So I have finally come to spring break this semester, though it won't be much of one as I said that I would be available to work in the computer labs (which I anticipate that those labs will be empty). It will be nice to have a little break from new information though.
On the brighter side I finally got to the section of linear algebra that helps me figure out how to do the triangular tessellations that I was hoping to construct the landscape from. Standard Minecraft style games use the standard x = 1, y = 1, z =1 3d coordinate system, which makes a lot of sense since that is by far the easiest way to represent something in 3d. These are known as the unit vectors and are written as x = (1,0,0), y = (0,1,0), and z = (0,0,1). There is a lot more to it, but I won't bore you with the details. For games the screen will represent an x,y plane because well, lets face it, it is really a 2 dimensional space. Even "3d" monitors and TVs are just a combination of 2 2d planes which creates the illusion of 3d.
So taking the height component as the y, I have figured out that y will still remain a good old 1. The x component will need to be .5, but not on every line rather every other line. The z component is the nasty one as it will be the square root of 3 divided by 2 instead of 1. So my plan is to create a constant variable called DEPTH ( constants are supposed in all caps like that) which is equal to the square root of 3 divided by 2. The z can be expressed as a number of DEPTHS, then if there is an even amount of z the x component will be the normal 1, 2 ,3 etc. but if the amount of z is odd, then x will be 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, etc... Now I wish to clarify that this is just for finding the points which are the corners of each triblock.
Now many of you are probably thinking why not copy the cubic approach that everyone else is using, since it equates to much less work. I guess that the answer is that I am just stubborn, that and I don't wan this to be dismissed as yet another Minecraft ripoff ( which may happen anyway, but at least I can claim that it is different).
24 March, 2012
22 March, 2012
Google Summer of Code
School has been going fairly well, though there are some things that I have felt could have gone better. Anyway while thinking about how I can get better at coding this summer I ran across this excellent program known as Google summer of code, which puts worthy opensource programs in touch with college students (like me) so that improvements/additions to said open source programs can be made. I feel a little intimidated to be sure, but I will need to practice coding in order to get better, and what better way to do that then working on an opensource project. I will still be working as tech support for my school's smart classrooms this summer, but I think that I probably won't be allowed to work much more than part time. This will be a lot of work, but I think that it would be incredibly rewarding and fulfilling at the same time. I have been thinking that opensource might be the better way to go with all of this anyway, and while I realize that I won't be able to make a lot of money ( if any at all) I feel that being able to share my work so other can build on it is important.
I have realized lately that I have been making a shift from gamer to game developer. Part of that is the realization of what it takes to make a game of any size. I now have a much greater respect and appreciation for all of the game developers out there. I know that many hours of hard work will be required for the smallest part of what I want to do, and that people will most likely be very critical and/or demanding of my work as soon as I get it out and available for use. I'm not so much worried about that, it's just that I would like to play this game in a multiplayer setting, and if no one is willing to play the game that will be really hard to do. The nice thing is that I can also see from both perspectives now. I still understand the frustration of the gamer community at not getting new content at a rate that they desire, yet I understand the plight of the developers who work so very hard just to have people turn around and say meh. It's an interesting turning point, and I hope I can remember to feel empathy for both sides.
I have realized lately that I have been making a shift from gamer to game developer. Part of that is the realization of what it takes to make a game of any size. I now have a much greater respect and appreciation for all of the game developers out there. I know that many hours of hard work will be required for the smallest part of what I want to do, and that people will most likely be very critical and/or demanding of my work as soon as I get it out and available for use. I'm not so much worried about that, it's just that I would like to play this game in a multiplayer setting, and if no one is willing to play the game that will be really hard to do. The nice thing is that I can also see from both perspectives now. I still understand the frustration of the gamer community at not getting new content at a rate that they desire, yet I understand the plight of the developers who work so very hard just to have people turn around and say meh. It's an interesting turning point, and I hope I can remember to feel empathy for both sides.
07 March, 2012
Developers vs Publishers
So I have been doing a little research in my spare time between learning linear algebra and coding this semester. Today I read a long and boring article about the process that publishers and developers entering into an agreement to make a game must go through. All I can say is, it is no wonder that the game industry is broken. The short version of what I read goes like this, publishers have money and make contracts with developers so the developers will make a game as a "work for hire", meaning that the publisher gets to "own" the copyright and intellectual property of a game. Because of the size and complexity of making a games developers don't want to have to start from scratch, and so they create a set of "tools" like a gaming engine which they license to publishers so that every time they don't have to start from scratch. The rest of the article explained how either side works to negotiate as much as possible in order to retain as much as they can to maximize profits.
So what does this have to do with me and my game that I want to make. Well I would be considered a developer, an unknown and untested developer at that, which means I will have very little that I can bring to the table when negotiating with a publisher. This means that it would be an especially bad idea for me to do so, even if I could bring an exceptional product to show them, which is probably what it would take for them to even talk to me. So I will focus much more on things like Kickstarter and appeal to the public directly for money, which is also a difficult path but will not leave me with nothing afterward. This is of course after I have made a fair amount of progress, which is slow going while I learn the fundamentals of game design.
So what does this have to do with me and my game that I want to make. Well I would be considered a developer, an unknown and untested developer at that, which means I will have very little that I can bring to the table when negotiating with a publisher. This means that it would be an especially bad idea for me to do so, even if I could bring an exceptional product to show them, which is probably what it would take for them to even talk to me. So I will focus much more on things like Kickstarter and appeal to the public directly for money, which is also a difficult path but will not leave me with nothing afterward. This is of course after I have made a fair amount of progress, which is slow going while I learn the fundamentals of game design.
28 February, 2012
No headshots
So I was discussing the whole concept with a few classmates when I said that I didn't want to include critical kills like head shots. They thought that I was going to have a lot of problems since head shots have been a part of the FPS mindset for such a long time. So I thought a little explanation of why I feel critical kill shots shouldn't be a part of this game.
1. Being killed in one shot really stinks. There have been many games that the head shot insta-kill makes the game very frustrating, especially for new players. Ace of Spades in particular comes to mind, and I have personally taken on 5 or 6 players and killed them all before the could get me just because I was able to shoot their heads faster than they could shoot me. While in real life it is very possible for 1 or 2 bullets to take someone out, in a game or an experiment like I am hoping to make this like I wish to encourage competition and a moderate feeling of fair play.
2. It is bad practice to aim for the head in real life combat. The first day of M16 training in the Army they instruct all soldiers to aim for the center of mass. On a human the center of mass is just between the stomach and the chest, where incidentally a large number of vital organs are located. So while it is true that shooting someone in the head will kill them, shooting them in a place you are more likely to hit them like the chest has just as much a chance of killing them. While I realize games don't have to be like real life combat, for the few people who do get put into a combat situation I would like to have this game be good training for them.
3. I want this game to have the feel of a RTS game, but with the players being the individual soldiers. In most RTS games there are certain classes that are stronger than other, but typically there is a decent balance between same level entities. In Starcraft for example, a single terran marine vs. a single protoss zealot would be a fairly matched fight in which one or the other may win depending on the strategies used. If the marine could kill the zealot in one shot by shooting his head, that balance would be shifted. Now I know there are players out there claiming that since heads are smaller and there is a chance to miss that head shots are really skill shots and should be rewarded, but if the reward is your enemy not even being able to counter attack in any way it's too powerful. And so the head will only get damaged as much as the torso.
I hope this explains well enough why I don't wan't to have instant kills. Even vehicle mounted weaponry will seem a little under powered in the game, as the goal is not the super fast paced die every 30 seconds combat normally found in FPS games, rather the stay alive and do as much damage (or prevent as much damage) strategically type game.
1. Being killed in one shot really stinks. There have been many games that the head shot insta-kill makes the game very frustrating, especially for new players. Ace of Spades in particular comes to mind, and I have personally taken on 5 or 6 players and killed them all before the could get me just because I was able to shoot their heads faster than they could shoot me. While in real life it is very possible for 1 or 2 bullets to take someone out, in a game or an experiment like I am hoping to make this like I wish to encourage competition and a moderate feeling of fair play.
2. It is bad practice to aim for the head in real life combat. The first day of M16 training in the Army they instruct all soldiers to aim for the center of mass. On a human the center of mass is just between the stomach and the chest, where incidentally a large number of vital organs are located. So while it is true that shooting someone in the head will kill them, shooting them in a place you are more likely to hit them like the chest has just as much a chance of killing them. While I realize games don't have to be like real life combat, for the few people who do get put into a combat situation I would like to have this game be good training for them.
3. I want this game to have the feel of a RTS game, but with the players being the individual soldiers. In most RTS games there are certain classes that are stronger than other, but typically there is a decent balance between same level entities. In Starcraft for example, a single terran marine vs. a single protoss zealot would be a fairly matched fight in which one or the other may win depending on the strategies used. If the marine could kill the zealot in one shot by shooting his head, that balance would be shifted. Now I know there are players out there claiming that since heads are smaller and there is a chance to miss that head shots are really skill shots and should be rewarded, but if the reward is your enemy not even being able to counter attack in any way it's too powerful. And so the head will only get damaged as much as the torso.
I hope this explains well enough why I don't wan't to have instant kills. Even vehicle mounted weaponry will seem a little under powered in the game, as the goal is not the super fast paced die every 30 seconds combat normally found in FPS games, rather the stay alive and do as much damage (or prevent as much damage) strategically type game.
10 February, 2012
The Official Google TV Blog: OnLive: Console-class Gaming Comes to Google TV
Ok this could be big news for cloud gaming. If Google starts supporting it with the large amount of server power and it's amazing amount of internet influence then we could see it really take off.
Linear Algebra, Matrices, and 3D math
I realize that it appears that I have not made any real progress on this game for some time now. I'm finding that there are many principles that I need to learn before trying to tackle 3D. Part of that is math, which I have been struggling through for a little while. I highly recommend that anyone who is interested in doing anything 3D learn about linear algebra. A brief explanation is that it is the math that helps give the illusion of 3D on a 2D surface (like your TV or monitor). Anyway the learning process is slow as I'm not as young as in times past. As I have said before this will take a long time, especially since I want to do it right.
No competition inside of a faction
I've been thinking a bit about this subject and how to bring it into this game. Often in MMOs players find themselves competing with their allies for resources such as better armor, that special drop that only one person can get, whoever has the highest number of enemy killed, etc... I really want to bring in the concept that if someone on my team (in my faction for example) gets something that it is a reason to be happy and not envious.
In war situations any resources that can be gained by ones allies or denied ones enemies is a bonus. So for example I don't want to put a limit or respawn timer on resource nodes because it would make it so players within a faction would have to fight over who gets it and when. It would also encourage camping, territorial disputes, and make it difficult for new players to get necessary resources. So what I envision is a large group heading to a resource node would welcome any and all who happen to want to join them, because that means there will be more of that resource for the faction. Having more people with you mean more backpack space to fill up with valuable metal or energy crystals. Also the larger numbers would make enemy ambushes and other enemy attempts to deny ones faction resources less effective, meaning that for all in the faction it is a win. I think that would promote teamwork, camaraderie, and esprit de corp inside a faction, which is necessary if a faction wants to be successful. So that means there will be no special bonus given to the elite other than the satisfaction of completing the mission. I do realize there are players out there who obsess over leader boards and the acquisition of status symbols, and this game may not be for them
In war situations any resources that can be gained by ones allies or denied ones enemies is a bonus. So for example I don't want to put a limit or respawn timer on resource nodes because it would make it so players within a faction would have to fight over who gets it and when. It would also encourage camping, territorial disputes, and make it difficult for new players to get necessary resources. So what I envision is a large group heading to a resource node would welcome any and all who happen to want to join them, because that means there will be more of that resource for the faction. Having more people with you mean more backpack space to fill up with valuable metal or energy crystals. Also the larger numbers would make enemy ambushes and other enemy attempts to deny ones faction resources less effective, meaning that for all in the faction it is a win. I think that would promote teamwork, camaraderie, and esprit de corp inside a faction, which is necessary if a faction wants to be successful. So that means there will be no special bonus given to the elite other than the satisfaction of completing the mission. I do realize there are players out there who obsess over leader boards and the acquisition of status symbols, and this game may not be for them
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)