hello. I've been programming using Textpad in Windows XP for a couple of months using Java. However, Java would probably make the crappiest game ever.
So, I did some research and came up with an idea. I prefer Linux to Windows, and I currently use PCLinuxOS and Gentoo Linux. I've found a good programming language called "Digital Mars D" ( http://www.digitalmars.com/ ) and a good IDE called LEDS ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/leds/ ). D is a C-like language. I'd like to know where to start if I was to make a game. a simple game, like an STG (not as advanced as Touhou or anything, something simple) or something.
I know for graphics and sound I can use SDL. I also know that 3D is a total pain in the arse, and takes lots of work. I also know that I can't draw for crap, and that if I were to make sprites I'd have to make one for each and every frame, which also sounds like a pain. My question is: which way is easier?
Take a look at the Arc library (http://www.dsource.org/projects/arcgames). It is nicer than plain SDL and has the advantage of hardware accelerated graphics.
The server with the Asteroids tutorial is currently down but commented source is available from http://svn.dsource.org/projects/arcgames/downloads/zipfiles/games/asteroidspkg.zip.
That should give you an idea of where to start.
In general: as long as you are doing a simple top-down or side view plain, software 2D (what SDL gives you) is sufficient. In that case you won't need alot of animations either.
If you want a lot of effects (rotation, zooming, smoke, lights, particles, etc) you will have to learn OpenGL.
For everything else that falls under "uses perspective view and has animations" I would use 3D or at least prerendered 3D-models. This isn't necessarily less work or "easier", but the result will look better.
> has the advantage of hardware accelerated graphics.
In what sense?
SDL makes what use it can of 2D hardware.
Arc uses SDL as one of two backends.
If you're referring to the OpenGL backend, some 2D operations are slower in a 3D context.
>>In what sense?
Mainly speed. Drawing textured quads and a OpenGL buffer swap vs SDL's blit/flip. The latter can take quite toll even on modern systems, especially if you want to do a shooter with loads of effects at 60fps.
This might not be an immediate advantage to the OP, but it is something one is going to notice sooner or later.
>>SDL makes what use it can of 2D hardware.
Hardware surfaces might be slower than software surfaces in the first place, and they are only available in fullscreen mode.
>>If you're referring to the OpenGL backend
I was.
>>some 2D operations are slower in a 3D context.
But said 3D context makes use of modern hardware and not some 2D accelerator that hasn't seen any significant improvement for nearly a decade.
>>2
That's what I'm trying to avoid, I want to make something from scratch, and even if it totally sucks I can at least say that I made it myself, and I can use it to learn from my mistakes and make a new one that's better.
Arc looks pretty sweet.
>>3
I want to do a strait top-down STG, but I'd like it to be good to look at. What I want to know is whether 3D is worth the effort if the game is going to be on a top-down 2D perspective. Even if it's not, I'd still want to at least try it, just to see what it's like.
If I were to do 3D stuff, would Blender be a good choice for a 3D application or do you have a better program?
I'm not sure what you mean with "3D" here:
-you can do "true" 3D and lock the action to the x-y plane and the view to overhead. I would not recommend this for a first attempt.
-you can do 2D (i.e. sprites) via OpenGL. This is what Arc does. If you want do it yourself you'll need to learn some basic OpenGL commands. This can serve as good introduction to OpenGL if you really want to go 3D later on.
-you can use images of prerendered 3d-models as your sprites, depending on wether you find it easier to learn how to draw or how to model and texture.
>>If I were to do 3D stuff, would Blender be a good choice for a 3D application
Blender is fine, though personally I prefer Wings (http://wings3d.com/) for modeling.
> But said 3D context makes use of modern hardware and not some 2D accelerator that hasn't seen any significant improvement for nearly a decade.
You misunderstand me: some operations are faster even despite a modern 3D accelerator. Uploading textures and/or scene setup isn't cheap, and depending on what you do in a 2D context, this can cut out any benefit you might have seen.
Unless you're blending or parallaxing like no tomorrow, I just don't see any real advantage of using OpenGL as a backend. If Arc is a nicer or more portable library, right on, but performance?
Of course, hardware changes, and maybe I'm behind the times. I'd love to hear something more substantial regarding this issue.
>>8
I'd like to do the first one, but I know it would take a veeeeery long time to do, lots of hard work, practice, learning and headaches.
I'd do the second choice, just to learn OGL, and then move into 3D with a 2D movement plane later. (although I wouldn't have thought of using sprites with OGL, I never thought people used sprites with Direct3D either. :P )
I heard about wings a couple of years ago and completely forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me about it.
I can't draw for crap. That is definitely my major setback.
>Unless you're blending or parallaxing like no tomorrow,
As I wrote:
"especially if you want to do a shooter with loads of effects at 60fps"
So let's say: particles and smoke, pseudo-3d explosions (scale some fragments), colour tinting for light effects.
In my experience doing 100-200 blits per frame (just blitting a non-alpha image to random point on the screen) can already bring you into the 30-60 fps region on semi-recent hardware (depending on resolution and size of the image). You can reach that with only tiles, enemies, and bullets.
Sure, with the exception of particle effects none of the above is in Arc (yet). For a lot of things the speed difference between using OpenGL or an SDL/software hybrid is irrelevant. But the capability is there if you want to make use of it.
>I'd like to do the first one, but I know it would take a veeeeery long time to do, lots of hard work, practice, learning and headaches.
Yes and no. You'll have to learn basic 3D OpenGL anyway or you wont know what you are doing in 2D, but staying 2D for the beginning gets you going faster. You dont have to worry about (or make) models yet, effects and gamelogic are somewhat easier to do.
An example that uses OpenGL/2D: http://www.reptilelabour.com/software/chromium/download.htm
Chromium is awesome. I had it on my old computer before the mobo blew up... quite literally. smoke and everything.