The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 14, 2019, 09:36:50 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  why don't we make it ourselves?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Print
Author Topic: why don't we make it ourselves?  (Read 30269 times)
general_klefenz
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29



View Profile
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #60 on: December 14, 2008, 04:24:59 am »

Game Maker is event driven, you drag and drop actions in the events.
And yes, it does have a scripting language, similar to C.
I already made the limpets work, now it's time for AI.
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #61 on: December 14, 2008, 04:41:35 pm »

Uhhhh... Care to elaborate on "good quality" ?? Quality is what one puts into somthing methinks.

Gameplay is the big one, but there's also:

1. Graphics
2. Music/sounds
3. Performance
4. Space
5. Number of different OS's it's available for

Those are the big five. The big thing that GM can't do is make a game that can run on multiple OS's, since it is limited by DirectX.

Space is also minutely affected since there are so many built-in variables and constants, most of which don't end up being used in any given game. Because of this, performance drops slightly.

More importantly, GM doesn't handle music very well. It only supports MIDI and WAV directly, which is yet another DirectX limitation. If you use MIDI, a bug in GM is noticed, freezing the game for for almost a half second before looping. If you use WAV, you take up massive amounts of space, lowering performance dramatically. Finally, if you choose to use the normal media player to use other types of music (i.e. mp3), you are unable to adjust the volume at all or use other controls, and you inevitably hear a break when the track loops, however small.

Graphics are only limited slightly: Since GM always treats transparent colors as white and instead treats the color in the bottom left corner as transparent (unadjustable), you are forced with certain sprites to add at least one more row or column to the sprite, increasing the amount of space each of these sprites takes.

Well you are describing limitations to the scripting program itself. I won't argue symantics, but "quality" to me means somthing completely different. There are "quality" games on an old 8 bit console just as there are on a more modern 32 or 64 bit system for example. Quality to me is somthing put into a product and there are definately some quality games posted over at Yoyo and various fan sites.
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #62 on: December 15, 2008, 07:16:36 am »

Well you are describing limitations to the scripting program itself. I won't argue symantics, but "quality" to me means somthing completely different. There are "quality" games on an old 8 bit console just as there are on a more modern 32 or 64 bit system for example. Quality to me is somthing put into a product and there are definately some quality games posted over at Yoyo and various fan sites.

I think the two of you are arguing about different qualities. jaychant is talking about the quality of programming, i.e how well written the code is and how well it conserves space/memory and so forth. You are talking about the actual quality of the game, which IMO isn't that closely correlated with the coding style. Yoyo games may not fulfill all of jaychants requirments for quality coding (although I've no idea if his list is something univeraslly recognized or a personal opinion), but that doesn't mean the quality of the games there are necessarily bad. A game can be quite brilliant even if it is coded in a sloppy and silly way, as long as it works.

Take EP:s example with the VUX limpet code. The code seems needlessly complicated and bothersome, and could have been written better. That doesn't mean that the game suffers, limpets still work just fine.
Logged

What's up doc?
Shiver
Guest


Email
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #63 on: December 15, 2008, 12:23:57 pm »

Take EP:s example with the VUX limpet code. The code seems needlessly complicated and bothersome, and could have been written better. That doesn't mean that the game suffers, limpets still work just fine.

Maybe he'll rewrite it. If he's too not busy trying to make a planet lander boss with spacequakes, spacefires and spacelighting for his arcade game that uses UQM's engine.
Logged
jaychant
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 432


Please visit my homepage


View Profile WWW
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #64 on: December 15, 2008, 12:32:19 pm »

(although I've no idea if his list is something univeraslly recognized or a personal opinion)

personal opinion.

right now i'm programming the vux intruder, can someone tell me exactly how do the limpets work?

When they hit a ship, they increase its turn wait and thrust wait by 1 frame each. That is, it takes one more frame between each time it turns 1/16 of a circle, and one more frame between each time you see a thruster trail. They also decrease its thrust increment (how much acceleration it gets for each ion-trail it spits out) and max speed, but their algorithm for doing that is:
1. complicated, and
2. really, really stupid. So you should make up your own.

What is this algorithm that's complicated and  What makes it complicated (and stupid)? Just curious

Quote
jaychant is talking about the quality of programming, i.e how well written the code is and how well it conserves space/memory and so forth.

Right. GM doesn't give you as much control as say C++, so you are limited to what GM has. The biggest example is with DirectX, you:
1. Can only make games for Windows
2. Can only use MIDI and WAV sounds effectively (Actually, I think you can't even use vorbis music. The only alternative I have even been able to use is mp3.)

There is another game creation program that I have found called Game Editor. It offers a lot more control, allows you to compile the game for multiple platforms (i.e. Linux), and leaves most control to the user. It also supports more types of music. (For example, it supports vorbis (OGG) music, although not mp3.) The problem with Game Editor is that it is difficult to understand, which is why I use GM. If I understood it well enough, I would use GE.
Logged

Please visit my homepage.
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #65 on: December 15, 2008, 02:03:24 pm »

Maybe he'll rewrite it. If he's too not busy trying to make a planet lander boss with spacequakes, spacefires and spacelighting for his arcade game that uses UQM's engine.

This sounds hilariously awesome. When are you ready to give us a taste EP?
Logged

What's up doc?
Megagun
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 580


Moo


View Profile
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #66 on: December 15, 2008, 06:56:27 pm »

Problem with tools such as GM is that whilst it is insanely easy to create something simple rather quickly, it can get messy and complicated rather quickly if you try to do anything more advanced, which results in extremely silly, sloppy code that most often patches some parts, yet leave many bugs open and has a few odd quirks as a result. Most likely, general_klefenz will have to rewrite a substantial amount of code if he ever wants a 'sequel' to be made. This is the reason why programmers usually design (think about) something before they start the actual coding, so that they would be able to 'get it right' the first time around. To a non-programmer, this might seem like slacking off or not actually doing anything, but the most vital parts of programming lie in the actual design behind the programming, not the actual programming (code) itself. This becomes more true the higher-level your programming language is. Cleverly designed programs can be expanded and changed quickly, poorly designed programs can't and will need a substantial amount of rewriting.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2008, 06:59:23 pm by Megagun » Logged
jaychant
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 432


Please visit my homepage


View Profile WWW
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #67 on: December 15, 2008, 10:29:41 pm »

Problem with tools such as GM is that whilst it is insanely easy to create something simple rather quickly, it can get messy and complicated rather quickly if you try to do anything more advanced, which results in extremely silly, sloppy code that most often patches some parts, yet leave many bugs open and has a few odd quirks as a result. Most likely, general_klefenz will have to rewrite a substantial amount of code if he ever wants a 'sequel' to be made. This is the reason why programmers usually design (think about) something before they start the actual coding, so that they would be able to 'get it right' the first time around. To a non-programmer, this might seem like slacking off or not actually doing anything, but the most vital parts of programming lie in the actual design behind the programming, not the actual programming (code) itself. This becomes more true the higher-level your programming language is. Cleverly designed programs can be expanded and changed quickly, poorly designed programs can't and will need a substantial amount of rewriting.

This happened with Bowser: The Betrayal. I was working WAY too fast, so I ended up having code that could be compared to Microsoft code. In short, it was/is a mess.
Logged

Please visit my homepage.
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #68 on: December 15, 2008, 11:36:11 pm »


Quote
Right. GM doesn't give you as much control as say C++, so you are limited to what GM has. The biggest example is with DirectX, you:
1. Can only make games for Windows
2. Can only use MIDI and WAV sounds effectively (Actually, I think you can't even use vorbis music. The only alternative I have even been able to use is mp3.)

There is another game creation program that I have found called Game Editor. It offers a lot more control, allows you to compile the game for multiple platforms (i.e. Linux), and leaves most control to the user. It also supports more types of music. (For example, it supports vorbis (OGG) music, although not mp3.) The problem with Game Editor is that it is difficult to understand, which is why I use GM. If I understood it well enough, I would use GE.

With the appropriate DLLs you can play OGGs etc. in GM. GM did at least allow the programmer to include DLLs which are pre compiled libraries written in C++, Visual Basic etc. But you are absolutely correct if I may surmise that you are saying GM isn't a professional game making platform. Twenty bucks buys a hobbyist's toy meant for free games to be played by anyone with a Windows PC and internet connection.

I'll have to try Game Editor.
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #69 on: December 15, 2008, 11:44:13 pm »

Problem with tools such as GM is that whilst it is insanely easy to create something simple rather quickly, it can get messy and complicated rather quickly if you try to do anything more advanced, which results in extremely silly, sloppy code that most often patches some parts, yet leave many bugs open and has a few odd quirks as a result. Most likely, general_klefenz will have to rewrite a substantial amount of code if he ever wants a 'sequel' to be made. This is the reason why programmers usually design (think about) something before they start the actual coding, so that they would be able to 'get it right' the first time around. To a non-programmer, this might seem like slacking off or not actually doing anything, but the most vital parts of programming lie in the actual design behind the programming, not the actual programming (code) itself. This becomes more true the higher-level your programming language is. Cleverly designed programs can be expanded and changed quickly, poorly designed programs can't and will need a substantial amount of rewriting.

We'll said dude! I couldn't agree more.

btw here's a first I believe.. First music video ever made using Game Maker? I think maybe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DTa31Qi2Co

Logged
general_klefenz
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29



View Profile
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #70 on: December 16, 2008, 01:44:07 am »

well, i still have work to do, but here is an update of what am i doing

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=93B192TR
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=P1A17F0R

the second link is the source code
Logged
jaychant
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 432


Please visit my homepage


View Profile WWW
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #71 on: December 16, 2008, 01:58:00 am »

well, i still have work to do, but here is an update of what am i doing

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=93B192TR
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=P1A17F0R

the second link is the source code

Just curious, why are you using "MegaUpload"? It is quite annoying to wait for 45 seconds before I can download (because I don't want to pay them <_<). I use RSU Upload. It doesn't have that crap, and it works well in my experience.

Also, why can't you just use a plain zip file instead of RAR files? (I also don't feel like buying Winzip, or downloading an alternative cluttered with Adware. <_<)
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 02:08:44 am by jaychant » Logged

Please visit my homepage.
general_klefenz
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29



View Profile
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #72 on: December 16, 2008, 03:16:06 am »

well, if you say RSU upload is better i take your word, also with the zip thing

oh, one thing i forgot to say, if you're gonna try the game remember that the only ships currently working are the cruiser and the intruder, the others sit there and do nothing
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 04:36:47 am by general_klefenz » Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #73 on: December 16, 2008, 06:19:57 am »

Problem with tools such as GM is that whilst it is insanely easy to create something simple rather quickly, it can get messy and complicated rather quickly if you try to do anything more advanced, which results in extremely silly, sloppy code that most often patches some parts, yet leave many bugs open and has a few odd quirks as a result. Most likely, general_klefenz will have to rewrite a substantial amount of code if he ever wants a 'sequel' to be made.

I'm sure this is true, but since the Star Control universe is also lacking small simple games (barring Whack-aSpathi) I still think this is a pretty nice idea. Sure, recreating an existing melee in GM may seem superflous to those who could do it in C/C++. But if nothing else it opens SC up to a wider audience, which can only be good.  And hopefully it might lead to some more small simple SC games that serve the same purpose.

Quote
This is the reason why programmers usually design (think about) something before they start the actual coding, so that they would be able to 'get it right' the first time around. To a non-programmer, this might seem like slacking off or not actually doing anything, but the most vital parts of programming lie in the actual design behind the programming, not the actual programming (code) itself. This becomes more true the higher-level your programming language is. Cleverly designed programs can be expanded and changed quickly, poorly designed programs can't and will need a substantial amount of rewriting.

You know it's great that the real programmers are taking time out of their thinking schedule to explain how one should program, but the fact  is that the SC universe doesn't have many fan based projects that have produced anything. If this guy manages to cobble together a melee, no matter how horrible the code, that still a pretty impressive achievement within this fan community. Hopefully he'll then go on to bigger things, but even if he doesn't he's still achieved something impressive to most of us. Maybe one day someone will surpise us with a sleek and well coded sequel, but I'm not really holding my breath.

Come to think of it, how many actual proper fan created programs are there in the SC fandom? On the mod side we have EP's mods of course, and Kohr-Ah Death's mods. The Cookie mod and Nicholai's mod are unfinished. And actual stand alone programs? I suppose Timewarp/TWX/TW-Lite all work on a melee basis. And Gob of course. Dragons SC1 remake that didn't make his deadline but will hopefully be finished. The above mentioned Whack a-a-Spathi. And this. I'm sure I'm missing something, but I can't put my finger on it.
Logged

What's up doc?
Dragon
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86



View Profile
Re: why don't we make it ourselves?
« Reply #74 on: December 17, 2008, 11:57:24 am »

Dragons SC1 remake that didn't make his deadline but will hopefully be finished.
Yeah it's taking an insane amount of time (mostly because of ... well.... insane design descisions).  I strongly suspect the generals will be completed before it.

I'll bump that thread 'soon as I have something pretty to show.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2008, 11:59:10 am by Dragon » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!