next »

[I_smell]

-If you have to ignore this advice, do
-But try not to have to

That's a pretty messy and unclear sentence. Try doing it again, like:
-You CAN ignore this advice
-but try to avoid it.

or
-but try not to.

or y'know, somethin that's just more readable.
Also I laughed at the phrase "Breakout is a pong-like". I don't know if that's like a regular word in this community, but describin a game as "a pong-like" is fabulous.

[Lord Tim]

I made a background. I think it will be very useful for me.

http://filesmelt.com/dl/whatnottodo.png

[gimymblert]

I do not agree 3D... especially with something like BLITZ3D or UNITY3D, it's easier than 2D
I do not agree Physics... especially with UNITY3D, it's easier than 2D
I do agree networking because i haven't a clue

[Noel Berry]

I do not agree 3D... especially with something like BLITZ3D or UNITY3D, it's easier than 2D
I do not agree Physics... especially with UNITY3D, it's easier than 2D
I do agree networking because i haven't a clue

3D is a lot more complicated when making a game, unless you're using some 3D game creator that gives you no control over what you're making. When you're first starting, or trying to make a game quickly (in a week), 3D (and networking/physics) take a lot more time to do, and you end up with a crappy looking game because you didn't have time to make it fun, or look very good. When making fast prototypes you want to make a game that's enjoyable and really fun to play, not a 3D engine without any gameplay.


And, the presentation looks pretty good I felt you should try to avoid using "funner", but overall I liked it

[gimymblert]

I do not agree 3D... especially with something like BLITZ3D or UNITY3D, it's easier than 2D
I do not agree Physics... especially with UNITY3D, it's easier than 2D
I do agree networking because i haven't a clue

3D is a lot more complicated when making a game, unless you're using some 3D game creator that gives you no control over what you're making. When you're first starting, or trying to make a game quickly (in a week), 3D (and networking/physics) take a lot more time to do, and you end up with a crappy looking game because you didn't have time to make it fun, or look very good. When making fast prototypes you want to make a game that's enjoyable and really fun to play, not a 3D engine without any gameplay.


And, the presentation looks pretty good I felt you should try to avoid using "funner", but overall I liked it

I assume that everybody assume "from scratch" programming, in that case they are right, else they are deeply wrong.

If i want to make a game in one week i would take an environment who give me enough control without having the hassle of doing recurring common thing.

You can make pretty things without resorting to "modeling", composition and design trumps everything when it came to graphics. The cool news is that it is the less "hand skill" part in graphic to get, all you need is to get the basic principle.

My experience with something like blitz3D is that it's easier to come with something in 3D that look way better than 2D and in less time. when I started with blitz3D i had less problem than using Gamemaker.

Here is two day of work:




Ok the main character was a premade model i have find on internet
And the sky is an image from google image (was intended as a placeholder)

But actually it was so easy (one day to get basic plateforming working) i spent most of the time on graphical tweak. What did cost me time? an UNWRAP algorithm to paint the 3D model i had. And during the same time i have program a tool to visualize mesh that quicly turn into a prototype of an simple animation engine (i have to figure out how to save directly in the model rather in a separate file), and i have solve a big problem that plague 3D game: camera collision with the scenery.

And i'm new to programming!

Here my firt GML project to compare with (5 days and we were two):
sorry for the bad capture, i'm a noob 

[Noel Berry]

OK, so in 2 days you made a 3D engine where you can walk around with an animated character. I don't actually see much gameplay in there though. We're talking about making a fun game in a week, not a cool looking 3D engine where you can walk in circles. The 2D game that was made in 5 days looks like it has some interesting gameplay, with multiple levels and a lot of cool little concepts to make it a fun game to play. I think that's what you're aiming for when creating a game in a week.

So, I see a 3D engine where you can walk around, and a 2D game with some gameplay mechanics and a bunch of levels (even if the graphics are not very high quality), and a concept behind it (or it looked that way from the video, at least).

I could be totally wrong, though. I have no idea how that 3D game works aside from the screenshots you posted, so there could be a lot of gameplay behind it. It just didn't look like it.
From what I've seen, and from the games I've made, 3D takes a lot longer, and therefore is not a good idea when you're creating a game in a short time.

[gimymblert]

Well we are discussing wether or not it is possible

In two days, the feature are like that in 3D:
Bumper
Enemy that chase you on sight
End of a level
basic plateform
wall running plateform
spike

Useless eye candy:
Big ugly flare
fake colored cast shadow
eye adaptation (when flare apear)
fresnel on the character to make it pop
camera that does not get stuck behind wall

Bonus:
Little mesh / animation viewer
small posing option (no save)
UNWrap tool for mesh
Bad UI

I can easily make level with the engine "as is" by using the heightmap and some multi texturing to create zelda PH like room and game.

The fact is that was not intended to be a full game, just a feasibility test!
After that test i spend more time researching advance thing to implement, the next goal is to do a mix of sonic, zelda 64 and mario 64 movement set, but not intended to be fun YET (learning process).

That's true there is little gameplay in this, but i could have done something under a week and having something pretty to show.

From what i have experience, 3d is easier because it is vectorial process and remove a lot of hassle with 2D stuff (sorting sprite depth, facing, animation, collision, no need for parallax, generally have free blending effect,  etc..) and is essentially the same to program (easy to constrain in one plan).

If i were to program the 2D game we had made we would have get a top down camera and more dynamic animation for FREE. 

[gimymblert]

I will take the challenge one day on this forum: one week one 3D game!