Chris H wrote:Well, I opened the source with the latest patch, so... enjoy. :)

Oh wow! And...oh, no! Now I'll be tempted to learn Turbo Pascal to modify the code. ;)

Well, I opened the source with the latest patch, so... enjoy. :)

I'd open source ACK, but I don't imagine that a bunch of convoluted, confusing Turbo Pascal code (largely written when I was a teenager, and before I knew what I was doing) would be any use to anyone. Hell, I can't even figure it out sometimes. :)

I'd make it my lifelong ambition to understand every beautiful convoluted line of your code if it were opensourced. Wouldn't it be cool if we could rewrite it in a more modern object oriented language such as Ruby? I always wanted to learn Ruby better so I could make my own scripts for RMXP.

RPG Maker XP is an interesting way of creating a game design kit. The Editor itself is written in the scripting language which used Ruby [or is Ruby?] not sure about that. Something like that. But the concept is interesting anyway. When you load up RMXP you can look at all the scripts that run everything and you can change them or replace them with your own entirely or just add on to them with more scripts as most RMCP scripters do.

The scripts that come with it just offer an easy out for the beginner game designer who wants to be able to just slap together some prefab game elements and customize an already working game system. But the ability is there to build a game from the ground up or to alter the existing game system from the ground up. That to me is how all game design kits should be.

I forgot to answer the question about macros:

I think for the particular scope of your project, leave them out. If you allow attaching multiple actions to terrain objects, you might find you don't need them at all.

Or a compromise solution: have a very rudimentary scripting system that is just a list of "show picture #x" and "pause for x seconds" and "wait for a keypress" commands. With just those three, quite a bit can be accomplished.

OK, I've decided:

REAL-TIME:
Like Chris said: !optional! turn time-out. Other NPCs move simultaneously to your move.

ANIMATION:
I think I should leave this out of the first version.

SNAP TO GRID:
I'm going to go ahead and make the entities snap to the tile grid.

That will speed up development.

I'd open source ACK, but I don't imagine that a bunch of convoluted, confusing Turbo Pascal code (largely written when I was a teenager, and before I knew what I was doing) would be any use to anyone. Hell, I can't even figure it out sometimes. :)

Anyway, as for the real time thing -- an easy compromise would be to make it turn based but have the turn "time out" if no move is made within a certain period. Although I originally made ACK that way, and then disabled that, largely out of personal preference; I prefer leisure activities where I get to take my sweet time.

Or there's the ACS model: you get several moves, then they get several moves. :)

I have saved your comments in a TXT file in my JACK development folder as "reality check". You're probably right about this.

Should I even try to make it real time? Perhaps I should save that for a future version?

So we have an ACK clone with possibly some extra features.

What new features would you be interested in?

Do I really need to include a tile editor?

And macros look like a small nightmare. Should I leave them out? If I did put them in, Chris, how is it done?

And yes, it will be open source (eventually, like within a year).

I'm in agreement here: I really think that a primitive graphic engine is a GOOD thing for this kind of application, as it makes it easier for a casual user to create content.

Not sure what else I could add to what you already said. I agree it would be a neat feature but as you said there is your deadline to think about. Also you are getting further and further away from the original source of inspiration which was ACS/ACK if I'm not mistaken. It is your project and you can do with it what you wish no matter what I think about it. And I'd support your project 100% regardless since it is open source and I always support the independent game designer or small amateur game design group.

But if you really do want my opinion. Well, personally I would either keep it as strictly 2d top down tile based retro as you possibly can given the tools you are working with or just go all out retro 3D. To my knowledge there has never been anything like FPS Creator but for retro 3D shooter design. I could see something like that making a huge splash on the independent gaming scene.

Otherwise like I said, stay true to the source that inspired you. Perhaps make it almost in every way like ACK except have the ability to use the maximum resolution for your tiles and maybe the flexibility of being able to choose from a set of different tile dimensions when you begin a new design or even better have it so flexible that any design can have it's whole tile set swapped out for a different set of any dimensions or resolution just like Nethack can. Nethack even lets you plug in 3d like isometric tiles in place of the regular 2d square tiles.

That I think would be much more impressive than yet another 3d clone of Wolf3d or Doom or Duke Nukem, Hexan, ROTT, Blood, Heretic, Quake, Strife, Chex Quest, etc.

Another thing to consider if you go the 3d Game Maker route. I think that might raise the difficulty rating for aspiring game designers which could mean alienating many would be users of your new game design system. I'd try to keep it as simple as possible while still taking it up a notch from those who inspired you. But if you have a way of making the 3d aspect completely optional then by all means go for it. So long as it doesn't turn your job as coder into a nightmare which I suspect it probably would.

I am torn over an issue with the graphics for JACK. Part of me wants to implement a Wolfenstein 3D style graphics engine that uses alternate tiles than the 2D tiles to render. You hit "tab" to toggle between 2D and 3D view. But I'm afraid that would take away precious development time from the core of the project.

I need to know how much people would want to have this 3D feature. (It would look a little better than the early Might & Magic games). Or if I should just toss the idea aside. Remember, the deadline for project completion is May 1st 2009.

Please take a moment to share your thoughts.

Don't you mean "get jacking?" - lol. Sorry couldn't resist. I know I'm retarded. I just can't help myself sometimes.

What exactly do you mean by realtime? I think of realtime stategy games or that optional realtime play mode Fallout Tactics introduced to the Fallout universe. Do you just mean your attacks and your enemy's attacks can carry on as dual processes [like the dual process option for action events in RMXP]? As opposed to turn based combat?

I liked having the option in FOT to turn it off when it was getting a little too crazy and I wanted to have more time to think and play strategically. I'm definately more old school in my tastes so I do like turn based better than realtime action. But I must admit that it was thrilling playing a fallout style game [FOT] in realtime once in a while. Usually I'd just use it for some cheap thrills. I didn't actually play the game with it on. I couldn't enjoy it as much that way.

UPDATE: Chime in with ideas on features for JACK. What do YOU want to see?

Announcing development of a new ACS-styled game: Java ACK ("JACK").
Still focusing on details. I have talked to Chris H and Garth's Equipment Shop and they are supportive.

This thread is meant to be a communication to the ACK community about the progress of JACK.

I also would like to hear any suggestions or comments regarding JACK.

The completion deadline for this game is May 1st 2009. So I need to get cracking!