Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Indie Friendly Development Tools

DakaSha

Arcane
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
4,792
Not really a tool but does anybody know of a good general programmers chat? Something one can always be connected to to ask/answer questions?
 

Severian Silk

Guest
DakaSha said:
Not really a tool but does anybody know of a good general programmers chat? Something one can always be connected to to ask/answer questions?

Try StackExchange. They have a gaming-specific section too. I haven't always gotten the answer I needed, but the responses were nonetheless pretty good, and they answer quickly.
 

Castanova

Prophet
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
2,949
Location
The White Visitation
I recommend using SDL or OpenGL/SDL to roll your own graphics/IO library. If you're new to programming, there's simply no chance you'll finish the game anyway, even if you use a game programming library, so you might as well spend the time to really educate yourself along the way. That way your second attempt at a game has some real potential.
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
In case anyone hasn't heard, Torque's alive again (for now at least), and down to $99 for either the 3d version or the 2d version. I bought a Torque3d license a few weeks back, mainly just for kicks - and now I'm almost considering using it.

In other news, I'd recommend "The art of game design: a book of lenses" to anyone involved in designing a game. It's the best game design book I've read, mostly because it deals with many concepts that could be applied to any game/genre, rather than being a "Here's what you do to make [game-genre-X]" book - which tend only to be useful if you're going through the motions of 'design' in creating the-same-tired-shit.
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
If history is any guide:
I'll be loading the engine up occasionally, staring at the screen and thinking for a while, then concluding I need to do more design work before starting. The design will then gradually evolve from simple-but-a-little-dull, into genuinely-interesting-yet-hugely-impractical. At that point it'll get stuck in storage, on the basis that trying something simpler first would make a lot more sense. A simpler project will be conceived, and I'll be loading the engine up occasionally....


Naturally it's my intention to break the cycle of idiocy. That's part of my motivation for having a go with Torque this time (previously I'd been loading-up-and-staring-at C4). Whatever Torque's sins it appears that it'll be much more straightforward to get some simple prototype running - largely because there's already a scripting language integrated. With C4, you either need to hardcode stuff, or, more sensibly, to add your own scripting language on top of it (the graphical scripting in C4 is no substitute once things get at all complex). That means a load more work on setting up a suitable framework when using C4 - which is all the excuse I need to avoid ever getting to the concrete stage.

The current aim is to create a Squad-Tactics-with-a-bit-of-RPG, largely combat-focused. In an ideal world I'd like to include a load of interesting and novel non-combat elements, but that's usually where the madness sets in. Probably most of the significant non-combat choices would be in terms of who/when/where to fight.

Of course things would be too dull without at least a sprinkling of madness, so the aim is to have almost all combat actions be highly contextual. E.g. the entire environment might be swimming with weird-scifi/magical (setting is only defined in abstract terms so far) energies, which are influenced by character actions, and influence characters in turn - the interesting part being the bit in between, where the energies of multiple characters' actions combine (according to some coherent 'physics') to create different outcomes that depend on the specifics of many inputs.
Obviously there are going to be many more arrangements that create a total mess, than create an interesting environment full of planning potential, and emergent outcomes. Coming up with a way to test things out is also vexingly non-trivial - much too complex to work with pencil+paper+thought, and heavily reliant on rich graphical feedback. I'm pretty sure something ought to work though. Since we're in the realm of weird-scifi/magical energies, I can use whatever hugely contrived mechanics create an interesting combat environment.

In broader "campaign-level" terms, I'd be going with the usual gubbins - medium/long-term time pressure, extra content opened up through 'failure' (so combat losses shouldn't mean reloading), a range of long-term changes depending on which factions you fight, as well as how well you do.... But that's all really to add variety/consequence/meaning to the core gameplay. If the combat sucks, everything will suck - so that's what I'm going to focus on to start with (and for the foreseeable future).

Anyway, as ever, breath-holding would be ill-advised. There's a lot to be fucked up on many levels.

Oh, I should mention that I'm also uncertain on the whole Turn-based/Phase-based/RTwP/... issue at present. A pure form of turn-based only really works where you have entirely discrete actions/effects that can reasonably be calculated in isolation - which is nothing like the situation here. However, I've never really liked RTwP - even if the incentive for near-constant pausing is addressed, you still have the all-kinds-of-shit-going-on-at-once issue, which means you can't focus on the actions of each character, and the direct consequences of those actions. My current inclination is to go for a prelude-to-darkness style of TB for character actions, with effectively real-time environmental simulation (whether actual real-time, or environment-takes-one-'action'-every-time-unit), but even that is going to be a bit weird in terms of environmental effect combinations: only the direct consequences of some character action can be determined/displayed as the character takes his turn, since the indirect consequences are contingent on all-kinds-of-shit, and may in general last for an unknown time.
That means you'd still have the all-kinds-of-shit-going-on-at-once issue to an extent. The distinction from RTwP/phase-based being that you always had time to focus entirely on each character's actions and their direct consequences.

I'm sure I'll post more about it at some point - at least once I stop changing my mind on the fundamentals three times daily, and start getting something remotely concrete done.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
7,428
Location
Villainville
MCA
Just make a prototype with the absolute bare minimum features. Everything will become bearable and reachable after that. Meditating on undecided features before taking the slightest actions is to most wasteful thing.
 
Self-Ejected

Davaris

Self-Ejected
Developer
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
6,547
Location
Idiocracy
galsiah said:
If history is any guide:
That's part of my motivation for having a go with Torque this time (previously I'd been loading-up-and-staring-at C4). Whatever Torque's sins it appears that it'll be much more straightforward to get some simple prototype running - largely because there's already a scripting language integrated. With C4, you either need to hardcode stuff, or, more sensibly,

I don't want to get into a war here, but are you saying you don't know how to get started with C4? Have you bought the community book? I did and it got me rolling in no time.

As for visual scripting I have seen one argument in the C4 forums, about visual vs text script.

Speaking as someone who has made an RPG using scripts, I will never go back to textual scripting, as searching for logical bugs was tedious and it turned me off game making, for a long time. So visual scripting is one of the key features that sold me on C4.

This is a comparison of C4's graphical scripting vs Kismet.

http://www.terathon.com/wiki/index.php/ ... _Languages


galsiah said:
to add your own scripting language on top of it (the graphical scripting in C4 is no substitute once things get at all complex).

galsiah said:
I'll be loading the engine up occasionally, staring at the screen and thinking for a while, then concluding I need to do more design work before starting.

These two statements are contradictory. Are you basing your comments (on graphical scripting) on personal experience, or the opinion of someone else?


galsiah said:
That means a load more work on setting up a suitable framework when using C4 - which is all the excuse I need to avoid ever getting to the concrete stage.

The problem with engines that are easy to get up and running, is they aren't suitable for making big complex games like RPGs. The creator of C4 has the philosophy of 'no more complex than it needs to be and no less'. So yes, it takes effort to understand C4 and get started, but it will save you a lot of aggravation down the road, as your code base becomes complex. Speaking as someone who has made this mistake before (cutting corners or being lazy early on), it creates a huge amount of work for you later.


I don't want to come across as a C4 fan boy, but I've tried the other engines in this price range and IMO this is the best quality for the price and I am porting my old RPG engine to it.

At any rate, I want to tell people to search around the internet and see what other programmers who have used Torque think of it, before you spend money with them. Do not use rating systems like Devmaster, as certain game companies have marketing people on them, putting up glowing reviews.

Word of mouth by programmers that have used these engines, will tell you everything you need to know.
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
Davaris said:
I don't want to get into a war here, but are you saying you don't know how to get started with C4?
I'm saying I didn't get started - but that's mostly due to my own daftness rather than the engine. If I'd known precisely what I wanted to achieve, I'd probably have been fine.

Have you bought the community book? I did and it got me rolling in no time.
Yes - and I'm sure it'd have me rolling if I got into it. I just don't think it'd roll me far in the direction I want to go.

As for visual scripting I have seen one argument in the C4 forums, about visual vs text script.... visual scripting is one of the key features that sold me on C4.
I'd be fine with visual scripts if I wanted to use them to script isolated behaviours directly. That's not really what I want to do. I'd want to use a scripting language to set up general systems that I can play with without needing to recompile anything. I want to be able to use inheritance, create new object types, and generally screw around with stuff - essentially to have a C++ substitute for sections where versatility is more important than performance. I think Torquescript should be able to handle that kind of thing, but if you wanted to do it with C4 I think you'd be best advised to integrate Lua or similar.
I don't think C4 scripting is set up to do that kind of thing. Rather it's aimed at defining individual behaviours, for existing C++ defined objects (in much the same way that the visual shader editor handles things well for isolated shaders). That's great as far as it goes, but I don't think it's suitable for the construction of larger systems.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but everything I've seen leads me to that conclusion.


Interesting comment, because you said above you can't get started? So are you basing this on your own personal experience, or that of someone else?
My own assessment of the tools available within the scripting system, and through reading docs/forums. I'm sure it's a great system for writing scripts - that's just not what I'm after. The kind of things I'd want to do in the scripting language, are what you'd usually do in C++ in C4.
This isn't really a criticism of C4 - it has a good scripting editor for writing simple scripts, and it's pretty reasonable not to include any text-based scripting language, since that allows people the option to use whichever they deem suitable. I'm simply saying that if you want to set up a load of your game's systems using a scripting language, it'll take you longer to get started with C4, since you wouldn't want to do that with its visual tool.

Perhaps it's wrong-headed/pointless to want to do so much in a scripting language, but I think it makes some sense. If I'm making a mistake, I think it's in assessing where I want to go, rather than in assessing whether C4's scripting is suitable to get there.


The problem with engines that are easy to get up and running, is they aren't suitable for making big complex games like RPGs. The creator of C4 has the philosophy of 'no more complex than it needs to be and no less'. So yes, it takes effort to understand C4 and get started, but it will save you a lot of aggravation down the road, as your code base becomes complex.
This is largely the reason I didn't start trying to get C4's scripting to do what I'd want it to - it's pretty easy to get up and running, but it's not suitable for constructing any complex game systems. I think Eric would envisage that you'd do all that in C++ - so the scripting system isn't designed to handle it. I'd rather be able to make significant systemic changes without needing to mess with the source code all the time - and more generally, to allow other people to mess with things without needing C++ access.
Again, perhaps it's a foolish/unnecessary aim.


I don't want to come across as a C4 fan boy, but I've tried the other engines in this price range and IMO this is the best quality for the price and I am porting my old RPG engine to it.
C4 hasn't given me any huge problems I wouldn't have had with any other engine: my primary obstacle has always been that I've had no clear idea exactly what I want to achieve (which isn't anything particularly conventional, either in a technical, or game-mechanical sense).
It's not too helpful when it comes to procedural generation of worlds - but I guess that goes for most engines. The documentation also becomes pretty thin/non-existent once you start digging around to achieve less common ends - e.g. setting up a dynamic vertex buffer to throw some arbitrary dynamic per-vertex data at a shader. You can do it, but it's not too user-friendly. [you need to copy the approach from the undocumented (when I looked at it) cloth code]


At any rate, I want to tell people to search around the internet and see what other programmers who have used Torque think of it, before you spend money with them.
Judging by the C4 forums, I'm fairly surprised that I've managed to install Torque3d without my PC bursting into flames :). Of course I've read huge amounts of Torque horror-stories, and contrasting praise of C4's clean code/design... - which is why I didn't go near Torque until it got dirt cheap.
If I run into a load of problems with Torque, I might well head back to C4. In either case, the fact that my design is full of gaping holes will be the greatest obstacle. I'd rather not be stuck writing everything significant in C++ though. [of course I'm aware that integrating Lua would be hardly any work compared to the work involved in writing the game - but then I'm a lazy idiot :D]

Word of mouth by programmers that have used these engines, will tell you everything you need to know.
While you can't discount such opinions, it's worth noting that this group is unlikely to be a random sample of the programming population: those who were entirely happy with Torque probably wouldn't have moved on to C4, and be in a position to make the comparison. If you poll the people walking away from something in disgust, you'll generally get quite a few negative opinions.
That's not to say that they're not right on many counts - just that they're not a random sample, so it wouldn't make sense to treat such evidence as though it provided an objective picture.
 
Self-Ejected

Davaris

Self-Ejected
Developer
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
6,547
Location
Idiocracy
I bought C4 very late last year when I heard they included impostors and saw their scripting system. I looked at it several years before that, but it was fps only, so I rejected it.

Before that I used Unity and Leadwerks. Both really good engines for what they are, but not what I needed. C4 is for making big games IMO and he does all the ground work for you related to making a finished complex game.

The things I have been reading about Torque, are from every programmer forum I have visited over the last 5 or 6 years and possibly further back.

So yeah, ask around before you spend your money folks. Ask at places like Gamedev, Indie Gamer, or your favorite game making forum. Ask your friends who bought Torque what they think of the code base, the documentation and the customer service.


I see what you are saying about scripting, as I already know what I need to do to make the games I like. For me its a matter of dropping in what I know works and then making it work in C4. It sounds like you want something to prototype ideas in.
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
Sure, I can't argue with that. It makes sense to go in with your eyes open - if at all. I'm sure anyone who does any research will get quite a few "Torque sucks because..." perspectives. At $99 it is at least worth thinking about. Though of course you're right that an early bonus (whether in quick-startup, or in cold-hard-cash) will be dwarfed by whatever issues show up later - for any engine.

Personally, I mainly licensed Torque as a curiosity, without much intention of using it for anything serious. It is nice to have options, and to see the merits/hideous-flaws of different approaches. But the scripting is enticing....


Re the scripting - prototyping is one thing I'm after, but I doubt I'll every really finish that aspect: once quite a bit of the game is done, I guess I'll still want to mess around with some systems pretty heavily. Of course that'd be possible in C++ - just a bit more time-consuming (at least where relatively small changes are concerned).
 
Self-Ejected

Davaris

Self-Ejected
Developer
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
6,547
Location
Idiocracy
galsiah said:
I guess I'll still want to mess around with some systems pretty heavily. Of course that'd be possible in C++ - just a bit more time-consuming (at least where relatively small changes are concerned).

When you are ready to make something in C++, check back in the C4 Community Contributed Tools area. I'm considering releasing something that uses Tiny XML files, to generate enum files, editor ready C4 Properties, custom interfaces for the Properties, string tables and static wrapper classes, that given a C4 Node, attempts to find a Property and run the function on it. It might be what you need to build, or rebuild game ready RPG data structures quickly.

The only thing stopping me releasing it at this point, apart from I am still debugging it, is I don't know if it will be too kludgy. :oops:
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
That does sound nifty. I think it makes sense to release it at some point, kludgy or otherwise - if there are clear ways to do things more cleanly, I'm sure someone will let you know; if not, then it's only as kludgy as it needs to be.


Now that I think about it more, I'm not really sure I'd want/need complex scripting that's tied in to the engine anyway. Most/all of what I'd want to be tinkering with on-the-fly would be fairly high-level game concepts, that'd have little to do with the specifics of the engine. In many ways, it'd be neater to have a high-level scripting system be entirely independent of the engine.
It's still nice that TorqueScript is already in place, but it's not as though I'd particularly want script access to an engine API - only to my own game concepts/systems. As far as possible, I'd want to keep most game systems away from engine-based stuff.

Maybe I will have another bash with C4. At least I'm a little more aware of the issue with dynamic-vertex-buffers-talking-to-shaders there - even if it does mean sifting through source and getting frustrated. Once I get that sorted, I think my current plan for a prototype might actually be reasonable - not quite trivial enough to be utterly irrelevant, but simple enough that it's eminently doable. If it works, that'll mean that the fundamentals of the game are at least feasible - so the other 99% should be downhill all the way :).
 

mister_matt

Educated
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
99
This might be off topic - but does anyone know where I can get a cheap version control set up somewhere? Git or SVN is preferred. I have read about sites that will sell you the ability to host a project or two for like 6 or 7 a month for a few 'team members' similar in fashion to hosts that will sell you 'web space' and ftp access or what have you. Much like web hosting providers I am having trouble finding what seems to be a decent one from the many. Most review sites are just affiliates trying to cash in. Suggestions welcome.

:salute:
 

Chateaubryan

Cipher
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
369
Broiffic thread.

By any chance, would any of you guys know of an Indie-friendly program that allows to design dialog/quest trees ? At the moment, I'm doing it with Excel and I gloriously spend as much time writing dialog as putting them in a readable format.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616
I'm surprised XNA is not mentioned in the first post of this thread. It allows pretty quick development and the same source code can be packaged to run on Windows, Xbox, or Windows Phone 7.

I've been playing around with it recently and been rather impressed.

It requires that you use C#, which at this point is a better version of Java. You will also want to use Visual Studio, but there are free/student versions of that available.

http://create.msdn.com/en-US/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA

There is a small licensing fee ($100/year) to submit a game to Xbox Live, but you can develop them for free until they are complete. Sales on Xbox Live give 70% to the developer. As far as I know you could release on Windows, avoid the fee, and keep 100%.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom