Object pooling is one of the things I’ve known I need to learn how to do but haven’t put the time into properly learning, so this tutorial popped up on my sub box at a pretty good time. Definitely going to use this in my next project.
I need to warn you that it’s important to be careful with pooling. While it looks like a good way of speeding up a game (making better use of cache, reducing memory fragmentation, reducing memory allocation cost, etc), it can also introduce a lot of bugs and make things unnecessarily complicated and potentially broken, just like any early optimization.
I’d like to reinforce his tip where this development pattern is more adequated to a game where you have a lot of object creation and destruction all the time. Usually applies to bullet hell shooters, but other shooters may also benefit largely from it. Another good example is when spawning particle effects, but I think Unity already does that for you with an appropriat Component.
I already ran into problems in my code using this pattern, so my best (uncalled for) advice for you is to code the game normally, without the object pool, but still using an abstraction for object creation, where you can quickly plug in a pool later to check out if you get any performance boost.
EDIT: Sometimes you even pool objects and realize that there is no performance gain whatsoever. That tends to happen when the pooled objects are small and your language has a smart-as-all-hell garbage collector, like Java does (generational garbage collection is really good at this kind of stuff). So just pool as required, pooling preemptively can end up being a lot of work for nothing.
On innovation and the video game industry.
TL;DW: Gamers don’t want innovation, they want recognizable things with a new look, and that kills progress.
Eh, there’s kind of a big, unexamined assumption here which undermines the whole argument. He calls gamers “liars” because there are all these articles asking for more innovation, but then innovation doesn’t sell. He presents this as some kind of “gotcha” discovery and chides our duplicitous nature, but fails to consider the idea that the writers and critics hungering for new/different/interesting ideas and the millions of people buying the latest Madden update might not be the same people.
Just like with any medium, there is a vocal critical minority that pushes for better work, while the majority continues to buy and enjoy what’s already popular. Ever hear of Michael Bay or Nickelback? If so, you’ve probably heard critics decry the quality of their work and demand something better, while legions of fans continue to support them. There’s no inherent conflict or hypocrisy in that. It’s not hypocritical or “lying” for two different groups of people to want two different things.
Plus, when something new, innovative, and good does come around, people DO buy it. It’s just hard to guess what that is.
Example: Minecraft. People do buy into new, innovative things when it resonates with them.
The Mario example is bringing up a separate issue, which is that when talking about a franchise, people tend to want more of the same with slight changes. Because being linked to that franchise brings certain expectations. Innovation can flourish more when it isn’t held back by preconceived notions of what a franchise is or means.
Honestly a lot of the “gamer” jargon and assumptions in this video really irk me. It’s a pretty shallow assessment of the situation.
Oh, yes, please, let’s compare highly advertised (remember: word-of-mouth counts too) games/new franchise installments to less advertised ones. Let’s ignore the fact that amount of money thrown at the advertisement department of a game will affect how much it sells (up to a point, not really a linear relation).
Let’s ignore the fact that who makes the decision to spend money advertising aren’t people who play games, it’s the publishing company. Those same publishing companies who - and I hope everyone remembers - said that games starring women “don’t sell”, so they never invest in them.For people who consider themselves “theorists”, their adherence to any likeness of the scientific method is just abysmal. Really, I wish they hadn’t released such video.
Q:Jojo, I'm working on the Wiki for Tower of Guns. It needs a large amount of help with organization and such. I can work on that. But what I can't work on is accurate information. I have no idea on the damage, rate of fire, etc. of weapons. I was wondering if there was any way to, for lack of a better word, rip image assets and object information from the game. With that info, I can further improve the Tower of Guns wiki. Thanks.
Hmm..unfortunately there’s no easy way to see ALL the stats. If I remember I made a console command called tog_hudstats that would draw SOME of the player stats on screen, but it won’t help you with everything.
As for the image assets, that’s tricky without access to the editor, but let me think about that. I probably could just whip up a zip file of the items/gunmods for the wiki if I can’t think of another way.
Seeing a developer contributing to a wiki on their own game warms my heart. Go, joe!
I guess today is the day for writing posts and then just deleting them right before posting.
I spend a lot of time encouraging and promoting small developers, so I hope it’s understood that I don’t say this just because I like to be mean, but I don’t quite understand why people make games that copy others so completely.
I mean, I sorta get it. I love early Zelda games, too. So, if I were talented enough to make a full game, I might briefly consider doing a riff or homage to a certain mechanic or theme from those games. But to essentially just bold-facedly remake Link’s Awakening in all but name? That I don’t get. A tribute, a wink, a nod, an homage - I can see sneaking these things into your game, but I don’t see the point in just re-doing what’s already been done.
I know there are a lot of nostalgia dollars out there to be had, and making something like this will make some people happy, but personally, I’d always rather see something new and unique, something that shows the developer has their own distinctive ideas and style, and not just the ability to copy someone else’s.
Normally I’m inclined to agree but this made me think about how much I want a new 2D Metroid game, and how Nintendo hasn’t made one in over a DECADE. If an indie dev made a brand new game mechanically identical to Super Metroid of Zero Mission, I’d be thrilled. There are some formulas of gameplay that are just so satisfying that I’ll always want more of it, regardless of who makes it or if it’s original at all. And Metroid does so many things so right that other attempts in the genre, no matter how good, end up making me think “Yeah but I wish it had x or y from Metroid.”
Think of this game not just as a clone of Link’s Awakening, but as a sequel or expansion. It’s a new world with new levels to explore in a format people already really enjoyed in Zelda. Surely it’s not too hard to see why that’s exciting for some?
(Disclaimer: I haven’t played Link’s Awakening, I’m just going off what was said here.)
Or maybe think of it as a romhack. Romhacks usually don’t mess with a game’s engine, only change levels/story/graphics/world, but that doesn’t make them less fun to play than the original games. I don’t see anything inherently bad in making a game that is pretty similar to many others, and this thing that goes around that makes people say “make something new, something original” actually bothers me. Game-making is an art, and like any other art, we are bound to see a lot of repetition because a lot of people want to express something related to what they were raised on.
I rather encourage everyone to make games, even if they’re very much like many others in the past than to risk disencouraging people from making games by telling them that their expression is less valuable if they re-explore a terrain already explored before. We don’t need to encourage people to go far and try new things, people do those naturally. But we must also accept that to make new things, we must also make a lot of things that aren’t new in any way.
Quite honestly? I’ll take a programmer who knows how to write intelligible code but knows no math before someone seasoned who writes hacky code using math “because it runs faster” any day. I, for one, suck as much as is possible to suck at math without my university forcibly kicking me out (I take CS, just to be sure everyone gets this), but that hasn’t stopped me from reaching out to the internet to learn how the Separating Axis Theorem works, just so I could implement a collision detection system.
My point is: programming is far more akin to written, human language than it is to math, but I don’t see many people acknowledging that.
Voiced or text story? Opinions?
Text is probably better in your case. Sub-par voice acting is worse than none at all. It’s also, of course, a hell of a lot more trouble. So, unless you’ve got access to great actors, great sound equipment, and a competent director, you’re probably better off just making the text as compelling as possible on its own. That’s my $0.02 anyway.
Please keep in mind that if you’re doing voicework, you should also be doing text. Games without subtitles (closed captions is better, actually, à la Portal/Left 4 Dead) can be very hostile to people with hearing impairments or who - for whatever reason - have your game volume turned down.
Acessibility is important, folks.