xlib. Well, there might be, but it actually encapsulates the data, so you don't know. Yes, I'm sure Xlib isn't perfectly backwards compatible, but neither is Windows. Whatever happened to GetInstanceData? Quote: Quote:Other then that, Microsoft does not seem to stick to standards very well. I don't know of any other system that uses a special entry point routine (WinMain) for 32 bit applications. Palm OS. The fact that you don't know means nothing, really. Besides, the C and C++ language standards explicitly state that a platform is free to alter the entry point, so your complaint is void. No, that's stupid. Just because the language specs say you're allowed to do something doesn't mean you should. There's no practical merit to changing the entry point to WinMain: it's just change for change's sake. The same applies to PilotMain.
  4. Quote:Original post by darkpegasus Quote:A possible flaw with this good/bad karma scheme is that it doesn't allow for successful evil characters. One solution is to say that you earn good karma by acting in agreement with your soul's alignment, and bad karma by acting against it. When a naturally evil character commits an evil act, he will reap benefit from doing so later. On the other hand, if he commits a good act, he will be punished for it. Similarly, a natural good character will be rewarded for good acts, but punished for evil ones. I think this defeats the intent of karma in the first place. Well, that really depends upon what your intent is. If you intend to make it hard to be evil, then you obviously don't want a system which rewards evil acts: that system I described isn't for you. It was intended to make it hard to be a powerful character, whether good or evil. Quote: I had a karma system for a long time that would generally provide stronger resources to those that were willing to take gravitate toward evil. So a character would have something like the touch of death, but they would get bad karma everytime they used it. Then later, some Karma Effect would be triggered and all those with bad karma would take some penalty while those with good karma would get a benefit. I like this one. I think it's basically a refinement of the first karma system I described: you get bad karma for doing bad things, and good karma for doing good things. The question is whether it makes being evil stupid. If the benefits of evil acts outweigh the penalty, then it essentially rewards evil. On the other hand, if the penalty outweights the benefit, then it essentially punishes evil. In the former case, it probably defeats your intent. In the latter case, only newbies would be evil all the time. You can force some players to be evil some of the time by defining all violence as evil: i.e. any violence nets you bad karma. The trick to staying alive in a hostile environment would be to earn enough good karma that the bad doesn't completely destroy you.
  5. Quote:Original post by Sneftel I'll tell you what: the player will never, ever notice when the troops do "something better than you ordered" That obviously depends upon how wrongly they interpret your orders. If you order a full frontal assault on a massive base at the top of the map, and they opt for a covert surgical strike on an isolated facility at the bottom of the map, any competent player would notice the difference. Quote:Original post by Karnot I'm not quite sure about that. I'm certain that most battle orders in the last 3-4 centuries (at least) were written down, not transferred verbally. Well, you're wrong. Long-term strategic orders that could afford to wait that long would be written down, but short-term orders over short-to-long distances (not past the horizon) would often have been sent by some variety of semaphore. Of course, semaphores don't have much bandwidth, so the kinds of orders that could be sent would have been quite limited: only general things like "storm facility A", "assist group B", "retreat quietly to waypoint C" could be sent quickly. Coincidentally, that's exactly the level of precision most RTSes give the player. Acknowledging that semaphores exist can bring in some gameplay features. Transmitting a semaphore message takes time. The further away a unit is, the longer it takes to transmit an order. A unit that is directly engaged in combat will also find it hard to concentrate on reading a semaphore, so it'd take longer to tell them to retreat, for example. Poor weather conditions would make orders take longer everywhere. To help transmit orders more quickly, a player would build forward command posts, with semaphore transmitting equipment, to relay instructions from central command. Quote:Original post by Karnot Quote:I was imagining that the player would basically stay in ops, giving messages to messengers and hoping they'd arrive safely at their destination. The only control the player would have over this would be trying to come up with troop dispositions that allowed for reasonably safe courier routes. Do you really think this would be interesting ? It comes down to moving items on a schematic map, like a real general, which is rather...unspectacular. To you. Some players would relish a game like that. Although, I am not one of them. People sitting in a room handing out unchangable missions is not a realistic representation of most warfare throughout history. There has always been interaction between commanders and the men on the field, even if the latency has often been quite high.
  6. Quote:Original post by Humble Hobo Just do yourself a favor, and do NOT use the standard upright circular portal. Why would that be doing himself a favor? What's wrong with "the standard upright circular portal"? In what sense is it even standard? How many games even have "portals" in this sense, circular or otherwise? Even if it were standard, there could be a good reason. Saying that you mustn't use a standard upright circular portal design just because it's standard is like saying you shouldn't use a standard upright rectangular doorway just because it's standard. If anything, one should save the use of non-standard portal designs for exotic locations, just as most games which feature non-standard doors do so to emphasize the alienness of their location. I'm not demanding that everyone use upright circular portals, though: I'm just saying that novelty for novelty's sake only gets in the way of the game unless the point of the game is to be alien, strange and confusing, and yurian has already said that there are "plain worlds" in the game, which obviously shouldn't be alien, strange and confusing. My suggestion for a kind of portal to use is a simple doorway. When using this portal, you wouldn't announce to the player that they've moved to a new world; you'd leave it for them to figure out on their own. Making such a portal from a "plain world" to a "wacky world" could be quite effective at throwing the player off balance if the "wacky world" appears normal at first glance but becomes increasingly strange, especially if they've already gotten used to plain-to-wacky world transitions being clearly announced.
  7. Quote:Original post by outRider Easiest way is to return the pointer, disguised as something, or just as a void*. Saves you from having to associate IDs with objects. Easy, but hard to debug. Returning an index into an array of pointers means that the library can check the bounds of the index to ensure that a bad handle wasn't passed.
  8. Quote:Original post by Drethon How well do you think players would take a MMO where all the players will die at one point or another? The idea I have is as follows. Experience goes into two places, number one is the "player" experience and number two is the character experience. Character experience is no different from normal games, it directly affects the character's abilities within the game and is lost when the player dies. Player experience is gained at the same level as character experience but is not lost when the character dies and a new character starts at the experience level the player currently has. To prevent players from building up experience though "easy" play, all experience would be gained each time the player tries an action, regardless of success, and would be balanced so that all actions gain the same experience. Also some sort of experience penalty might be necessary upon death to prevent players from bouncing around too much. What I'm looking for here is a way to add actual death to the characters within the MMO as well as allowing characters to branch off into a new field without having to start from the beginning. I would also like to add in some way for the game to track unique accomplishments that the NPCs would discuss. This would give greater draw towards true accomplishments other than just gaining wealth and killing people that would allow the player to "live on after death". Thoughts? The general idea sounds interesting, but I wouldn't use this particular implementation: If the new character starts at the same or nearly the same level as the old character, then I think it's equivalent to being resurrected with an XP penalty. Something a little bit different would be reincarnation. Reincarnation is when the soul of a dead character takes up residence in a new, living character. Logically, reincarnation would mean you lose the old character's physical attributes but retain its spiritual attributes. Suppose you have three tiers of attributes: physical, mental and spiritual. Physical attributes include strength, stamina, agility and speed; these are the quickest to build up, but are completely lost when the character dies. Mental attributes include reason, acumen and knowledge; these take longer to build up, but are partially retained when the character dies. Spiritual attributes include wisdom, magic and intuition; these are the slowest to build up, but are completely retained when the character dies. Many belief systems with reincarnation in them say that you aren't just reincarnated into this world. You might say that when your spiritual attributes are sufficiently evolved, your next reincarnation will be into a different world. You might progress through several layers until you ascend to Godhood and win the game. A completely different tactic would be to use a karma system. Your acts within the game would earn you karma, which would come to fruition at some later time, possibly in your current life, possibly in a future life. Doing good deeds would earn positive karma, and you might be rewarded later with buffs, or supernatural help with your quests. Doing evil deeds would earn negative karma, and you might be punished later with curses or extra obstacles to your quests. An important feature of karma is that doing good deeds doesn't cancel out evil deeds: you will still be punished for evil deeds at some later time, no matter what good deeds you do. Some players might choose to pay off their bad karma when they reincarnate, taking a penalty to their attributes, or reincarnating in a particularly unpleasant or dangerous part of the world. Other players might prefer to start with a normal character, and cope with the bad karma as it comes to fruition during their life. Of course, if you have a lot of bad karma, you wouldn't be able to pay it all off at reincarnation time without your attributes going negative. The same concept applies to good karma, of course. If you have a lot of good karma when you die, you could spend that on enhanced attributes for your next life. OTOH, you might choose to be an average character and reap their rewards as they come. Like with bad karma, once you've received the benefit of good karma, it is spent. In a game without leveling, this kind of karma system would enable players to improve over time, but would not allow them to improve without limit by simply grinding. This kind of karma system could also be combined with the multiple worlds concept. If you have a lot of good or bad karma, you could (or the game could force you to) spend it on moving to a better or worse world. A possible flaw with this good/bad karma scheme is that it doesn't allow for successful evil characters. One solution is to say that you earn good karma by acting in agreement with your soul's alignment, and bad karma by acting against it. When a naturally evil character commits an evil act, he will reap benefit from doing so later. On the other hand, if he commits a good act, he will be punished for it. Similarly, a natural good character will be rewarded for good acts, but punished for evil ones. Your soul's natural alignment will be modified by your actions. Whenever you commit an evil act, your soul becomes a little tainted. When you commit a good act, your soul becomes a little pure. Your soul starts off neutral, and it's your choice as to which way to take it. Staying neutral means your character is less powerful, but nearing the ends of the alignment spectrum is difficult because even, at the very edges, the slightest deviation from your alignment can result in harsh punishment. For example, a nearly neutral character is given a quest to save 100 slaves: if 10 of them die in the rescue attempt, the character is not punished. OTOH, if a very good paragon of virtue accepts the same quest and only 1 of them dies, he will be severely punished. "With great power comes great responsibility." As with the other reincarnation systems, this karma scheme can be combined with other worlds. Ever more evil players can be reincarnated in ever more infernal realms, whilst good players are reincarnated in increasingly heavenly realms.
  9. Quote:Original post by CooleoBen P.S. Im 16 lol yes i know if u rea up top it says ten years of getting ideas, that is true, ever since i have been ten started prgramming and writing my ideas down. Quote:Original post by CooleoBen Im 16 ... up top it says ten years of getting ideas ... ever since i have been ten started prgramming and writing my ideas down. Quote:Original post by CooleoBen Im 16 ... ten years of getting ideas ... since i have been ten. My math is rusty. 16 - 10 is 10?
  10. Quote:Original post by Oluseyi Quote:"User friendly" distributions like Ubuntu generally have GUI interfaces to important configuration files... I'm going to contest this assertion, too. In my experience, those GUI configuration interfaces deal primarily with the GUI environment and its associated tools. Maybe networking and bootlevel/desktop manager. Which is to say, nearly everything that the average non-expert user would want to configure. Ubuntu users don't (normally) have to mess around with /etc/fstab, manage users via the command line tools (if they need to manage users at all), (as you say) set up networking by editing configuration files in nano, set up the time zone by manually linking to the correct time zone file. It's entirely possible to set up and use Ubuntu without manually editing a single configuration file. It's not possible to do that with Gentoo. Quote: For the preponderance of other utilities, though, this is not the case, which means that Gentoo does not provide any special advantage in terms of forcing you to familiarize yourself with system configuration files. At which point did I say that Gentoo's approach to configuration provides an "advantage", special or otherwise? Quote: Quote:You dismissed the possibility out-of-hand, but I know from experience that recompiling source with machine-specific optimizations can often result in an observable speed increase. At what cost? Ah, so you're moving the goalposts. Before you were just saying that Gentoo wasn't more optimized that some other distributions. Now you're saying that the performance increase isn't worth it. Maybe that's true: I've always left my CFLAGS as they are, so I wouldn't know. Quote: Recompiling your entire distribution? Probably not. Somebody building a high-performance Gentoo system would probably start with the basic system and set their CFLAGS up before compiling the entire distribution. Quote: Quote:Portage itself is slow, buggy and obviously wrong in many places, but the general concept of a source-based distribution -- which is what you've actually argued against, rather than Gentoo's implementation in particular -- is not wrong, just different. A well-designed source-based distribution gives you more control over what programs and libraries are installed and what features they have. This presupposes that you can't have a package-based distribution and then compile from source. Oh, wait... Ah, so you ignored the part of my post where I explicitly acknowledged that you could have a binary package based distribution and then compile from source. That's nice of you. As you should know if you've been using Linux for a while, compiling from source on a binary package based distribution means that the program you install is outside the package manager. It won't be automatically updated, packages upon which it depends won't necessarily be kept around, packages which depend upon it may fail -- even if you tell the package manager to pretend the package is installed -- because they may depending upon it being compiled with the standard features. Quote: Quote:That doesn't mean you have to disparage everyone who does want what Gentoo offers. Ah, you feel personally slighted. I understand your complaints now: I slandered your OS religion. Yes, that's exactly right. Gentoo is a religion and I am an acolyte. No way would any reasonable person interpret you referring to Gentoo's designers as dweebs and nerds who are just out of high school and oblivious of fundamental IT concepts. No way would any reasonable person conclude that the "beginner- to intermediate-level Linux enthusiasts" you were referring to were Gentoo's users. Sheesh. It's plainly obvious you intended to belittle Gentoo's users. Why bother denying it? I don't feel personally slighted, because I know you don't know a damn thing about me. (Yes, obviously you know some things about me.) But it annoys me that you disparage a distribution and its user base on for entirely fallacious reasons. And to what end? To discourage a user from using a distribution that might actually be well-suited to him? Had you complained about the fact that portage is slow and fails to pick up very important dependencies that can sometimes break your system, and was built that way on purpose, I'd agree without hesitation: that would be something that 020644 would probably find useful in making his decision. Saying "ha ha source-based distributions are stupid because I personally disagree with their priorities" just isn't useful. It is, I daresay, mere ego masturbation.
  11. Quote:Original post by Oluseyi But I really do think the hype around Gentoo's being "low level" is utter rubbish, Where is this hype? Aside from your post, I've never heard anyone claim Gentoo is "low level". You seemed to read Oxyd's post as though it made that claim, but that post was actually saying that Gentoo can be harder to manage because you have to "get your hands dirty". "User friendly" distributions like Ubuntu generally have GUI interfaces to important configuration files, whilst Gentoo comes with no standard GUI tools at all, not even for installing the thing. This means that, with Gentoo, you have to understand "manual setup and configuration: understanding your configuration files, your setup and maintenance scripts, your distribution's organizational conventions, as well as Unix fundamentals regarding filesystems, Everything Is A File and networking". Which is to say, Gentoo forces you to understand what you define as the "low level" concepts of a Linux system, even whilst you claim that Gentoo isn't "low level". You also appeared to think that Oxyd had claimed that Gentoo was more "optimized" than binary-packaged-based distributions, even though Oxyd clearly didn't say that. You dismissed the possibility out-of-hand, but I know from experience that recompiling source with machine-specific optimizations can often result in an observable speed increase. Quote: and is fed by the unspectacular ports port (which comes from BSD). Portage itself is slow, buggy and obviously wrong in many places, but the general concept of a source-based distribution -- which is what you've actually argued against, rather than Gentoo's implementation in particular -- is not wrong, just different. A well-designed source-based distribution gives you more control over what programs and libraries are installed and what features they have. For example, if you had call to build a system without X but still wanted a graphical browser, you could install links with support for svgalib, DirectFB or SDL, but not X. OTOH, in Debian, for example, you could install links2, and it also supports svgalib and DirectFB, but it also requires that X be installed, and it doesn't support SDL at all: if you wanted an SDL enabled links (e.g. so that it would obey your SDL_* environmental variables) you'd have to compile it yourself from source, outside of the packaging system. Maybe you don't have a need to build an X-less system with a graphical web browser. That's fine: nobody's forcing you to use Gentoo. If Gentoo doesn't offer you anything you want, you shouldn't use it. That doesn't mean you have to disparage everyone who does want what Gentoo offers.
  12. Quote:Original post by Saruman Quote:Original post by Megaman_22 How many of the games on Steam will run on Linux, without using WINE or something of that sort? I don't know, but I'm guessing it's approaching 0. It makes sense to me that Valve would cater to 90% of the market share. Actually at the current time Windows has 100% of the market share on the PC. The Linux/Mac marketshare for games doesn't even add up to a point of a percent at the moment. Let's stop pulling numbers out of our arses, shall we? Windows has at most 94% of the market. Quote: And to the people that don't like Steam how about you go look at the Gamestop earnings reports. When you see that they are nothing more than an upscale game pawn shop with over 60% of their revenue in used games, and the majority of their marketing dollars in used games, maybe you'll wake up and realize that developers need to get away from these guys or at least open up another channel to avoid the massive revenue loss on this. Ah. So what you're saying is that it's fine for Valve to deny users what is in many countries their legal right to sell on products they don't want any more? What happens in industries which operate fairly is that if you want people to keep buying new products, you make the new products better.
  13. Quote:Original post by Daerax My theory. Used to be RPGs. Invokes strongest emotions. MMORPGs invoke strong emotions? WoW is nothing but a shallow grindfest. Quote: Things you feel you could do better by combining feature x from game X with game Y. I think those who play games immersively, especially RPGs will tend to also want to make the game theirs in the fullest sense while also improving it as they see fit. Invocation of strong emotions + imagination of better implementation. MMOs currently more than match that criteria by doing the first well and lacking in the second. Those who would be motivated to do this will likely be familiar enough with the technical to consider the idea feasible. RPGs require imagination and comfortableness with inane number crunching. More likely than not these set of people will intersect more than any other with those beginner making games. But again: If this is true, why MMOGs? Why not lots of people asking how to make a single-player RPG? After all, if you want to "make the game yours in the fullest sense", surely you want a single-player game? At most, you'd want to make a multiplayer game which you can play with a close group of friends who you know aren't going to put their own enjoyment ahead of that of the rest of the group.
  14. Quote:Original post by ForeverNoobie Hi. I'm developing a game and I decided to focus on developing gameplay before finishing the pesky tasks such as memory management. This is either a very good idea or a very bad idea. If you're implementing the gameplay in C, C++, or some other language with manual memory management, then stop. You're doing it wrong. It is a bad idea. Writing a program without consideration for memory management and then stopping it leaking memory is incredibly difficult. It would be like building a car without any concern for safety and then trying to modify it so that it's perfectly safe but looks and handles exactly the same. If you're implementing the gameplay in a language with automatic memory management, and the underlying engine in anything else, you might not be doing it wrong. If the gameplay component was sufficiently abstracted from the main engine, you would be able to completely reimplement the engine without touching a line of the gameplay code. You're unlikely to actually reach that goal, but good design can still keep the amount of changes you'd need to make in the gameplay code to a minimum.
  15. Quote:Original post by Ravuya It's probably because they are Unskilled and Unaware of It. That doesn't explain why MMORPGs in particular. Somebody "unskilled and unaware of it" could just as easily want to make an RTS. I remain convinced that the reason so many idiots want to make MMORPGs is that they are viewed as cash cows.