Features vs minimalism - can't I have both?

by coder316 on 07/08/2005 02:04, 4 messages, last message: 07/09/2005 14:32, 1047 views, last view: 05/03/2024 01:26

Immediately I should say I am a beginner to game programming. I have a lot of experience in PHP and other Web programming, some in C++ (basics) and some basics in OpenGL. I've been searching for weeks for a good, easy to use and understand engine, that is still powerful enough to one day make a nice game out of (open source, of course ;).
Out of my searching, I found CUBE to be the best. The code appears neat and easy to follow, it already has basic game elements (physics, AI, online multiplayer, hell even its own editor). However, before coming to CUBE I was looking into Crystal Space.
I was amazed at the features it claimed, yet disappointed at the extreme difficulty I had attempting to at least test it!

CUBE's minimalism is nice for programming it, but that means little to the end user. Unfortunatly, I see CUBE and I think of the first Quake... a very cool and fun game, but also very old. Where are the "realistic physics" or the rag-doll affects or interactive enviroments? Or a larger enviroment (inside and outside of buildings, without the need of redraw)? Multipule floors and levels?

Should I provide my own work around and just build a bunch of entities that are interactive? For example, make a large blank map, then put standard (large) entities on the map, such as importing a house like I import a gun? Is this the only way to save the minimalism of CUBE and still have the features I want? Or should I dig deeper into the engine, work hard to add such features to the core of the game, sacraficing the beauty of its minimalism?

   Board Index   

#1: an idea...

by coder316 on 07/08/2005 03:04

The game I wanted to make was essentially an outside game, but not limited to the outside, buildings would of course be able to be entered. Similar to Battlefield 1942.
Using the current map editor, wouldn't I be able to make a map that virtually looks like the outside? By this, I mean render the landscape only - no walls or buildings. Then, using a 3D editor or whatever, build the buildings I want, and insert them as entities (I say entities because I want the building to be more interactive: if you shoot a rocket at a wall, you should get the type of reaction as in real life: you'd have a hole in the wall and maybe a fire).

reply to this message

#2: Re: an idea...

by coder316 on 07/08/2005 03:08, refers to #1

Also, I find it vital to have multipule floors, breakable glass/ice, etc. to maps I have made for other games (think of Counter Strike - its engine is an "indoor" engine, but look at what you can do in it! I'd be more than happy with the functionality of the maps in Counter Strike, even though it may not have the newest "realism physics" and completly interactive/responsive enviroment.

reply to this message

#3: Re: an idea...

by coder316 on 07/08/2005 05:57, refers to #3

Nevermind to the idea of implementing walls/enviroment as a mesh. When that post was written, I had not experienced the power of Sauer, I only knew Cube. Sauer is everything I was looking for. Just a few simple addons/changes, a couple of my own textures/models, as well as my own maps (of course ;-), and i'll have my own Sauer mod to share. :)

Sauer proves you can have minimalism with some very strong features.

reply to this message

#4: ..

by CC_machine2 on 07/09/2005 14:32

i think it would be best to have minimalistic features only hardcoded into the engine, then use plugins for whatever else you need

reply to this message

   Board Index