[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] 3D games in Chicken

From: Brandon J. Van Every
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] 3D games in Chicken
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:15:28 -0800
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)

Matthew David Parker wrote:
Your RTS game is a good idea though,
TBS! TBS! Do not be confused. I Am Not Now, Nor Have I Ever Been, A Real Time Strategy Player.

 and would be much easier than a 3d
Xpilot.  Though it seems like just making a simple little space game in
chicken would be a good test of chickens abilities.
I have faith in Chicken's abilities - and Felix's - or I would never have become the Windows CMake buildmaster. So for me the point is more about what is worth doing as a matter of game design. Simple little space games don't matter to me. Frameworks that other people can use for more than one game, are higher up my list of priorities. That's what my 2D hex framework is about. Complicated games are more interesting to me, which is why I'm into TBS.

Physics is complicated and of great interest to many game programmers. It doesn't turn me on though, so that functionality would have to be done already for me to bother with it. I'm not looking for a from-scratch physics project. That sort of thing is a lot of work for no clear gain in terms of game design. On the other hand, if the physics framework is already done, then I can put my Game Designer hat on and just use it. Not sure how I feel about physics from an AI standpoint. I don't object to *geometric* AI processing, i.e. the tactical requirements of 3D spaceships fighting each other, but physics is going to complicate the game state, probably to the point of intractability. Then again all the TBS problems I contemplate are intractable anyways, so I dunno. The intersection between physics and my TBS penchant is probably discrete simulation and finite element analysis. At what point are these things of value to the player, in terms of game design? I don't have an answer. It is all too easy to do physics for the sake of simulationism; that's not game design.

  All you'd really have
to do is get it to load up the little cave map and have some real physics
to make the ship fly around.  I mean, I don't think anyone should plan on
making a whole xpilot 3d game, but just seeing if chicken can do the 3d
engine would be good,
Chicken *can* do it. The question is not "seeing," the question is doing it, and whether someone wants to do it. I'm saying, skip the proof-of-concept project. Aim higher, towards whatever it is you actually want. (Which admittedly could be 3D XPilot.)

and then you could use that base to make other sorts of games.
Someone else might want to do a networking engine, or a First Person Shooter engine, or a RPG engine, or a MUD engine, or whatever. There are all sorts of underlying "middleware" engines one could pursue. I've told you the one I'm pursuing, the 2D hex engine. The question is, do you really, really, really want to pursue a "3D space physics" engine? It sounds like a set of problems you're already experienced with. I'm just asking if your Vision and committment is so strong that you know for sure you want to pursue this. The reason I pose it as a question, is because if you really *were* totally committed to it, you'd just be telling us so. :-) As I am with the 2D hex engine, minus some caveats about "if you show me another project that's already working...."

Brandon Van Every

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]