EffectHub is connecting the world's gaming artists! Sign Up
Search Authors
Popular Search
Works searching result of "Màn"
So, I'm currently looking for an engine for 2D. I've tried Cocos2D but it's iOS only and I wouldn't like to rewrite everything into another language for Android (so, e.g. Java port of Cocos2d for Android is not an option). Instead, I want to write the code once and with least hassle deploy it on iOS, Android and possibly Windows Phone 7. I have both Mac and Windows.
Just to be more detailed, here are my requirements to the engine:
must be cross-platform
must be efficient
should be C++, Java, C# or Objective C since I'm comfortable with them and NOT Flash, Javascript, HTML5 since I am not a web developer
must have a large community, tutorials, additional libraries which cover most of the stuff you'd have when developing on iOS or Android directly (in-app billing, facebook etc.)
the final delivered package must be not too large
the engine can be free, but I also wouldn't mind paying a reasonable price
I've found the following engines:
Marmalade (and IwGame engine on top of it) - C++, found overall very positive reviews of Marmalade but not sure about IwGame. EDIT (March 2013): Looks like Marmalade SDK now includes Cocos2Dx and some in-built IDE which makes it much better (and costs $150 per year for indie dev which is ok with me).
Corona SDK - Lua (efficiency doubtful), also needs internet connection to compile code
Cocos2d-x - C++, received lots of reviews from developers, mostly positive and many think it's best for 2D
Particle code - Java+Eclipse, found no reviews or comments
Moai - Lua, coudn't find any reviews/opinions on it
Monkey engine - seems to have too few features
Haxenme - it's Flash, I've never used it and don't want to
use Unity3d but with 2D packages like 2D Toolkit
ports of SDL to Android (also here) and iOS - doesn't look to have much support or current development (?)
GLBasic - Basic language, I don't like it
playN - seems to be early in development (?)
Gamvas - HTML5, doesn't look like a mature engine to me
Ignifuga - Python, also doesn't look mature
ORX - not sure if it's still developed (?)
Construct 2 - reminds GameMaker, might be ok for rapid prototypes but definitely not for industry-level games
XNA and then port the game using ExEn (would need Mono Touch to port to iOS and Mono for Android to port to Android) - C#, and is probably more thought for folks coming from Microsoft products like xBox (I come from Android). Also, those Mono tools cost $800 in total for small developers
Impact - JavaScript, uses HTML5. I'm not much into JavaScript (e.g. preferred C# on Unity3d), also not sure about efficiency since it runs in the browser (?)
GameMaker - own scripting language GML and I actually remember this one as a tool for non-programmers. Has it actually grown into a real engine, I mean for serious development?
AppGameKit - C++, yet seems to be still pretty new. Haven't found any reviews on it
use Cocos2D and Objective C to develop for iOS only and then make an APK for Android out of it using Stella SDK. Has anyone done this? I'm pretty sure there will be limitations, and how about Google's in-app billing, AdMob and Facebook integration on Android?
Moscrif - JavaScript, looks like it's more for former web-developers
Starling - Flash 11, i'm not much into Flash
ND2D - not yet 1.0, does it have many features?
So, I'd be happy if you could comment from your experiences with the engines and suggest which one in the list (or anything else that I've missed) is the best for the described requirements. I also may be wrong with my first impressions about some of the engines.
I'm currently thinking of Marmalade+IwGame as the best option but since I don't have much info about Cocos2d-x and Particle code, I am not really sure about it.
Thank you!
Is there a way to increase performance without using cacheAsBitmapMatrix and without rotating the bitmap inside the movieclip but the whole movieclip itself?
I've been using Flash for many years, and am now creating html5 animations. Just curious, why would I want to use Edge animate to create html5 animation, when I could just make an animation in Flash CC, and then export as html5 canvas? Do both Flash and Edge basically render the same thing (in terms of html/css/js), or are there differences? Thanks!
I would like to press a button from an Adobe AIR application and execute some installed program. For example, I would have a button named "Start Winamp". When this is pressed it should start Winamp.exe directly...I don't want some command line thing executed, I only want an exe to start. Or...is it the same thing ? Please, let me know if this is possible.
Hello! I'm working on an old-school-inspired game in my free time. It is to be an HTML5 game with all the backend and graphics done by me. I have some decent experience with both sides, so getting a prototype going shouldn't be too difficult. That said, I've run into a bit of a dilemma.
My terrain is all procedurally generated tiles, and I would like to have elevation figure into things. Something simple, like a limited range of 8 possible heights, is what I'm looking for.
However, I also am trying to keep a very "old-school" style of graphics.
Ideally, I'd like for my game to look and feel similar to an old Zelda or Pokemon title. (3/4 view) But this creates a lot of problems. I can't seem to find a pre-made tileset online that even begins to look correct with terrain height applied. I know that usually this is done the same way as grass region meeting up with a sand region, wherein you have special "edge" tiles. But I can't seem to make that work with more than 2 distinct levels of terrain, plus it would be thousands and thousands of possible transition types (grass meets grass 1 level above, grass meets grass 2 levels above, grass meets sand 1 level above, etc etc etc). This is not to mention the further-along programmatic problems of occlusion and pathfinding and such. (Most of which I would solve by allowing 90 degree rotations of the world)
As a secondary option, I would consider what is commonly called an "isometric" perspective for my game. That has a lot of problems of its own though. I do not like the typical "iso terrain," many games have used. (Example: http://i.stack.imgur.com/rzqj8.jpg) It seems too programmatic in nature. And while the "minecraft-style" of depicting each tile as a block has an appeal, I'd need way more terrain levels and such to provide any fidelity. Also, this style is not my strong suit, drawing wise.
So with all of that in mind, I'm a little stuck. I'd really like to find a middle ground, somewhere between an "Isometric minecraft" and Zelda, where rock walls are basically just a tile type and do not actually indicate height. I'd also really like to keep my 3/4 perspective. Something like this imagehttp://www.fondusis.com/images/dev/FondusisFringe2.png. Though if you know Tiled or any such editor you will realize this is basically a grid of paint-by-numbers, i really need to be able to rotate, and view these hills from the other side. But when I set out to create art for this, it all goes to hell.
Any experiences dealing with art assets of this type, or anything related, will be helpful. Just trying to wrap my head around this problem! Thanks for your time!!
As a engineer, there are many tools in the web that allow to generate good color scheme based on the selected base colors.
But the problem is: How to select the base color? Is it just random pick a color or are there any predefined nice colors?
Such as, I want orange, so instead of randomly pick a color that look like orange, are there any existing orange variations that is good for use already?
Been thinking about poker from a game design point of view, so this looked like a good place to post on it.
The structure of poker is pretty simple. You are given information, a baseline chance of winning. You bet based on that information, then you are given more information. Again your chance of winning. And you bet again. This maybe happens a few times or just twice. Then you show your cards and win or loose.
Your choices each time are extremely simple in comparison to most games. Bet, check or fold. Probably if you designed the game fresh today it would be ignored. So what is it that makes the game popular and robust?
Just a few thoughts.
1.The game rewards long shots. This is the same thing that keeps people playing slot machines. You don't remember all the times that you loose, but you remember the big time that you won. Poker provides lots of ways to lure you into pushing your luck to get the long shot. You keep on betting because you might make the flush. This is probably a good mechanic to slip into a game, in fact it is probably in many games but it is something to consider thinking about.
2.simple mechanics, with complex theory. There is almost no system in the game like we see in many board games. No programmed hoops to jump through to make the game do something, People like the tagline, a moment to learn a lifetime to master. And it applies to many of the great games, like go, chess, poker, backgammon, mancala. Designing a game like this would seem to be trouble though. As many of the people who enjoy this kind of game don't want to learn others. I play Go, I probably wouldn't go back to playing chess in any kind of serious way now. The other thing is that these public domain simple games are honed by essentially thousands of playtesters and they evolve slowly over time. You can see this in the rules of chess with the additions of the castling, and the two spaces on the first move pawn rules, and some piece changes.
3.Player interactions and hidden information. I think this is what makes poker viable for the tv audience and bar league poker tourneys. Open information games reward those that can eliminate possibilities the quickest and arrive at strong moves. Hidden information games remove this advantage from people with strong analysis abilities. This has the additional effect of eliminating analysis paralysis. Some of my favorite war games are the columbia block series because they feature hidden information. This helps both players speed up their turns while adding some tension. It forces you to play the player, or the odds rather than to consider the board positions, or card information. I think in general most people don't consider themselves to have the skills of analysis. While almost everyone thinks they are a good reader of people. That is a skill that most people have. At the same time the game presents itself as a game of skill, while adding a luck element. So the winning player can say, “I won with my superior skill” and the loosing player can still say, “those are the breaks I was lucky or unlucky” leaving everyone happy. Where if someone beats your ass in chess, you just have to admit they are a superior player.
4 many people say that poker wouldn't be a good game without money involved. I think that it is just traditionally played with money But it has several things going for that make it a good money game. Simple widely known rules mean you can find players fairly easy. But I think the real factor in it, is that a game of poker is really something like 50 mini games of poker played in rapid succession. You can win money, you can loose money. There are up and downs, again this applies to slot machines as well. While you can bet money on any game, I think that these minigames within a game lend themselves well to gambling.
5 Theme. Poker is at its face a themeless game. Just cards. But the game itself is the theme at this point. Just as smart people in movies are always seen playing chess. Pokers theme is of daring gamblers and the fish that got away stories, it is all cowboys, and friday night poker with the boys smoking stogies, and now pudgy guys wearing sunglasses playing for millions. It appeals the American ideals of being smarter, and riskier than the other guy and the rewards are big jackpots.
So what does this mean from a game design point of view? I'm not exactly sure.
A hidden information game should be simpler than an open information game. Imagine how boring poker would be played open handed, Notice how nobody plays chess with the doubleblind methods. I think the more interaction you have among discrete pieces or objects in a game the better off you are going with open information.
Coax players into actions with the promises of long shots? Somehow this seems more fitting in a card driven game rather than a dice driven one. A player knows there are 4's in the deck and may stick around to try to see it while the same player might not if it was rolling 8% or less on percentiles.
Just my ramblings as I procrastinate tonight. I would love to hear what you have to think about it.
i need to create a flash for the world map , user can click on the map and it will zoom in to the country where u click ,, and u can zoom out to the previous seen when u click on a zoom out btn ??
i need to do the zooming effect when i have many parts to zoom in and to zoom out,, plz help
