What would you want in the 'perfect' 2D game making engine?
It's a fun question to answer.
My list is:
1. Either a very fast scripting language, access to a base language (such as C++ or C#) or both.
2. 2D graphics editing program that is tailored to 2D game art (good for recolors, pixel art, etc.)
3. Tile based engine with unlimited layers, and different modes (isometric, square, elevated isometric, etc.)
4. Easy to configure and highly extensible physics engine.
5. Access to different controllers and control schemes.
6. Map editor that has many extra features to aid in map creation.
7. Easy to configure and highly extensible graphics engine (display and animation).
8. Support for local/networked multiplayer.
There's a lot more that I'm not thinking of right now. But yeah, I would love to have that engine.
well you just listed everything I could think of ... or Waite there IS one more thing
Customizable Object based eventing system.
1. Advanced 2D lighting
2. Multi-Platform Support
3. Advanced Pseudo 3d effects
4. Advanced Particle Engine
5. Advanced 2D filters(Like Sepia, or Negative. Maybe even that effect from the movie 300. :naughty: ), and the option to code your own
6. Advanced Panoramic Effects
7. Advanced Weather Effect, and the option to code your own
8. I can go on and on, I'm just busy right now. :D
Essentially, what we'd all like is an engine that reads our thoughts then makes a game out of them.
Branden, you're killing it. No 3D. It defeats the purpose.
Quote from: Blizzard on July 06, 2010, 02:21:15 am
Branden, you're killing it. No 3D. It defeats the purpose.
Hence the topic title. Rofl.
Quote from: Blizzard on July 06, 2010, 02:21:15 am
Branden, you're killing it. No 3D. It defeats the purpose.
"
The prefix pseudo- (from Greek ψευδής "lying, false") is used to mark something as false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not."
It may appear to be 3D, but it's actually not.
With RMXP, it's a 2D game making engine, but you can code pseudo 3D into it. So I really do not see why it should not be a prebuilt feature, or an addon somebody can make.
1. Custom resolution
2. Possibility for isometric view
3. Custom lenght (if any) animations of every sprite
4. Supports all audio types
5. Has layers for audio
6. (nearly) Infinite mapping layers
7. Possibility to use a grid of custom size while mapping (or no grid at all to make it pixel perfect)
8. Collision conditional for every tile with another (like event pages).
9. Working encryption
10. Ability to set your own gravity, friction and acceleration and movement speed etc..
Lol at #4. I don't think anybody wants to implement a decoder for all 7844674435735799128 audio formats in existence. MP3, OGG and WAV are more than enough.
@Branden: 2D != any kind of 3D, be it even false.
The 3D engines in RMXP are not pseudo. Anything that looks like actual 3D IS actual 3D. The only pseudo 3D is inaccurate 3D made by using simpler mathematical formulas for display rather than the fullscale 3D transformation arithmetic. e.g. All Mode 7 scripts are actual 3D. Just because they have 3D has been implemented using a 2D engine doesn't make it fake.
The 3D cam in battles in RMXP is pseudo because all it does is zoom in an out on a picture. My ring menus in CP because they simply zoom the icons depending where the icon is located in the circle. There is no perspective correction, there is no real field-of-view parameter. It's literally a fake and simplified 3D effect.
Maybe so, but I just went off of names and the definitions here. But it's my dream engine. I do not see how it's killing anything, at all.
So maybe we shouldn't classify RMXP as a 2D engine if what I want kills this one? :/
I want a scripting system with the 'MakeAwesomeGame()' function.
@Branden: Don't use a 2D engine.
Quote from: Blizzard on July 06, 2010, 04:47:21 am
@Branden: Don't use a 2D engine.
It's not something to make a big deal about, really. Some people want other things, and this is what I would prefer.
If I had Godly coding skills, I would guarantee you if I made a game engine, it would be 2D with a bit of 3D capability. But the majority of it would be 2D.
And if someone makes a pure 2D engine with full C# or C++ coding support(or another language) it opens the doors for 3D support, so really, it's not a big deal that I would want this prebuilt.
So, hey, let's call my dream 2D engine my "dream 2.5D engine", then. Why does it bother you(if it doesn't, I'm sorry for the mistake) that this is my dream engine?
It doesn't bother me, but you said "I'd like Linux to have X feature" when somebody asked you what feature you want in Windows. You're posting in the wrong topic.
Quote from: Blizzard on July 06, 2010, 06:16:32 am
It doesn't bother me, but you said "I'd like Linux to have X feature" when somebody asked you what feature you want in Windows. You're posting in the wrong topic.
Really, I didn't do anything against the topic rules. I just said a feature I would like to have, it doesn't have to have it. This argument is pointless.
And I do not mean to be rude, but this article is rather interesting:
Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_3d)
Wikipedia may say it has errors, but it all really makes a lot of sense.
He is talking about stuff like Mode7, I think, which isn't 3d at all but rather a distortion of 2d images to make it seem like they have a perspective. So, no 3d involved, really.
Yeah, that was what I was talking about.
Let me magnify that.
Quote from: Subsonic_Noise on July 06, 2010, 06:49:03 am
He is talking about stuff like Mode7, I think, which isn't 3d at all but rather a distortion of 2d images to make it seem like they have a perspective. So, no 3d involved, really.
Quote from: Subsonic_Noise on July 06, 2010, 06:49:03 am
to make it seem like they have a perspective. So, no 3d involved, really.
Quote from: Subsonic_Noise on July 06, 2010, 06:49:03 am
have a perspective. So, no 3d involved, really.
Quote from: Subsonic_Noise on July 06, 2010, 06:49:03 am
So, no 3d involved, really.
Quote from: Subsonic_Noise on July 06, 2010, 06:49:03 am
:V
Why are you making such a big deal out of it? I think the people who made 2.5D and the people who study it a lot know more about it then you, even if you are an exceptionally good programmer. And I am not saying I know everything about it, but I am just going to go off on what they say, since they do.
Can we just stop this already before this topic becomes anymore off topic? It's getting really old doing this. :xP:
Quote from: Branden on July 06, 2010, 08:17:41 am
Why are you making such a big deal out of it? I think the people who made 2.5D and the people who study it a lot know more about it then you, even if you are an exceptionally good programmer. And I am not saying I know everything about it, but I am just going to go off on what they say, since they do.
Can we just stop this already before this topic becomes anymore off topic? It's getting really old doing this. :xP:
I think it would be best for Blizzard and for you if you learned the terminology behind what you were talking about. If you wanted support for Mode 7 and 2.5D, then say it, not "pseudo-3D". It's like saying: I WANT A NORMAL PHONE THAT CAN BE TAKEN ANYWHERE AND CAN CALL FROM ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, nowadays. Blizzard responded by telling you you'd need a cell phone, not a regular phone.
Quote from: Diokatsu on July 06, 2010, 08:40:46 am
Quote from: Branden on July 06, 2010, 08:17:41 am
Why are you making such a big deal out of it? I think the people who made 2.5D and the people who study it a lot know more about it then you, even if you are an exceptionally good programmer. And I am not saying I know everything about it, but I am just going to go off on what they say, since they do.
Can we just stop this already before this topic becomes anymore off topic? It's getting really old doing this. :xP:
I think it would be best for Blizzard and for you if you learned the terminology behind what you were talking about. If you wanted support for Mode 7 and 2.5D, then say it, not "pseudo-3D". It's like saying: I WANT A NORMAL PHONE THAT CAN BE TAKEN ANYWHERE AND CAN CALL FROM ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, nowadays. Blizzard responded by telling you you'd need a cell phone, not a regular phone.
QFT.
Also, I rest my case. An distorted 2d image is still 2d.
Quote from: Subsonic_Noise on July 06, 2010, 08:44:38 am
Also, I rest my case. An distorted 2d image is still 2d.
QFT.
Do not care, Dio. All I did was try and state my wishes for a dream 2D engine, but no, it had to all distorted and turned into this. :P
I really suck at explaining things when I get irritated, so that's why there is all the talk of Pseudo 3D and 2.5D, I try and come up with a way to explain my point.
I really tried to explain what SN said there. Probably due to my head surgery when I was a baby, who the fuck knows. :xP:
Quote from: Subsonic_Noise on July 06, 2010, 08:44:38 am
Also, I rest my case. An distorted 2d image is still 2d.
Here is a bunch of distorted 2D images.
(http://www.sharecg.com/images/medium/46024.jpg)
This image does NOT display 3D. It's a bunch of distorted 2D images. Don't say that it's 3D because it's not. It's a bunch of distorted images, all distorted in certain ways. It's NOT 3D. It's 2D.
Eh, also, I am confused who is on whose side and who is for what. #_# My point is that if you want a 2D engine, stick to one. As soon as you introduce 3D effects, it's a 3D engine which you can use for a 2D game.
I just give up. I only want this be over with.
Blizz, I'm sorry I argued so much, and that I broke the topic rules.
Some of the things I forgot:
Menu editor
HUD editor
Extensive math library
Customizable save data
Cutscene editor
Built-in basic AI (pathfinder, etc.)
Also, I think we all get the difference between 2d sprites and 3d models.
I like those ideas.
Quote from: NAMKCOR on July 06, 2010, 03:51:45 am
I want a scripting system with the 'MakeAwesomeGame()' function.