The pendulums currently prohibit you from jumping into them from below, but jumping so you hit them from the side produces weird effects:
- it can put you on the top of it instantly, even if you are nowhere near high enough
- it can zip you down quickly
- you can go through it, if you don't press left or right. You only get pushed to the side if you are holding a direction.
>noone was answering the basic questions that needed to be answered before, so I went with something I knew
Which questions?
Wall-jumping would be nice, if you want suggestions for Rockman-style physics.
If I were making a game, I would make the physics extremely warped and unrealistic. I would think of things to change things players normally take for granted. For example, walking off an edge would make the player fall up instead of down. But those things would make internal sense, so the player would be able to learn the strange twisted mechanics of the game and enjoy it muchly. More likely, I would fail and nobody would like it. A Rockman clone is a much better idea after all.
Heh, I had an idea where basically the player needs to stay away from anything that looks safe/cute/kiddy, and go through areas that normally look like death-traps. So if your choice is between a cave that leads into a beautiful flowery meadow or a lava pit, you jump into the pit.
Edit: How high should damage-recoil be, if there'll even be any?
These things are true for all the moving platforms (though it's harder to fall off a pendulum or get stuck in midair)... I'm trying to fix it but it's hard.
Truncated wrote:
Which questions?
How does the character move?
Rockman-style games answer this with 'walking has a very short acceleration period before hitting top speed', 'you can control the height of a jump by letting go of the jump button', 'horizontal movement in the air follows more-or-less the same rules as the ground - there's almost no inertia to overcome like in Metroid or Mario', 'there's a movement faster than walking but it only provides short bursts of speed', and some other things. It might look superficially similar to, say, Mario, but it's actually very different.
What challenges should the player face?
This one hasn't actually been answered yet, and at this point I don't know very well. Most Rockman games provide answers like 'the main skill is navigating platforms and avoiding instant-death traps - the enemies are only around to slow you down or make jumps tricky' and 'boss battles contrast with the rest of the game quite sharply'. They also imply things like 'if you get hit, you can't get hit again for a while', 'you have a finite lifebar', 'death sets you back a little, but you won't lose more than a minute of work', 'lives are a resource to spend going through a level - if you lose them all you lose your level-progress but not your game-progress' etc. Right now for the short-levels-and-speed-competition game, I'm thinking things like 'getting hit only slows you down' and 'there's no way to actually die' and 'about half of the fun is figuring out how to get to the goal - the other half is performing that solution'. But no work has been done on it yet.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Boco has previously said the game will be a Megaman clone, so I think it will... be... err, a Megaman clone. Which brings up the question of what sort of license the game will be released under. Boco said he/she would release the source, so I guess most likely either a GPL or BSD style license. So if you wanted to turn it into a Metroid-style game, you could do so.
Who cares?
I never saw the whole crap about licensing. It removes the freedom from things.
In other news... is it going to be compiled into an .exe at some point so people who don't feel like downloading every compiler in existance can try this?
(bleh)
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
Xkeeper wrote:
Who cares?
Anyone with half a brain. If the game is not free, then no modifications can ever be made. If FCEU, Snes9x, and Mupen were not free, it would have been impossible to add rerecording to those emulators. In fact, this whole site would not exist without free software.
In other news... is it going to be compiled into an .exe at some point so people who don't feel like downloading every compiler in existance can try this?
Probably. But since the source code will be available as well, people can make modifications and improvements, which will make you, and others, very happy.
I agree with Xkeeper. Your logic does not make sense to us who have whole brains. He was just saying that licenses such as GPL removes freedom, which you ignore completely.
How can it be called freedom, to enforce Richard Stallman's will on oneself? Isn't that slavery? Why should one allow the fate of one's proud work be dictated by a third person?
If the author said that he was going to publish the source code, it is obviously going to be free already. What prevents you from making modifications to it without that pesky Stallman license? Are you afraid that Boco will sue you? :D
True freedom: "I release this to the public. Do whatever you wish with it; I care not."
"Fake" freedom: "I release this to the public. However, you must not do <this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, etc.>, or I will sue you into oblivion until you stop doing it."
The concept of "Free software = Licensed under <whatever>" is stupid and needs to die.
"True freedom" might not always be the desired and fair thing one wants. For example, if I spend 3 years developing a piece of software and want people to enjoy it for free, I might not be happy if then some company takes my software, changes some logos and credits, and starts selling it for considerable amounts of money. "True freedom" grants them the right to do so, but that's not necessarily what I want nor what I find to be fair.
The word "copyright" has become a swearword, but in some cases it's not a bad thing. It ensures that nobody can take advantage of your hard work without your permission (well, legally that is). Saying "you are free to use this, but remember, this is still copyrighted and you can't eg. change the copyright because that's illegal in most countries and by international laws" is not always a dumb thing to do.
I happen to agree that the concept of "free software = licensed" is bad, but probably not for the same reason as you. I don't see licenses as a bad thing. I see licenses as a good thing which help you, by legal means, to protect your hard work from exploitation. What I oppose is using the word "free" for some strict, artificial meaning it really doesn't have (ie. as GPL defines it). To me, if I can use a software without having to pay money, it's "free", even if GPL disagrees with that definition.
I agree with FSF's definition of free software:
― The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
― The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
― The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
― The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.
And I understand that a software does not need to be GPL in order to agree to those freedoms, but it needs to be GPL if the author wants to ensure that those freedoms cannot be robbed away.
GPL is the means to ensure that those essential freedoms cannot be robbed away, even though it does rob the freedom of robbing those defined freedoms away.
Do you mean "I think these are good principles" or "I agree that the term 'free software' should mean this"? Because those are two different things.
Personally I disagree defining the term "free software" like that. It's confusing and it's in disagreement with the common spoken language meaning of the word "free". For example, if you can use a software without having to pay money and without restrictions, I consider it "free" even if the source code is not available. The "free as free speech, not as in free beer" thing is just wordplaying. It doesn't remove the fact that using the word "free" in this context is confusing. Why couldn't they have chosen a more unambiguous term instead of hijacking a word which is in common usage for many other things than their limited, narrow definition?
"Open source software", while not absolutely perfect as a term, is still much better than "free software".
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
^I actually agree, kind of. It is unfortunate that there doesn't seem to be a word in English that describes something as "having freedom" besides, well, free. I've gotten used to it by now, however.
