Getting Published

Published March 12, 2011
Advertisement
Last week, Brandon Sheffield of Game Developer Magazine contacted me (via Dave Astle, who alerted me to the fact that I ought to check my inbox once in awhile) asking permission to re-publish one of my journal posts in the magazine. Today I received the email with the .PDF of the layout and a request for any final edit suggestions on my part; seeing it all formatted and basically ready to go really made it feel "real" to me. That, and receiving the contract and the request that I supply an invoice for payment, anyway. This marks my first "pro" foray into things gamedev related; until now, I've been an online hack gibbering about inanities. I'm still that hack, but now my inanities shall be in a magazine. Muahahaha...erm, that is, I'm pretty stoked.

In the last weeks/months, there have been some pretty big changes in my life. I quit my job working as a concrete/asphalt/drywall/tile finisher for a plumbing company in the Phoenix area, and my loving (and extremely patient) wife and I moved back to my hometown in northern Wyoming. I've gone back to work doing woodworking: cabinets, hand-crafted furniture, CNC wood machining and carving, etc... Stuff I love. It's been great, despite the risks involved in the move and the inconvenience of hauling 24 feet of household stuff in a crappy Budget truck 1200 miles across wintry western landscape, rife with breakdowns and multi-day delays and shenanigans. But to once again come home at the end of the day, smelling of sweet cedar and hickory sawdust, rather than sweat and concrete and dirt and sewage, is pretty awesome. Just finished installing a custom set of hickory cabinets, an excellent way to polish up some rusty skills and get back in the groove.

Unfortunately, my old boss hired me back on during a period of extreme "crunch", so it's been >12 hr days of rush, rush, rush; and Goblinson Crusoe has suffered for it. I hate to lose momentum on a project like that, because I am notorious for being unable to pick it back up again for long periods of time. I've dabbled, I've fiddled, I've twiddled; but I haven't really made concrete progress in over a week. Some icons, a new critter, but nothing of real substance.

But most disconcertingly, my old nemesis, Doubt, has once again reared its hideous, slavering head, this time surfacing in the form of the age-old question," 2D vs 3D?" I've fought this fight before, and it is one I am incapable of winning decisively. I love 2D isometric, I really do. Some of my fondest gaming memories are of Diablo 1 and Diablo 2, Sacred, Divine Divinity, and countless other 2D isometric RPGs. I love the expressive style, the detailed environments, the "old school" feel of it all. Goblinson Crusoe is currently 2D in nearly every sense of the word: pre-rendered in every detail, taking place on a standard 2D plane world. But speaking with [member='EDI'] on Facebook the other day, trading "war stories" and discussing current projects, reminded me of all my old gripes in regards to 2D: the memory inflation of storing 40-some frames of pre-rendered animations, in 8 or 16 different facing directions; the difficulties of doing component-based paper-doll character equipment systems in pre-rendered 2D; the time sink of re-rendering whole animation sets following a minor character model tweak; the hacks; the kludges; the shenanigans and skullduggery. It's not a new argument for me, indeed it's one that I thought I was done with years ago, having at one point decided I would switch to 3D once and for all. Nevertheless, I regressed with GC because GC was initially only a very quickly slapped together tech demo illustrating procedural island generation, a tech demo that grew into a prototype and then into a fledgling game. And here I am, full circle, right back to where I was years ago when I was kludging away on my doomed Golem project and fighting with the same issues that I am fighting with now on Goblinson Crusoe.

True 3D just offers so, so many advantages over the "old school" 2.5D approach of isometric engines. And as hardware increases, I can't even console myself with the old arguments in favor of 2.5D anymore. True 3D games these days are capable of an exceptional amount of detail, and the advantages and ease of use far outweigh any perceived advantages of 2.5D. There is a reason that Blizzard, after completing D2, vowed that they wouldn't do another 2D game.

So maybe it's for the best that I got delayed this past week. Perhaps it has kept me from proceeding with the 2.5D mistake, that might mire me in distaste as I was so mired during development of Golem. Making the switch to 3D from a coding standpoint is trivial: I already have the Ogre3D backend for the Accidental Library (the foundation of GC and all of my recent projects) written, and the change would only affect perhaps 4 or 5 of my components. At this point, I have not sunk significant amounts time into the creation of pre-rendered 2D assets, so making the switch now won't be nearly the upheaval that it would be in, say, 4 months time.

So, anyway, that will be my project for the next couple weeks, in between work and time spent with the wife.
Previous Entry Still Working
Next Entry Work
1 likes 4 comments

Comments

Jason Z
Congrats on getting published!
March 12, 2011 01:00 PM
evolutional
The only counter to the 2.5D vs 3D argument is that I'd say "SHIP IT". You're already at a point where you have something going with a relative bit of momentum behind it; if you stop and say "ok I'll rewrite it as 3D" then you'll never deliver it. I'd consider finishing the 2.5D version and then take the lessons from that into the next 3D version. I've been there before, as I know you have, the procrastination about tech choices half way through a project are really just a way of finding an excuse to not finish something because the shine has gone off it.
March 12, 2011 04:23 PM
Mike Bossy
Congrats!

And I agree with evolutional. The key to finishing a project is to fight the urges to upgrade everything all the time. Look at what it did to Duke Nukem and other games. Finish the game on your current path. When you're done you can always take what you've learned and do the 2nd version in full 3D. You don't lose anything by doing that as a separate project. In fact you learn a whole lot about the design of your game and just finishing a project. You'll gain a lot of self confidence once you've completed the end game on a project. You then KNOW you can do it again.
March 13, 2011 07:31 AM
Aardvajk
Congrats on the article and good news about the new job.

I'd agree with the above two posters completely, having suffered this all my programming life, but you say that the change is fairly trivial and I can see the strength of argument about the flexibility of 3D in this kind of game.

I assume that you still have the models that you pre-rendered the sprites from? So you aren't really losing anything by just real-time rendering them except the time you spent pre-rendering I guess?

So it really depends on how realistically easy the change is going to be. If it isn't as I've assumed above, there probably is a good chance it will kill the project but you seem to have put a lot of trouble into the code architecture on this project so perhaps this will be an example of how more modern, compositional techniques can actually [i]avoid[/i] a lot of the issues mentioned above.

Best of luck either way.
March 16, 2011 07:25 PM
You must log in to join the conversation.
Don't have a GameDev.net account? Sign up!
Profile
Author
Advertisement
Advertisement