hi,
how to make isometric game like rebuild2
thank advance
By putting years of learning and experience to use.
You have to read and learn about it. It is indeed hard to start making something like that RIGHT away. Maybe you should start drawing isometric? The hardest thing here (i think) is the view - it's hard to make a perspective when drawing. Now, I'm talking about how to make it all stick together.
I don't know what platform you are seeking and anything else, but yeah: Making a basic character just walking around on tiles is a start? And then go further; adding more and more advanced things to the level. It's all about how much experience you have as an developer.
Is this a new trend in the programming forum? I have seen at least 4 topics where someone with no programming experience expects us to tell him how to create a game.
As if it's a secret we're hiding from the world and only the members of a programming clique know.
At 10/13/12 07:37 AM, Diki wrote: By putting years of learning and experience to use.
:D
At 10/13/12 09:34 AM, Thegluestickman wrote: As if it's a secret we're hiding from the world and only the members of a programming clique know.
ssshhhh, if you tell them we'll have to kill you. And we know where you live... Dave... >.>
Programming stuffs (tutorials and extras)
PM me (instead of MintPaw) if you're confuzzled.
thank Skaren for the sig :P
At 10/13/12 09:34 AM, Thegluestickman wrote: As if it's a secret we're hiding from the world and only the members of a programming clique know.
There is, for an isometric game, all you have to do is invoke the Make.game(isometric); function, and that should make your game for you, no other coding or graphics required.
Fellow programmers, don't lynch me for telling the world our secret to making games.
At 10/19/12 02:32 AM, polym wrote:At 10/18/12 02:17 PM, DjViking wrote:That makes no sense, buddy.There is, for an isometric game, all you have to do is invoke the Make.game(isometric); function, and that should make your game for you, no other coding or graphics required.At 10/13/12 09:34 AM, Thegluestickman wrote: As if it's a secret we're hiding from the world and only the members of a programming clique know.
Fellow programmers, don't lynch me for telling the world our secret to making games.
It would probably be something along the lines of Factory::create_game(ISOMETRIC), or Game.CreateIsometric(...)
it makes plenty of sense, it invokes the function "game" from the object "Make", and takes "isometric" as a parameter.
but yeah, I guess Game.Make(Isometric) would have made more sense,
class gamemaker;
{
public:
void Game(std::string type);
gamemaker::gamemaker();
} Make;
void gamemaker::Game (std::string type)
{
if (type=="isometric")
{
magical isometric game making code goes here;
}
}
Make.Game("isometric");
see?
I would have to say I am guilty of that as well. I dont think its so much just get it all as it is to just learn how to. Yeah, some people can stick their head in a book and keep making the same mistakes over and over but asking questions is important. I try to figure things out by tutorials and by other peoples experience. Learn as I go kind of thing so you are always learning something new and when you figure it out and can do it, well, its amazing. I am not a coder per say mainly artistically inclined but seeing some of the games on here and elsewhere has made me interested. So, now, little by little I am gaining the knowledge to do simple things in as3 and javascript and such. So, dont be hating. I mainly have specific questions that I am trying to tackle but yeah, asking for everything all at once is kind of not the brightest. Thats my two cents even though no one wanted it, lol.
The way you do it is you come up with your billion dollar idea. Then you go onto a programming forum and ask a programmer to create it. Most if not all of the programmers on that forum will rush to help and climb over each other and claw each other's eyes out for the opportunity to put a ton of work into making your dream come true.
Because the idea that seems so good to you probably seems 10-20 times as good to everyone else.
Meanwhile you make millions if not billions of dollars while the programmer is happy to just have his name in the credits.
Programming skill and work is really a dime a dozen. It's those game ideas that have true value. Anyone can spend years-decades mastering multiple languages and sound/art/project-management utilities, and put hundreds of hours of incredibly skilled work developing/debugging/iterating things. But how many people can honestly say "isometric game"? That shit is once in a generation.
P.S. I hate isometric. I don't mind Diablo-style camera. But I *HATE* isometric geometry. Almost every time I see an isometric geometry, it's an immediate turnoff. Bastion is just about the only exception I can think of. It looks utterly disgusting to me.
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
To each his own. I prefer more realistic games and not from overhead. That would be going back to days of commodore 64's and atari style stuff.
I would also like to say that some people just want to figure out how to do certain things and once they know they can go on their own. Not everyone can just pick up stuff from a book. I would think developers would be welcoming that someone is asking them for advice and that their help is needed. Not saying a whole game or anything but individual parts to help a soon to be programmer advance. Isn't that what it is about. Isn't that what new grounds suppose to be? Or is it just a all for one and screw anyone asking questions.
At 10/26/13 11:44 AM, sharpnova wrote:
Programming skill and work is really a dime a dozen. It's those game ideas that have true value. Anyone can spend years-decades mastering multiple languages and sound/art/project-management utilities, and put hundreds of hours of incredibly skilled work developing/debugging/iterating things. But how many people can honestly say "isometric game"? That shit is once in a generation.
This is weird because it makes me want to laugh, but also to cry. It's a shame it feels like this thinking in aspiring creators is due to the value placed on these roles by the consumers - the designers always seem to be the rockstars, and the programmer is just there to get that shit done.
At 11/14/14 05:36 AM, Antilogical wrote: This is weird because it makes me want to laugh, but also to cry. It's a shame it feels like this thinking in aspiring creators is due to the value placed on these roles by the consumers - the designers always seem to be the rockstars, and the programmer is just there to get that shit done.
Yes it is a shame.
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
