It seems that whenever one competition is launched, people immediately try to start more (and consequently none are successful, because the entrants are spread too thin).
Right now though, things are pretty quiet around here, the summer holidays are coming up for a lot of people, and we haven't had a competition in a while - so if you have any ideas for a fun competition, now would probably be a good time.
I think it would be cool to have a TDC-user-submitted engine, and contest entries make their own game from that engine. Editing the engine is prohibited, but as long as the selected engine is the primary gameplay engine for the game, anything goes. That way, each entrant has the same foundation/limitations to work from, and it's all about where they go with it with graphics, sound, and other gameplay features.
...No, I'm not suggesting this because I just released an engine example. I think it would be a great way to showcase the engine-programmer's work, create several games that most TDC users would want to play, it would take a lot of the learning curve out of making a game happen, and above all create more content for the website.
Let's have a competition to see who can come up with the most competitions, and then to see who can host the most competitions at the same time. Bonus points to the people that try to host other peoples' competitions.
I also approve of SMR's idea. Having a premade engine to work from would speed up the development process for a lot of people. We could also make it so that people can add extra events to compliment the engine, but the engine group itself should remain unchanged and enabled at all times (i.e. no "Start of Frame - Deactivate Group 'Engine'" ).
Any ideas of who will be the host? And what kind of engine we would use? Platform seems the obvious choice, but we could also do shoot-em-up, tile-based, RTS, etc. (I think it'd be pretty clever if an engine for a specific genre of game was used, but someone ended up making a different genre out of it. )
I'm personally partial to shoot-em-ups myself, but yeah, I agree that platformers seem to be the way to go due to everyone's familiarity with the style. There are several here on TDC to choose from, as well.
I'd say categories would be the usual: sound, graphics, gameplay, lastability; the final category would be something like "engine integrity," which would factor in an unchanged, well-utilized game engine. For those who go vanilla, this would be an easy max points in a category.
Discretionary bonus points could go to someone who adds to the engine, but what they add doesn't interfere with the coding of the initial engine. For a platformer, someone could put in a "jetpack" into Contra for instance, adding a new dimension to gameplay but not interfering with the togetherness of the initial engine.
Have no idea who would host; at the moment I've no spare capital to put forward into a competition award.
The "Dungeon Dash" engine maybe? (with permission of course) - it's simple, has loads of scope for adding/changing stuff, and I'm just soooo sick of platformers.
TBH, I'd personally prefer a contest that was more about game-making, as opposed to game-modding - seems like using an engine would result in a lot of games that all feel the same, but just have different graphics, and maybe one or two extras tacked on. I'd rather see something that will produce lots of completely different entries (like in the 20 event contest, for example). That's just me though...
It'd be nice if we had a flexible engine floating around, with dedicated modding tools, but otherwise, I'd prefer something more creative too. Especially as the twenty-event competition was pretty recent and had a strong technical bias - I've only got TGF2:NE installed which would, again, be an arbitrary barrier
If you want to go with this concept, then pick an engine that is already made.
Asking people to come up with their own engine will take too long, and too many people will stumble on the learning curve and produce nothing. The whole point of suggesting the engine contest was to remove barriers to creating a game.
Regardless of the contest, there will doubtless be similar games. For this competition concept, only basic gameplay need be similar. But even for platformers and shoot-em-ups: think of all the different directions one can go, conceptually. There are countless possible variations.
I could donate a version of my platform engine I use for all of my games. The trouble being I know how to use and would like to enter to competition!. Also it's pretty badly designed. (also it will expose my lame code)
It's got a very simple to use level editor though!
How is this for everyone? It might take a while to learn how to use everything. I hope it's easy to understand everything.
Ive not locked any groups since you guys might need to look at the events to understand what to alter to make your own objects interact with the player etc.
I agree with this, although I like playing platformers I really find developing them quite boring - I have tried a few times over the years to do a platformer.
I must also express that I would also prefer to see a competition about game making rather than modding, not sure using a ready made engine could keep my interest up - but it is the summer so I guess a competition based on reducing workload is a good idea.
Well, you could use my engine. I actually made it with the idea of flexability in mind. I wonted to make an engine that I could use for multipul games without too much editing once it was done. It has it's own problems thought but it also has quite a few built in features. It also just uses the regular fraim editor for it's level editor.
If you don't want the engine to be visible customisable, you could use my one event platforming engine. Condensed into two actions (I separated them because MMF2 has a limit on expression size) it looks like this: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/415091/
Have you even been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Wow, that is one massive hunk of text. I attempted to copy the Y expression into MMF2 and I guess it's still to big. Also, I'm not sure how this would function as an engine. Can it really read the key input, do all the collision detection, movement and what not?
"Oh, my god! A lightning monster just ripped out this poor woman's eyes, and your mocking her shrubbery!" - The Spoony One
Here's my two cents on the matter=
I think that whatever engine is used should be allowed to be modified to an extent. I think that certain events that are not allowed to be changed should be put into a group that functions as sort of the 'bread and butter' of the application. Then you are allowed to add up to so many new events, max of 10 new events perhaps? This way it'll be really cool to see how different the games can be from the original engine and still use it.
@Dishtron Everything except input. Notepad started to crash before I managed to paste in the input code, but I have a working version in several actions with collision detection, movement, acceleration/deceleration, jumping, etc with input all included
Have you even been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Originally Posted by Jacob! If you don't want the engine to be visible customisable, you could use my one event platforming engine. Condensed into two actions (I separated them because MMF2 has a limit on expression size) it looks like this: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/415091/OH MY GOSH.
Why did I not think of this? It's so obvious to me now. How well does it function at lower/higher framerates, collision-and-speed-wise? I've always enjoyed compressing engines into as few events as possible, but I've been using backdrops and fastloops. Not that I'm not familiar with the idea of using a collision map, I just didn't know what the impact would be at runtime.
Visibly Flawless. It runs at a safe 90FPS max, but I keep it at 60FPS to match the average monitor refresh rate.
is the whole game. Everything from Platform Controller and up is the engine, which is what was condensed into two actions in that pastebin post ^^ there.
Have you even been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
A whole platforming engine in two events?! Holy hyperspace. Just when I thought I'd seen everything...
Wiiman - Now that you mention it, it probably would be a good idea to let contestants alter some of the engine's events. Afterall, depending on what resolution our games are, we would need to adjust things such as movement speeds, gravity, etc, to compensate for different-sized objects.
I think we need to look at what is the purpose of the competition. If the whole purpose is to let everyone not have to worry about coding an engine, then we should make it so that you CANNOT TOUCH the engine that is picked, but only add on to it. I prefer this approach, as it will let casual developers create games on the same level as you devoted MMF'ers.
On the other-hand, if we are trying to get a whole bunch of super-creative and unique games, then changing the original engine can be allowed. However, I think this is pointless because then why not just spend that time creating your own engine instead of learning and then modifying a new engine? Additionally, this will lead to some games being WAY better than others, because the veteran developers will just take the engine picked and enhance it on their own to make games better than the casual MMF'ers can make.
At least that's my opinion. I will probably join the competition either way so that I have some motivation to create a new game.
Originally Posted by Sephirenn I think we need to look at what is the purpose of the competition. If the whole purpose is to let everyone not have to worry about coding an engine, then we should make it so that you CANNOT TOUCH the engine that is picked, but only add on to it. I prefer this approach, as it will let casual developers create games on the same level as you devoted MMF'ers.
THANK YOU. I couldn't have said it better myself. The above illustrates the whole point of my suggestion.
SMR - Exactly. Like I said in my last post, I think that if changes to the engine were allowed, then it should be for specific events such as variables for speed, jump power, etc. Even then, the engine that is used might allow us to change that stuff outside the Event Editor by simply adjusting the alterable values of objects.
If you guys have trouble figuring out which engine to use, I could wait another day or two for more donations and then put up a new poll so that we can vote on 'em.
Originally Posted by Sephirenn I think we need to look at what is the purpose of the competition. If the whole purpose is to let everyone not have to worry about coding an engine, then we should make it so that you CANNOT TOUCH the engine that is picked, but only add on to it. I prefer this approach, as it will let casual developers create games on the same level as you devoted MMF'ers.
THANK YOU. I couldn't have said it better myself. The above illustrates the whole point of my suggestion.
I think we all understood the point.
It's just that this is a site for people who want to make games - it's not a site for people who only want to make graphics/music/sounds, which is basically what we're left with if everyone is using the same engine - maybe with the odd additional gimmick here and there.
I also don't see how it's a good idea to "let casual developers create games on the same level as devoted MMF'ers" if you only do it by bringing down the standard of games made by the better klikers.
Still, if enough people want to do it, that's fair enough...
Going off of what Wiiman said, I think the engine should have a few coding "holes" that the contestant must fill in. Of course, the missing pieces would be given. This way, it maintains the same basic engine, but allows for unique entries.
Go into my head, then come back out and tell me I'm wrong.
The problem with this competition is that the engine is done, all that is left is making a game out of it, which is by far the hardest part. Finishing a game is a lot more effort than anything else. A more ideal competition would be like Clickteam's Wild Widget competition, where users were told to make the best, most useful and customisable widgets. Widgets, for those that don't know, are objects with the code inside its behaviour, so you can just drop the object in and its functionality is already implemented. Nifflas won that competition with a particle effects widget, and I got third place with a grid movement engine. There were platforming engines, a file association widget, 3D menus, screen shaker widgets, and more. One guy even made a whole level editor widget (and got second place)! There were so many entries because people could do the most fun part of a game, and not have to worry about polishing graphics or finding shoddy sounds online. It was just raw code that could be adapted and expanded on to benefit everyone
Have you even been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
To be honest, I'm tired of seeing half-finished projects of games. I want to see a finished game, not just a component. I'm guilty enough of that myself, so I know how easy it is to simply drop a project in the works. Even if a game entertains me for just a half an hour, I'll happily play it and offer feedback.
By removing technical barriers but still maintaining some boundaries to a process, there's a better chance something will be finished. And to become a BETTER game maker, one ought to gather smaller successes under their belt, gaining good habits on staying focused, on task, and getting things done. That's the whole reason the idea popped into my head, and why I suggested it.
To cater more to the hardcore folks...What about including one engine, and half a dozen or so of the available widgets? The game-maker can pick and choose which of these six they want to implement in their game, and in what capacity.
EDIT: or have two different levels of the competition: one with a static engine (with the exception of the variables Strife indicated), and another "advanced" level where people can have much more flexibility in the components. Different sets of competitions, and the users can select for themselves where they want to participate.
Otherwise, this idea can be scrapped and someone can suggest another idea: widget-making (which takes some actual coding skills, I assume, and by default alienates the majority of the community) or otherwise.
@Jacob The most fun part of making a game is a very subjective thing dood. Differant people like differant aspects of game making. Some people like making the graphics, some people like designing the mechanicks, there have been plently of coding comps and there will be plenty more. I think we can at least give this a try.
@Jess Bowers Your engine is so awsome... and it even has moving platforms! Honestly of all the platform engines you see uploaded here that is one thing almost no one includes, and it's one of the basic features of a platformer.
Anyway, I've only been playing round with Jesses engine for a couple of minutes so fare but it seems really sollid. For the purpose of the compitition though I think some things should be converted from using spesific objects to using groups. For instance I just changed the vertical/horazontal moving platformes to use 2 groups (one for Vertical moving platforms and one for Horizontal moving platformes). This way people can make differant moving platforms by just cloning the object and changing the graphic. It seems to work really well. As for other stuff to be converted, perhaps ladders and convayor belts?
I'd also recommend using some counters so people can easaly change things like waly/run speed, jump strength and gravity by just changing those values. So they can make the charecter move the way they wont without having to change the engine.
Anyway, those are my sujestions. I strongly recomment people check out Jesses engine, it has a couple of small glitches but nothing that can't be easaly worked around. I am going to upload my Mode7 engine that I was working on, not sure how much people will like it but it will certanly be something differant if we go with that one.
"Oh, my god! A lightning monster just ripped out this poor woman's eyes, and your mocking her shrubbery!" - The Spoony One
I don't think it's fair to assume that anything requiring actual coding skills will alienate the majority of the community.
Anyway, a few alternatives:
A.) Could have a theme-based contest, and if people want to use a ready-made engine, that's up to them, but it's not compulsory.
Could have an engine-based contest, but give people more choice:
B.) Choose one of a few specified engines (1 x platformer, 1 x shooter, 1 x RPG, etc)
C.) Choose any engine from the downloads section of TDC.
Failing that, just pick an engine and go with it - it seems like there's a fair amount of interest.
@Sketchy I don't think it's fair to say that ether. It's just that making the engine is such a large part of the prosses that by the time it's done the competition is more ether over and or you have run out of steam. By selecting a ready made engine you get a running start, so to speak.
"Oh, my god! A lightning monster just ripped out this poor woman's eyes, and your mocking her shrubbery!" - The Spoony One
Sorry, that comment was aimed more at SMR (you just your comment in first).
I don't have any problem with people using ready-made engines - the advantages are obvious. I just don't see what we have to gain by making it compulsory.
But again, if that's what the majority of people want, then do that
My initial suggestion was not about making the next best Klik game, it's about getting more people involved and finishing games (even if they suck). That's where I was coming from in terms of being in opposition to the widget competition.
And I have to admit (if it's not obvious) that my statement about making widgets/"alienating the majority" was personally biased. I have no idea of where to start with making one, and my assumption is that it would be easier to make a finished game than a widget and I personally don't have time to learn how to do some coding in C++ or whatever.
I think you're misunderstanding what a widget is.
They don't require any C++ code, or anything like that.
They're exactly like any other MMF2 file, except that all the code is contained in an object's behavior, so users can just copy and paste that object into their game.
To be honest, I'm really not a fan of widgets - mainly because behaviors suck. I'd much rather the widgets were just released as normal example files, with the code contained in a single group within the main event list. I really hate the fact that you can't edit behaviors in the event list editor, and I think it's a very bad idea to have code scattered all over the place anyway. Plus you're very limited in what you can do in a widget, because you have no control of when the events in a behavior are run, relative to the other events.
So yeah, I'm not recommending that for a competition.
It would be nice to have a competition requiring a more balanced mix of design, coding, and graphics.
I'm not trying to get people mad here, but wasn't the whole point of this competition to use an already made engine? If there are one or two people that disagree, you can start a separate compo where you can make your own engine. But what makes this competition unique is that the 'theme' is that you MUST use an already made engine.
Now, of course you should be able to edit some basic values, like speed/acceleration, and maybe even add in your own AI on top of the engine if you want, but the base engine should remain untouched.
At this point there are so many opinions that everyone is politely arguing their own case. I think the owner of this compo needs to just list out the rules and that's what we do (even if they are different than I am suggesting above). That way we can get started on either our games (if an engine is picked), or at least voting on what engine we are going to use. All of this 'arguing', however polite, is getting us nowhere.
Idea: Maybe we could hold a competition for creating engines from scratch first, and then when that competition is over, the winner's engine would be used in the following competition where entrants have to use it to build a complete game. In a way, it would be like a collaboration of sorts.
@Sephirenn -
I don't think we're in any great rush to start the competition - nothing wrong with giving people a few days to suggest ideas, and a few days to find out about the competition (instead of hearing that there had been a competition, but they missed it).
Originally Posted by Strife Idea: Maybe we could hold a competition for creating engines from scratch first, and then when that competition is over, the winner's engine would be used in the following competition where entrants have to use it to build a complete game. In a way, it would be like a collaboration of sorts.
I think this is by far the best idea, also it may be good afterwards for people to choose from the top 3 or 5 engines to base their game. And not just the 1st placed.
You know, I'd rather that the organisers just pic an engine that people must use but now that I think about it there are not many existing "engines" that were really designed for anything but as an example. Most are meant just to show people how to implement certain things into there own projects, using specific objects and hard coding, rather than actually be used as a base to be built upon. I designed my platform engin to be that way, and Jess Bowerses project seems to have this as it's stated goal. The only other one I can personally think of is the Clear Sky engine for the Ray Casting Object. However that would require people to buy the Klick Disc in order to get it.... witch is totally worth it by the way.
So maybe it would be good to develop an engine that was actually made with the express purpose of being used as a base for others to build upon.
PS, released this Mode7 example. It has active object sprites and they all rotate to the appropriate angle. Not sure if I'd call it an engine though.
http://create-games.com/download.asp?id=8484
Edited by Disthron
"Oh, my god! A lightning monster just ripped out this poor woman's eyes, and your mocking her shrubbery!" - The Spoony One
I could make a non level editor version of my engine too for those that own TGF2 or don't want to learn how to use my tools. However i'm not going to until something is actually decided upon.
@ Disthron - Thanks for the kind words! I really had a lot of fun with that engine. I really should go back and try to complete the rest of the features (especially swimming).
I liked it so much that I modded it about a year ago and added moving platforms, etc. Here's the modded version (complete with EXE and MFA source):
http://toadstool.net/games/misc/Nin-Joe.zip
See if you can get all the way to the end of the "sample" level.
The goal of this competition is to successfully attempt to make a game that takes place on a 10x10 grid of pixels. The Cubed portion of this competition is referring to the 10 colors you can make those pixels. 10 pixels x 10 pixels x 10 colors.
It's not even an engine, it's a framework. It also handily explains my idea, it does not take into account the 10 colors because I thought of that just now. It just neatly fills out the competition.
It can be modified, built on, and expanded.
This is more of a design challenge. It's incredibly difficult to make something like this in click because on some level, it's attempting to go back to the raw values of programming that click automates for you. However, no one is saying you couldn't drop a gameboard object in there and whip out a bejeweled clone. Though that itself would pose a question, What happens when you cannot show the player their score in a game? Especially in Bejeweled.
So you're saying that nothing on screen can stray from this 1 colored block rule? If you're making a platformer for instance - you can't draw a character within a block, your character has to BE the block?
That actually sounds interesting and challenging - I'm game
Okay, so we have ideas for an Engine Competition, an Everyone-Uses-The-Same-Engine competition, and the 10 Cubed Challenge. Is there anything I'm missing?
Once you're all sure about what kinds of competitions you'd consider entering, I'll make a new site poll for everyone to vote in. Either that, or we could just make a new thread with the poll.
I'd just like to say I think it's better to make a fast decision. The longer we wait the more chance people will lose interest. Heck, wait too long and people might even forget about it!
Alrighty. What say that we do the Engine competition first, then during the Everyone-Uses-Same-Engine competition, we have people pick and choose from one of the top 3 (or less, depending on the number of participants) engines in the last competition?
Do we have to particpate in the engine design compo in order to participate in the everyone uses the same engine compo?
After this can we have a everyone uses the same sprites compo? This would be a good idea for those who aren't too handy graphically to show off their coding ability. This way everyone's skills are catered for?!?!
Originally Posted by lembi2001 Do we have to particpate in the engine design compo in order to participate in the everyone uses the same engine compo?
Of course not. That would be silly.
I'd suggest:
* Engines to be submitted by 2(?) weeks from start of contest.
* Must be made in MMF2 (must work in build 251).
* HWA is allowed; Developer-only extensions are not.
* Strongly recommended that code is commented, alterable/global values are renamed, etc.
* No prizes (maybe a custom tag and a few DC Points, or something like that).
* No judges - Winner is decided by public vote on which engine(s) people want to use for stage 2 of the contest (therefore no specific scoring criteria either).
* Engines that have already been made are not eligible to win stage 1, but may be submitted and voted on for use in stage 2 of the contest.
Originally Posted by AndyUK I'd just like to say I think it's better to make a fast decision. The longer we wait the more chance people will lose interest. Heck, wait too long and people might even forget about it!
Totally agree. The tax will probably be up on my motor before this competition get's sorted out!
Does the egine have to be open source, how about and .exe with a level editor?
If the rules say you can't change anything it shouldn't mattter either way, right?
@Akai_R I suppose, the thing is in order for it to be useful it had better be the best, most robust, fully featured and easy to ues level editor I've ever seen made by the click community in order for it to even stand a chance. Remember, people are going wont to use there own graphics, possibly have cut-scenes, in game tutorials, there own quirky mechanics. The level editor submited by AndyUK was one of the better ones I've seen and you couldn't do any of that without fussing about with the code.
So, I think it's better to go with Open Sorce.
"Oh, my god! A lightning monster just ripped out this poor woman's eyes, and your mocking her shrubbery!" - The Spoony One
I'll go for that engine contest for sure, with a turn-based, tile-based engine I've been sitting on for literally months. It'll be good to see someone do something with it if it's selected.
@ Akai,
I'd say you could keep it closed-source if you must, but it's not really in the spirit of the contest (ie. having fun and creating engines which the community will use and learn from, even after the contest is over), and people would probably be less inclined to vote for it if they find it inflexible or difficult to use.
EDIT: Sorry - scratch that. I'd say it's okay to lock some groups if you must, but no compiled .exes - they don't allow enough freedom to add features.
@ S-M-R,
Doh! I was going to make an "Advance Wars" / "Fire Emblem" engine...
Originally Posted by Sketchy @ S-M-R,
Doh! I was going to make an "Advance Wars" / "Fire Emblem" engine...
Hahaha! Don't worry. I've never played either of those games, and from what I know about them - and your work - it's clear my engine is much simpler than anything you would provide. Your own engines are Klik benchmarks, for crying out loud.
Thanks, but that's quite an exaggeration. I haven't even made more than two or three.
Advance Wars is great, but it's actually very simple - probably not very different from what you're making. Fire Emblem is similar, but a bit more complicated because of all the role-playing elements. I can recommend you play either or both (or "Ancient Empires" for J2ME mobile phones).
I was only going to do a pretty basic engine if anything.
Advertisement
Post Reply
I think it would be a great way to showcase the engine-programmer's work, create several games that most TDC users would want to play, it would take a lot of the learning curve out of making a game happen, and above all create more content for the website.
).
Edited by Sketchy
Just when I thought I'd seen everything...
