choas
-
The scarf in Shinobi was such a revelation when it came out
Wow I had no idea that Shinobi was a series! When the original one came out in like 86 or so, I was obsessed with it. I still say “ninja magic!” to this day.
-
This post did not contain any content.
There’s already a codebase for bursting from the ground in an explosion of lava. Everyone wants that.
You’re the first person asking for a scarf, and our system doesn’t even know what a neck is.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Tbf, you can make the characters wear anything, but it won't look good. Lol
-
I am familiar with the PTSD trigger words.You little shit xD
-
Game director : we’re gonna add interact-able doors with proper door opening animations for the characters
The game designers:
The programmers and artists:
The producers:
Granted. All door animations are now forced cutscenes.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Player? Easy. Scarf? Easy. Wearing a scarf? That depends on a lot of factors such as which part of the body, how the models were made and rigged, etc.
-
Granted. All door animations are now forced cutscenes.
-
- "Can you make the player be able to summon a monster from the fifth dimension?" "Yes ok ez lol"
- "Can you make the player able to exist in the world without having it fall though the ground?" "You are asking too much mate"
You're the one who asked to open a gate to the fifth dimension, you can't then get upset that you broke 3+1 dimensional physics
-
This post did not contain any content.
That's cute
-
This feels like the kinda project that should have a 1hr YouTube indie doc about it
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I wouldn't mind seeing that! After V-Worlds was declared "completed" MSR tried to find a product group to fold it into, but nobody wanted to own it. I don't remember if XBox existed then, but the code just sat there for a few years, then I heard they opensourced it. When my kids were playing ToonTown I found a bug that let you slide behind the background and move around, like you could see that a clerk behind a counter was just a legless floating torso. The method of getting there seemed to be exactly like a V-Worlds bug, so I wondered if Disney might have been using the code. But it could have just been a common graphics bug, I dunno.
I remember finding another bug while creating a demo with a snaky sea creature swimming around. To animate a multi-segmented object you had to animate each segment separately. After the animation ran for a minute or two, enough unrelated interrupts would happen in the computer that would throw the body parts out of sync, making body parts either merge into each other or move apart, and the whole thing would look like crap. Same thing if you had somebody ride in a car or on a train - the car and character were animated separately and you'd end up with the character floating along behind the car.
I asked the dev about making the animation itself an abstract object whose position would be moved around, and attaching in-world objects to it, with position offsets. Each animation step would be computed just once instead of for each body part (or for the person and the car), and all the parts would be rendered with offsets from that one position, guaranteeing them to stay in sync visually. He said yeah that's a good idea, but we're not working on that code anymore. Oh well.
Another bug involved moving from room to room. The engine only loaded graphics for the current room, so when you went through a doorway it would load the new room and dump the previous one, causing a very unnatural visual delay that looked like a glitch in the matrix. The way we coped with this was by putting an entire world in a single room, so all the world's graphics were loaded all at once. But this not only limited the world size, it meant we had to create our own version of the room system in script. To keep track of where players and objects were, we put invisible barriers in doorways and used event handlers when things passed through them. Then we used this to enforce which players could talk to each other or hear sounds made in a given "room".
I suggested loading a cluster of rooms at once - the current one and those that were one connection away. Then when an avatar passed into a doorway the new room's graphics would already be there, no glitch, and the graphics for nearby rooms could be loaded and unloaded in the background. Again, nice idea but we're done working on that code. Sigh. I really wish I had joined that project about 6 months sooner. Not like I'm a genius or anything but these seemed like really fundamental things that should have been addressed up front.
Okay, rant over. I haven't thought about this stuff in quite a while - I'm kind of amazed so many details are still in my head. I must have agonized over it a lot at the time lol.
-
Tbf, you can make the characters wear anything, but it won't look good. Lol
Welcome to second life
-
Game director : we’re gonna add interact-able doors with proper door opening animations for the characters
The game designers:
The programmers and artists:
The producers:
Legend of Zelda did it well.
Honestly, I think a major issue with doors is that they just slow down gameplay.
It's like coming across a ladder only every building has one.
-
That’s basically what they did for Legend of Zelda:Twilight princess. GameCube version Link was left handed, Wii version he was right handed. Looking at game guide sites was kind of comical. They basically said we’re not rewriting our guide for Wii…just flip the directions. If the guide says go left…go right for Wii.
The entire game is mirrored.
-
Well yeah, we have a character model for the giant demon and the giant demon has a huge use case.
A scarf? That's a model extension. Either you're asking me to create a whole new character with a scarf baked into the mesh that will deform weirdly as the character moves, or you're asking me to implement an accessory-anchor system all for the sake of a scarf (albeit other accessories might use this new framework) which will then need a physics/cloth sim to even look half good.
or you’re asking me to implement an accessory-anchor system all for the sake of a scarf
It... shouldn't be that difficult?
It's literally adding another piece of gear, like gloves, breastplate, helmet, etc. Now just repeat the process for a scarf.
-
I don't want you to come to me with problems. I want you to come with solutions. I'm going to schedule some action orientated soft skills training for you next month. There is a push to increase our education KPIs so budget is available.
Ow that one hits me right in the briefcase
-
Player? Easy. Scarf? Easy. Wearing a scarf? That depends on a lot of factors such as which part of the body, how the models were made and rigged, etc.
And if it like blows in the wind that's a whole jigglebone system and wind simulation that's a lot of stuff going on
-
Have you ever played ATV Offroad Fury on the PS2? When you reached the edge of the map, it would just fling you back towards the center.
I propose that is how we deal with NPCs blocking doors. With negated fall damage, of course
Wow, memory unlocked! Motocross Madness did this too, if you managed to drive up the giant wall surrounding the world. I checked, and it turns out both these games were developed by the same company, Rainbow Studios, so probably they used the same engine.
-
I don't want you to come to me with problems. I want you to come with solutions. I'm going to schedule some action orientated soft skills training for you next month. There is a push to increase our education KPIs so budget is available.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Not sure whether to upvote because this is so accurate it's funny or to downvote because it's infuriating
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Alt text: In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it.
Edit: seems I'm the third person to comment this! :')
-
You could plausibly implement some physics to deal with it. If the player is moving into a surface, move them along the part of their grapple movement component that's perpendicular to that surface.
That just is running into the problem the original comment was trying to avoid in the first place:
You are constantly jamming into the surface and doing a whole bunch of collision checks to basically scrape the player across the surface...
...because you have to keep doing those checks in a loop untill you determine the obstacle is finally cleared, and then switch back to unrestricted or 'normal' grapple-movement.
You have to keep doing 3d vector collision mesh check calculations for the whole time the player is being 'scraped'... because you don't know when to switch 'perpendicular movement only' mode off, otherwise... so this is inefficient.
Assuming this is a 3D environment... there's no way you can just totally null out one dimension of the movement vector unless the player is perfectly perpendicular hitting a perfectly perpendicular surface.
If your level design is any degree of complex, with objects beyond basically perfect boxes that are all perfectly orientes to the world grid... and if the player is allowed to rotate... this doesn't work, your calcs still always involve 3 dimensions.
What you're saying might work in a 2D game... or I guess 2.5D, maybe?... but it wouldn't work in a 3D game.
...
Something possibly, sort of like what you've described, I think? but not really?... another idea that might work would be:
Upon detecting a collision, before the player has gotten to the grapple end point... the grapple movement basically complexifies with more nodes.
So you use a pathfinding algorithm to draw, instead of just a line between two points... now you have a point of origin where the player is, the end point, and a third point that is off to the side of the obstruction.
Now for that first segment, now the grapple pulls the player perpendicular to the obstruction surface, so it isn't constantly colliding and doing friction... and then when the player clears the obstruction, hits that midpoint, the movent vector changes.
This is basically what I described with doing the 'draw a giant skinny box' to check if a player can do an unobstructed grapple... but now more complicated as it involves 3D pathfinding...
This could possibly work, but it would take a good deal more work to optimize this, to make your entire world work with 3d path finding... normally, nav meshes are just done on more or less flat ground, up to some degree of incline... but now you also have to do this on literally all surfaces.
Again... this might work ... but it would take a lot of game dev work to implement, as you'd have to fully 3d navmesh every level... and this potentially would not handle complex surfaces well.
3D, aerial pathfinding in a very complex environment ... to my knowledge, still isn't really a thing many games have done very well, efficiently, with a general system. It usually just a bunch of manually placed aerial nav nodes, particular to the level itself... very intensive, manual work.
...
This will allow them to slide along walls/floors/ceilings realistically.
You have an odd definition of 'realistically'.
...
For the case where they need to move "through" a small object, you could treat their collision as a sphere...
Whoah whoah whoah wow ok gotta stop you there.
Spheres tend to be the absolute worst objects to use in a collision mesh or hull, because they are comprised of far, far more tris or rects than a box.
This is a terrible idea.
There is a reason hitboxes... are called 'boxes'.
...and have it collide with the object; for small objects, this could let them pass by.
I think what you are trying to describe is a common concept in games where many objects that are basically... clutter, vegetation, extra fluff... they just do not interact with the player collision mesh/hull at all, for many parts of the engine/game.
Like a uh, a small pile of trash or rock that doesn't interact with the core player movement controller, but it might interact with an inverse kinematics system that slightly modifies the player's animation so that their foot rests on top of the rubble or rock.
But uh... doing a 'estimate everything's size by bounding it with a sphere and then negating movement collision if its small?'
This is not something you'd want to call when the grapple attempt is started, it'd be a massive stutter or slowdown, you'd have to index every object in the level... and you'd end up with like, if you have a pile or array of many small things, all together... well individually they are all small, so you can phase through a pile of many small things that is in totality actually large.
This is the kind of thing you just design your whole game and level and objects around from the ground up.
Eg. for grappling sideways over a small rock on the ground, their point of collision would be mostly below them and a bit to the right, but they're being pulled mostly straight to the right, so they would move perpendicular to the point of contact and move up-right over the rock, then continue their grapple path. Depending on your game's physics system there are other solutions, but for a typical game engine, that should work well.
Again this 'solution' of yours (which just entirely abandons the concept of just not colliding with small objects, which you literally just described) just causes the problem the original comment was trying to avoid: having to do a whole bunch of collision calcs every time any obstacle is encountered.
... You speak as if you know what you are talking about, but you clearly do not.
Have you ever actually mocked up a 3 physics scenario in a game engine, or modded an existing game in a manner that is very reliant on or interactive with its physics engine?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]… You speak as if you know what you are talking about, but you clearly do not.
You are constantly jamming into the surface and doing a whole bunch of collision checks to basically scrape the player across the surface… …because you have to keep doing those checks in a loop untill you determine the obstacle is finally cleared, and then switch back to unrestricted or ‘normal’ grapple-movement.
Unnecessary "...", and no, you don't loop the check until the obstacle is passed any more than you would "loop" the player's ordinary movement. As normal, each tick you attempt to move the player forward some distance. If there is an obstacle in the way, they'll move less distance, which is fine-- this prevents them from rocketing up walls if they're slightly below a target grapple point beyond the wall, as in the below scenario.
You have to keep doing 3d vector collision mesh check calculations for the whole time the player is being ‘scraped’… because you don’t know when to switch ‘perpendicular movement only’ mode off, otherwise… so this is inefficient.
What would be more efficient? Depending on how the game physics work, the player's collision mesh is probably a capsule, simple box, or sphere. It's really not that expensive to add this check; the player is presumably already doing collision checks using their mesh every tick for like, standing on the ground and touching walls.
Assuming this is a 3D environment… there’s no way you can just totally null out one dimension of the movement vector unless the player is perfectly perpendicular hitting a perfectly perpendicular surface.
If your level design is any degree of complex, with objects beyond basically perfect boxes that are all perfectly orientes to the world grid… and if the player is allowed to rotate… this doesn’t work, your calcs still always involve 3 dimensions.
What you’re saying might work in a 2D game… or I guess 2.5D, maybe?.. but it wouldn’t work in a 3D game.
When did I ever say that you would accomplish this effect by nulling out one component of their movement vector? That idea is a fabrication of your own delusions. It's pretty easy to do a mesh collision check, get the normal of the tri the player collided with, and use that to remove all the player's movement in that direction.
This is probably already part of the engine's physics calculations anyways![the 3d pathfinding idea]
This could work, especially if the grappling hook is one of those ones where gravity stops affecting you (could be good for gameplay, that's valid). But to construct this path in a realistic manner, you would need to do similar calculations to what you're saying are inefficient, except all at once instead of spread over multiple frames. If you simplify the pathfinding checks to make the movement simpler, you could in most cases do the same thing with the player collision checks. Depends on how you implement it though I suppose. Too specific to cover all cases in a general discussion.
You have an odd definition of ‘realistically’.
It is realistic that if I grapple into a surface I will move a shorter distance than if I was grappling freely, yes. This is true without friction etc. as well. Think of the extreme case: grappling directly downwards into the floor, in which case I would not move at all.
Spheres tend to be the absolute worst objects to use in a collision mesh or hull, because they are comprised of far, far more tris or rects than a box.
LMAO are you kidding me??
First of all you could do a check using a proper sphere rather than a mesh with tris. This can actually be faster than using a box-- eg. checking if two spheres (or a sphere and a point) collide is literally just a distance check compared to their combined radii. I bet even sphere-tri collision is easier than tri-tri, although my game engine knowledge doesn't extend far enough to say for sure in that case.
There is a reason hitboxes… are called ‘boxes’.
They're called that because boxes are common, not because they're the best.
I think what you are trying to describe is a common concept in games where many objects that are basically… clutter, vegetation, extra fluff… they just do not interact with the player collision mesh/hull at all, for many parts of the engine/game. [...]
This entire line of critique is invalid because I wasn't saying that at all. I'm saying that as a consequence of the collisions, they could pass around an obstacle; not that they could go through it. A rock under the player as they grapple sideways would push them upwards and slightly away due to the angle of the collision, and they could then continue moving sideways as before.
Again this ‘solution’ of yours (which just entirely abandons the concept of just not colliding with small objects, which you literally just described) [...]
How on God's green Earth could you possibly, after I literally just described the precise mechanism by which the player would interact with small objects, still believe that I meant they should simply pass through them??? Maybe if you read the whole post instead of replying to each sentence individually you would've made that connection. Yes, I see the irony; I did read your whole post first though.
[...] just causes the problem the original comment was trying to avoid: having to do a whole bunch of collision calcs every time any obstacle is encountered.
If you apply the grapple as a force it's literally the same collision calcs the player makes every single tick. If you can't due to engine/game/etc. limitations, it's still not that much extra collision calculation.
… You speak as if you know what you are talking about, but you clearly do not.
Have you ever actually mocked up a 3 physics scenario in a game engine, or modded an existing game in a manner that is very reliant on or interactive with its physics engine?
Try me. I am extensively aware of the way physics is typically handled in games. I will admit I don't often use game engines, because I usually try to make 2d games from scratch and implement my own simple physics. But yes, I'm aware of how 3d engines handle physics as well.
