This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

Discussion / Re: Moving from 2D to 3D

« on: June 02, 2011, 05:30:37 am »

If it's not too late to respond, I'd like to offer my suggestions.

- Do you use a particular engine to make 3D games? (Preferably something using C, C++ or Python)

Well, you have several choices.

Unity 3D is an excellent engine, it supports C#, Boo (a Python implementation), and Javascript (or rather, a built-in scripting language that is syntactically based on Javascript). It's powerful, flexible, and is fairly simple to learn. It's also 100% free. Or rather, there is a free version available. This version is still quite full-featured, and the free license allows you to use it for commercial purposes if you plan on going that route. The paid version is pretty expensive, but more full-featured. You shouldn't have to worry about that for some time though, as again, the free version is still very powerful.

Another upside to Unity is it can build for most major platforms. You can publish games for Mac, PC, and even browser-based games with the free version of Unity. Certain paid versions of Unity can also publish for PS3, Wii, 360, iPhone, and Android.


Another fantastic free engine is Unreal Engine 3 (also known as Unreal Development Kit, or UDK). It's more powerful than the free version of Unity, but also requires more in terms of hardware to run. I can't speak to ease of use, having no personal experience with the engine, but I'm sure it's decent in that department. However, it only supports a scripting language called Unrealscript, so if you have a preferred language, you'll have to compromise on that. Again, this engine is *incredibly* powerful and totally free.

I'm sure there are other quality free engines out there besides those two, but none come to mind.


- What tools do you use to create animations, terrains, etc.? In what file format do you keep models and textures? How do you import and animate them?

Let's see, for creating 3d models, animations, and other assets, there are several packages out there. Most of them cost quite a bit of money, but some of them are free or have free versions available.

There's an open source, free modeling and animation tool out there called Blender, that supports most major modeling and animation formats. Its functionality is okay, but from what I can tell ease of use is not its strongsuit. The UI's a bit hard to work with (however, I hear recently it's gone through quite a major UI overhaul).

Then there are the commercial quality packages like 3dsMax  and Maya. These packages are quite expensive, but the manufacturer of those two apps, Autodesk, does offer a free version to college students.

There are several major file formats for storing animations and models. One industry standard for basic model storage is .obj(though I believe .obj doesn't support textures), and a popular format for storing models with animations is .fbx. Many apps support these formats. Maya also uses a pair of formats called .mb and .ma for storing files, and 3ds max also has a format I can't remember the name of right now.

Terrains can be modelled out in your 3d app of choice, but some game engines also have a toolkit for creating terrains in the engine itself. Unity has a built-in terrain system, and I'm fairly certain Unreal does as well.

Usually it's a better idea to animate your models in your modelling app, rather than in the game engine. Unity has the ability to create animations in the editor, but I far prefer to use Maya for this job and import them into Unity later. Although, Unreal apparently has an excellent cut-scene creating tool called Matinee.

When it comes to importing your assets, I'm sure the UI of whatever engine you use will help make it clear how to do that.

 - Do you use effects like reflections, shadows, alpha blending, normal maps, Phong interpolation, etc.? (all of these seem to be a pain to make work in OpenGL...)

Yes. All of this stuff is much, much easier to do using a game engine and 3d animation apps. For instance, Maya can generate normal maps automatically, taking a base mesh to apply it to and a detail mesh to get the normal information from, and applying this normal map in your engine should be easy. Phong interpolation comes down to a shader you can simply drag and drop onto your objects in your game engine. Reflections also comes down to built-in shaders, or even shaders you write yourself.

Unity doesn't support real-time lighting-based shadows in the free version, but Unreal does. However, the free version of Unity does support lightmapping to fake shadows, and I'm sure there's all kinds of stuff you could do with custom shaders to get proper shadowing effects.
- What about collision detection and physics? Do you use any techniques different from 2D?

Well, if you're using an engine, most of the low-level collision handling and physics code will already be written for you, and you'll simply be accessing methods and classes from the existing physics API.


I hope that was all helpful information. Let me know how it goes! Or, since this answer is a bit late, let me know how it went.

2

Feedback / Re: Hit the reset button?

« on: January 07, 2011, 08:25:16 pm »

Now, I have also said this to the staff once. We can make an open source engine (we already have one, but okay), the problem is the programming language. The mindset of the people is this: Novices are afraid to participate to a project, thinking they are not good enough and that they need to acquire the skills first. Thus they do their own projects and they make their own private engines. Ergo, they are not participating and learning things at a much slower pace. Once the novices have the required skills they become experienced users. And their mind set changes to the following: I know the language, there is nothing to gain for me anymore and new novices can learn just find as I did. By finding things out for themselves. Hell no, that they are going to participate on making a tool that would help others learn things and actually make something. So these experienced users move on to the next programming language and becoming novices again.

Like I said before we have an open source engine in development, but only 4Sword and I are working on it. Because most think they are not good enough to understand or they have no interest in GML. The choice for GML was made because novices generally start there before going to C++ or C#. And there are already a number of members experienced in GML. Thus if everyone pitched in a solid engine could have been made and the community could either start working on an engine in another language or on a community game. However there are only 2 people working on it and they also have real life to content with.

Lol, fair enough. That's pretty much how I progressed. And I admit it wasn't very effective, I never made anything particularly special in Game Maker before leaving it behind. I'm currently in the early stages of C# novice as we speak.

You make a lot of valid points. When I came back to the idea of making games I had little to no interest in Game Maker anymore given that I now wanted to learn a more advanced engine or a general purpose language.

I was actually just about to say "Well there's no way I could help, I don't have the skills yet", but I guess that's precisely your point. People learn by doing, even if the code they submit is substandard, it can be improved and they can learn from it. The lack of sharing and everyone trying to keep their code secret like it was some kind of proprietary trade secret isn't helping.

Perhaps I will dust off Game Maker again and try to participate (I haven't touched GML in years, but now's as good a time as any).

3

Feedback / Re: Hit the reset button?

« on: January 07, 2011, 06:59:14 am »

Okay, it's not gravedigging if it's one of the few topics on this whole board.  

I have to agree with those who said that it's really the toolset that's missing. Asking people to spend as much effort on a fangame with largely premade game mechanics as they would with a completely original game is a tall order, and perhaps it's asking a bit much. The draw people have to a fangame is to add their original ideas and stories to an existing universe and framework. Then they end up spending all their time until they give up trying to get a working walking engine. And to be honest, fangaming is just a stepping stone anyway, using a pre-made world to explore one's creativity and coding skills until one has learned enough to break away and start on unique projects of their own.

Perhaps what is needed for any quality Zelda fangames to be completed is a quality Zelda engine, one that is entirely built from the ground up and streamlined for making Zelda games, that also allows one to script their own custom behaviors. Something that allows them to focus on the content of the quest rather than on the minutiae of setting up low-level basic game mechanics. A Game Maker engine simply isn't the same thing. The closest thing we have to something like this is ZQuest, and I'm not sure how much it's improved since I was a user (around 3-4 years ago), but it was incredibly lacking in features when I saw it, and you couldn't make much beyond the simple NES Zelda gameplay with some additional items thrown in.

Perhaps something like that could pump life into the community, people actively working together to build such an engine? After all, most of the long-time users have long since graduated to using real programming languages.

...or perhaps it would be a complete waste of time as it would be too large a project to ever get finished, or worse, it would come to fruition and noobies would still not have the drive to finish their game even with the Zelda architecture laid out on a platter for them. After all, there's no limit to how far some people's visions outmatch their dedication.

No other game save Shadowgazer has been able to fill that giant, gaping hole. And King Mob, like any responsible developer, saw his chance to elevate the game to a different level and took it.

Speaking of which, I haven't heard much on Shadowgazer since KM decided to take it private. Any news on development?

4

Coding / Re: Whatever happened to Infini's C# tutorials?

« on: October 12, 2010, 05:53:31 am »

That's excellent!  

It's a shame he never finished them. Why is that? Was there simply not enough interest? Not enough users with the skill to follow through and actually learn from the tutorials? Or were the tutorials simply a huge time sink for Infini with not enough benefit?

5

Coding / Whatever happened to Infini's C# tutorials?

« on: October 12, 2010, 12:21:17 am »

I remember that like 2 years ago, Infini started a tutorial series on writing a Zelda game in C#. Now, I'm pretty sure the tutorial series was never finished, but I was just wondering where those threads WERE.

I've been looking for them, and I can't seem to find them, even in the archives.

Here's the thread where he originally discussed starting the series:

http://www.zfgc.com/forum/index.php?topic=24531.0

I remember him actually having started it, but now they're nowhere to be found.

6

Zelda Projects / Re: [Screens] Majora's Mask remake using UDK

« on: October 11, 2010, 11:15:45 pm »

EDIT: nvmd.

This project looks very good!

7

Updates / Re: E3 2010 Nintendo Press Conference Summary

« on: June 16, 2010, 05:23:55 pm »

From everything I've heard in articles/seen in videos, apart from the shameful demonstration due to wireless interference, Skyward Sword's controls are very responsive, very responsive. Miyamoto did a do-over later in a more secluded environment so he could show the game as he'd intended. I'll admit I was disappointed by Miyamoto's original showing, but everything that came later lifted my spirits about the game.

The floor demo, for instance, had no problems. I saw a video of some random guy at the press conference getting a whack at the demo and he seemed to have absolutely NO trouble whatsoever. Everything he did went off without a hitch. In fact, it was almost too seamless, as the Deku Baba didn't really seem to pose any threat when the controller was working properly.

http://kotaku.com/5564197/the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword-video-preview-starring-me

It's a shame we didn't get to see Skyward Sword as it was meant to be played at the actual conference, but there is every indication that their talk of wireless interference was not BS or excuses but a legitimate problem. Everything I've seen of Skyward Swor'd gameplay since then has impressed me.

8

Zelda Projects / Re: [DEMO] (Pre-Production, Unity pg.12) 3D-LoZ: Goddess of Darkness/—_‚̈Å

« on: June 16, 2010, 06:18:38 am »

Ah, nice to see this project is still going. I think I remember when this thread was posted.

Anyway, I've recently switched to Unity too, for a multiplayer Zelda fangame. I would love to talk about how you set certain things up in Unity, as I'm still figuring much of the implementation for my game out.

9

Coding / Conway's Game of Life

« on: July 01, 2009, 11:16:14 pm »

For those who don't know what it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

So basically, it's just a system of rules that governs whether any cell in a grid is empty or filled.

Anyways, I'm programming it in GM, which shouldn't be terribly hard, as it's a really simple system of rules. However, here's what I want to know:

I could probably set it up to where there's always an object in each cell, and it just flips it between two states by checking its neighbors. The problem with that is, I don't want to do that because I'd have to place an instance in every square of the grid, and I don't want a crapload of instances when I move to a larger grid.

So, is there any way I can simply use a single controller object that can check all the positions by itself, rather than have each cell do it separately?

10

Zelda Projects / Re: [WIP]The Legend of Zelda : Return to the Mask

« on: May 07, 2009, 10:23:59 pm »

Looks promising, and I look forward to playing the MM demo you made for the competition.



But a lot of your story references don't make sense. Like the Gerudo bridge having been "repaired"...except it hadn't broken yet.  If this is two years after Majora's Mask, than it's 5 years before what happened with Adult Link (before he rewound time).

Or how Lake Hylia has become a beach resort now that Morpha is gone and the lake is peaceful...only Morpha wasn't ever outside the temple causing problems, and Morpha was never let loose in the temple to begin with (since Ganon is gone)...so wasn't the Lake already peaceful?


Other than a few things like that, this looks great, and I'm really looking forward to it.

11

Zelda Projects / Re: [WIP] My Legend of Zelda fan game

« on: May 07, 2009, 10:10:50 pm »

Looking good. 

So, where did you download those models from? I've been looking for a good TP rip.

12

Zelda Projects / Re: [WIP] My Legend of Zelda fan game

« on: April 29, 2009, 04:04:29 am »

Looking good. 

So, where did you download those models from? I've been looking for a good TP rip.

13

Zelda Projects / Re: [Demo] The Legend of Zelda: The Shadowgazer (17/03/2009 - update)

« on: April 05, 2009, 07:00:14 am »

Heres the way I see it: No matter how many of us give our opinion on this, we can't possibly know the subtleties of this situation well enough to really know what you should do. The only one who can do that is you, since you're the one who knows this project.

Having said that, I'd still like to give my opinion. 

With an original game, the problem is that you've already developed this game as a Zelda game. All of the gameplay is based on Zelda, much of the artwork, etc. The foundation of it has been based on Zelda. If you chose to make it an original work, just avoiding looking like a Zelda clone might require so much extra work that you pretty much have to rebuild from the ground up...which might actually be totally worth it to start something of your own.

If you keep the fangame (LoZ: ShadowGazer), you'd have the satisfaction of finishing a game, but there would be no profits.

The original work might still give you the satisfaction of finishing a game, but you could actually take it somewhere.

One final thing, though...whatever you do, do what you WANT to do with it. The last thing you want to do is make a decision that will take the art from the game, and the passion that you've put into developing it. If changing it into an original game would hurt your ability to appreciate the process, to enjoy making the game, and be satisfied when it's done, don't do it. The same goes for the fangame: if simply making a Zelda fangame isn't enough anymore, and you'd be more fullfilled with an original work, go with that.

So what I'm saying is, maybe don't make the choice on the money aspect, make it based on which would fulfill you more. If money isn't a factor, which would you rather do: something completely your own or an individual spin on a well-loved franchise? And that's a hard question.

14

Updates / Re: Afluent in Game Maker?

« on: March 22, 2009, 09:03:59 pm »

I know, I was the person doing a lot of the answering.

Lol, oops, now I feel dumb.  I was actually just looking at the file with your name on it, too, so I guess I just had a bit of a brain fart.

The main point of this news item/topic is to get those most capable to help out with the standardization and "root" of the engine. It is not as if these will be the only people working on it, not at all. However, to get things rolling, those who know how to do things well will be given first access.

Oh, I see, that makes sense. 

15

Updates / Re: Afluent in Game Maker?

« on: March 22, 2009, 08:03:38 pm »

I'm not exactly a fantastic Game Maker programmer, but I'm improving fast. I'm ashamed to admit, a few months ago I was actually asking someone how to check for the position of an object in GML. But as I said, I'm improving rapidly.

16

MC Link's Awakening / Re: Community Project's Game

« on: March 22, 2009, 07:49:02 pm »

Come on people, don't just stop posting the moment we decide what game to do.

17

MC Link's Awakening / Re: Community Project's Game

« on: March 17, 2009, 03:04:40 am »

None of the above.

Zelda II: Adventure of Link

I'd give it a 3d face lift like what they did with Castlevania for the PSP.
Possibly have someone rip models from SSB or something.

No one really touches z2 and it would be nice to see something different for once.
Plus, you can "fix" some of the things that were criticized with it and/or add new features.

It's a basic sidescroller with rpg elements that would be somewhat simple to code and work together with other fangame coders.

The only main stepping stone would be getting a 3d modeler.

Not really. I'm an experienced 3d modeler, I've been doing it for years. I'm no programmer (beyond GML), but I can whip up some good models. I'd actually say that's one of the smaller hurdles.

Having said that, I really don't think that would work as a community project...like, at all. You'd have one overworked modeler and a few of the more skilled C programmers.

Plus, I think you underestimate the hurdles of programming a 3d game.

It is a pretty epic idea though.

EDIT: Oh, are you saying keep it a side-scroller, just with 3d models? That's definitely more feasible than what I thought you were saying, but I still stand by everything I said before. Not really a viable Community Project.

18

MC Link's Awakening / Re: Community Project's Game

« on: March 16, 2009, 10:04:24 pm »

A regular 2d community project has already failed (a really great one, I might add), I don't know how something like Oot2d or MM2d is supposed to actually be finished when our other community project failed.

How so? With the "King of Thieves" game, we had to come up with everything, including any original game-mechanics (tight-rope, magic carpet, pick-pocketing), from scratch. In fact, to be honest, I think our inability to solidify the gameplay was what killed it. Pick-pocketing, etc., became a back and forth that never ended, because there was always "one more idea" that could make it better. And to an extent, there wasn't really anyone to "cut the crap" and make the final decision.

MM2d or OoT2d would actually be easier, because the story from beginning to end, the basic style, and all the gameplay mechanics are already pretty much laid out for us. MM2d or OoT2D are only hard because, as has been mentioned, people are unwilling to compromise certain 3d features. They try to make things exactly as they were in the original, when it's all but impossible to do. They want the Forest Temple to have the twisty hallway, they want Gohma to drop down from the ceiling when you look up at her. If they would learn to compromise a little, they wouldn't actually be any harder than an ordinary fan-game.

I miss the old Community Project, though, to be honest. Maybe if we just started over, cleared out all the old threads, and just distilled the key points of the original idea (theive's gang, Ganondorf in disguise, pick-pocketing and magic carpet, rich and poor side of town, rival thief, a few other things), it might be feasable again. The problem was the idea got too bloated. Ideas were flying every which way until it became cluttered, with noone to say "no more", but the original concept is still rock-solid, I think.

19

MC Link's Awakening / Re: Community Project's Game

« on: March 16, 2009, 04:34:39 am »

I agree with the above. Too many 3D-to-2D attempts fail because of some 3D element that the creator can't dumb down into 2D. If it can't be done, find a way around it.

Or, to be more precise, if it can't be dumbed down, replace it with something workable. 

I think I already said that, buried somewhere in my little rant.

20

MC Link's Awakening / Re: Community Project's Game

« on: March 16, 2009, 01:29:48 am »

Well, despite my somewhat unneccessary rant, I still say Majora's Mask.