StarDestroyer.Net BBS

My friend has recently found a Game engine that is free, it is known as Artificial Engine. We are trying to make a game similar to unreal tournament.

For more info about the engine, refer to here

http://www.3dlevel.com/gamedev/news.php

I know this very ambitious, but we would try our best to make it work. Anyone else wants to join us. We would really need modellers though...

How similar to UT do you intend to make this game? Do you have a design document or something like that, or are you going to just copy everything from UT?

Though I personally don't have enough time to help you out much, you could probably find people over at the forums at gamedev.net. But you are going to have to be a lot more specific than "a game like Unreal Tournament" (for instance, exactly what kind of models you need, spaceships or humanoids or weapons; how they should be animated; the general style and feel of the game, etc.)


Anyway, good luck. You can probably pull it off. With an already finished game engine, an FPS isn't that hard to make.

To be honest, I think the only real distinction between FPS games is the story and the quality of the level design. Weapons to me are pretty generic, and better models don't necessarily make a better game.

Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I think the only real distinction between FPS games is the story and the quality of the level design. Weapons to me are pretty generic, and better models don't necessarily make a better game.

True. Deus Ex: The Conspiracy used the UT engine I think, and the levels were pretty lame, yet the writing is what made it such a fantastic game. Good writing, BTW, was something I totally did not expect from a FPS at the time.

Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I think the only real distinction between FPS games is the story and the quality of the level design. Weapons to me are pretty generic, and better models don't necessarily make a better game.

That's true. Although, from a gameplay perspective, there can be some differences. Games where you can, for instance, bunnyhop usually plays quite different from games where you can't (compare the multiplayer mode in GoldenEye to Quake3, for instance (ignoring the split screen of the former, of course)).

I've thrown around ideas about a game, but I can guarantee they'd be too complex. It's easy to conceptualize of a very open-ended game and what you could toy with in it, it's another to actually script in the sheer number of possibilities.

Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I think the only real distinction between FPS games is the story and the quality of the level design. Weapons to me are pretty generic, and better models don't necessarily make a better game.

That's a little unfair to Call of Duty and smilar games. The slower pace of running, the player's lower ability to take damage, the attempt to model some mechcanics of war - machine gun, tanks - make the gameplay rather different.

NeoGoomba wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I think the only real distinction between FPS games is the story and the quality of the level design. Weapons to me are pretty generic, and better models don't necessarily make a better game.

True. Deus Ex: The Conspiracy used the UT engine I think, and the levels were pretty lame, yet the writing is what made it such a fantastic game.

Lame levels? Hong Kong was totally immersive. And VersaLife! Oh yeah.

Sounds like a lot of fun. I might be able to pitch in some code here and there. But I'll be quite busy with all coding I'll be doing in the UT and Gamebryo source engines this summer.

Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I think the only real distinction between FPS games is the story and the quality of the level design. Weapons to me are pretty generic, and better models don't necessarily make a better game.

Tribes.

My friend felt that it will be better if we make a pure multiplayer instead, kinda like Counter-strike, since we do not have to spent too much time designing each level.

What are some of the point we need to make a multiplayer game decent?

If you are interested, I will PM you to the link to our forum...

There are a number of so-called 'easy' game designing software packages.

Including:

http://www.thegamecreators.com/

http://www.cubeengine.com/

Both of which are supposed to be rather neat, but notably limited. You might try the 'fpscreator' from the first site; it's supposed to have a fairly well-built physics engine.

Also, if you hunt around, you can find 'model packs' and other such freebies that you can use for your game if you suck at modelling and don't mind borrowing generic work.

ray245 wrote:What are some of the point we need to make a multiplayer game decent?

Well, if you're focusing on a pure multiplayer game, then the level design is actually what you have to put the most effort in, since you don't have a compelling story to back it up. For one thing, you have to make sure the levels are balanced everywere, so that a player won't get an unfair advantage if he gets to certain place first.
Also: No crates without pallets and forklifts! Some people seem to think that you can make a level interesting just by adding random stuff to it. That's not true, and even more so when the stuff isn't even random but just damn crates (and no-one even uses crates anymore. It's all cardboard boxes these days. You wouldn't know it from playing your standard FPS though).

I'd say that for an indie FPS to stand out, especially a multiplayer-only one, it should have a hook. Some unusual weapon or gadget that dramatically changes the gameplay and makes it a very different experience from any other game. If you've got that and do it well, you'll have fans even if the rest of the game is pretty rough around the edges.

In terms of gamer approval, play balance and movement sensitivity are key.

You can have all kinds of neat gadgets or gimmicks, but if the controls suck or the gameplay is horrifically unbalanced (ie. poor level design or weapon balance), nobody will play it (see Red Faction).

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I'd say that for an indie FPS to stand out, especially a multiplayer-only one, it should have a hook. Some unusual weapon or gadget that dramatically changes the gameplay and makes it a very different experience from any other game. If you've got that and do it well, you'll have fans even if the rest of the game is pretty rough around the edges.

Example: HL2's gravity gun. Admittedly, HL2 was also based heavily on graphics, but the gravity gun got a LOT of fans IIRC.

Making an FPS stand out is like any game trying to stand out: Offer something interesting with replay value. A trinket that is neat for five games and then is boring does not net you success.

When I considered a hybrid FPS/RPG, I looked at how to make it unique. Every FPS has set weapons you can use and how you can use them. I considered how you could diversify this, and I basically came up with a storyline based around someone who, if the player wanted to invest his skills in it, developed psi-like powers. A shield that deflects bullets but not things like fire or punches, a clairvoyance power that made any weapon into a scoped sniper weapon, TK that would extend the effect range or allow a bullet a mild 'homing' effect, etc.

If you could find a way to balance that(Say, a server where you're alloted X points to drop into skills, be their psi or just with weapons.. And sensible weapon skills, decreasing the 'inaccuracy spread' and the like, not more damage.. Might work), if could be fun in multiplayer as well as singleplayer.

And if you use that idea, I damn well want credit and royalties.

Since I play CoD and DoD MP heavily and other HL/HL2 based MP sporadically, I'll try and help.

If you do the stance thing (standing, crouch,prone) with speed and accuracy differences, keep in mind how fast the weapon comes back up while changing over. BF2 and early DoD from what I've heard suffered from people proning, popping how a ridiculously accurate shot and then getting back up in a very small amount of time. This and being able to jump and shoot tends to make MP games a pain, among other things.

As said already, level design is a must. Having a map that seems rather well done but gives the advantage to one side or the other rapidly kills game play. People will either stack the team that the map favors or just not play it. Either way, not good.

Not every weapon has to have a secondary fire. Good example is the difference in DoD and CoD. They attempted it in DoD and you still have guns that have no secondary while in CoD, right clicking just brings up Iron sights, which is. IMHO, far superior then every gun having to have a secondary firing options.

Map variation. Different people like different things. Having every map be reminescent of DE_Dust, MP_Foy or dod_Avalanche is boring. I personally like snow maps and urban maps, so I actually enjoy foy alot in CoD:UO. But you still need variation too. Also, size is important. If you are designing a game like Q3, smaller maps would probably do well since you have a high pace of action, but if it is going to like BF2 or CoD:UO base mode of gameplay, large maps where you can use vehicles and make better use of strategy work.

If you want an FPS/RPG hybrid, you don't necessarily have to have flashy bits for classes. Take for example the Warcraft 3 mod for DoD. It allows players to turn invisible and teleport if they get the human class up high enough. Hell, if you get the undead up high enough, you can Rambo the MG42. This tends to make people who just join not want to play since it gives people who have been playing a much greater advantage. Instead of that, you can make it so they can increase their movement a little, or how fast their aim narrows when they stop moving/crouch. Just little things.

I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of right now.

I would argue against that, actually. If you have classes, gadgets, etc. that differentiate your game, they should have a very large effect. If the effect is small, then what's the point? It doesn't change the gameplay, it doesn't make your game stand out, it's not worth the time it took to include it.

In the FPS/RPG concept, don't do classes. They're tempting, but having played games which tried it, it's not gonna work out. Skill-based with high customization is better.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I would argue against that, actually. If you have classes, gadgets, etc. that differentiate your game, they should have a very large effect. If the effect is small, then what's the point? It doesn't change the gameplay, it doesn't make your game stand out, it's not worth the time it took to include it.

They should change the gameplay, but not in a way where you go 'ZOMG! I R T3H PWN!!!1!!11!11' 'cause that what happens in the WC3 mod. You have people toting high power support weapons like they were a BAR, are teleporting into places they're not supposed to be or hop into a spawn area, respawn and just start spawn killing everyone to a ridiculous extent. Ya' gotta try and avoid that type of event.

Make classes a starting specialization. Like what System Shock 2 does, with the Navy, Army and Intel classes. You start with a specialization in some skills that will go a long way, but changing it up early-mid game won't hurt you, since diversity in skills is just as useful as mastery of one.

For a multiplayer action-oriented game, I would stronly argue against any sort of leveling or anything like that, which affects the actual gameplay. That is because, unless you manage to balance it all awfully well (and that is very hard even for experienced designers), new players will not want to play the game, since the more experienced players have a clear advantage and will almost always win. Losing all the time is never fun, as everyone should know.

Which brings me to another point that you should consider. The controls must be simple and intuitive, and you should allow players to customise them. This is, again, to prevent new players from being owned too hard, by making the learning curve as simple as possible. The ideal is to let experienced players feel like they are good at the game, while also giving newbies a fair chance to win. That might prevent people from starting contests in the game, like with CS, but the advantage is that anyone can play against anyone and have a good time. IMO, that's a very reasonable trade-off
That is quite a design challenge, tough, but I'm sure most people (except, perhaps, the most hard-core gamers. But they're a minority anyway ) would find your game to be much more fun if you can pull it off.

My friend has type out a more detailed document...PM me for the password...

http://orandysoftware.ueuo.com/programs/OSGame.doc

nervermind...password is 123456