He’s published his work on the Zafehouse forums so if you feel like playing the game in Russian, or translating it into a language more compatible with your brain, please check it out!

Link: Zafehouse (multilingual) [Zafehouse forums]

No related posts.

Well, except when I use native GDI calls to paint instead. Actually, now that I think about it, GDI+ doesn’t do a heck of a lot for Zafehouse 2 anymore.

Now, this change raises a number of questions: Why not use Direct3D for the entire process? Why change APIs in the first place? Isn’t the Direct2D API in DirectX 10+ basically what you’re describing?

These are all fair questions, and I’m going to try to answer them.

Why not use Direct3D for the whole shebang?
Because I’ve already done a lot of groundwork for image rendering that replacing the engine wholesale would add a lot of time to the development process. Considering the game is already years overdue, I doubt anyone would be excited about the news of me delaying the game just to rewrite a chunk of code that doesn’t need to be rewritten. It all works fine, I just needed something more powerful than GDI+ to get the heavy lifting done.

Why move to Direct3D in the first place?
Primarily, it was a question of speed. Secondarily, I wanted to improve my knowledge of the DirectX API, having already implemented my own xWMA audio engine, which relies on the XAudio2 API. So the game already depended on DirectX, through the managed SlimDX wrapper.

Isn’t what you’ve described basically Direct2D?
It kind of is, and I could have just used the Direct2D API to quickly accomplish the GDI/GDI+/Direct3D fusion. Except Direct2D is a god-awful API. That, and Direct2D requires a DirectX 10-compliant graphics card to run, as well as Vista or Windows 7. It’s bad enough Z2 needs a DirectX 9.0c-compliant card now, and I didn’t want the make the situation worse. By writing my own routines, Z2 remains compatible with Windows XP and graphics cards circa 2005. Which is pretty good, all things considered.

How does it work?
In technical terms, Zafehouse 2 generates a couple of D3D-compatible textures from PNGs for compositing purposes at startup. This takes a couple of milliseconds. We also create some device independent bitmaps for direct blitting, but we don’t have to worry about that.

Whenever compositing is required, the game sends the textures to the D3D renderer, paints them to an off-screen surface, downloads the data into system memory, and then blits it directly to the GDI+ graphics object using GDI calls. In the case of Intel chips, we lock the surface and perform the blit directly. In the case of NVIDIA/AMD cards (which use dedicated video RAM), we copy the surface to another surface in system RAM using GetRenderTargetData, and then blit directly from that surface.

The reason for the two different paths is because it’s faster to copy directly on Intel GPUs as they don’t have dedicated video RAM so, essentially, locking the rendering surface is like locking another chunk of system RAM and doing a direct copy which, as you can imagine, is faster than copying it to another surface in system RAM and copying from that.

For cards with dedicated RAM, locking the video surface directly is actually slower. GetRenderTargetData is heavily optimised for these chips, so doing a surface to surface copy followed by a blit is actually pretty fast, even on crappy low-end NVIDIA/AMD cards.

The result is a GDI/GDI+ based graphics engine that offloads compositing (so alpha-blending and overlays) to video hardware. This means we can make use of hardware acceleration, as GDI+ is completely software driven.

It’s true that copying data from video RAM to system RAM is a bit of a performance hog (and I’m sure there are more than a few coders out there shaking their heads), but in practice it’s much, much faster than even the most heavily-optimised GDI+ routines.

What is GDI+ good for then?
Rendering text. My god, it’s great at that. I actually implemented text rendering via D3D in my renderer, but it looked like garbage. GDI+, on the other hand, looks amazing, as it supports a number of quality features D3D’s Font class does not (hinting, gamma correction, etc). So, I’m happy to take a minor performance hit to keep text rendering in software.

GDI+ also makes alpha-blending images easy, but the performance hit is quite nasty, even with double-buffering and razor-accurate dirty rectangles. Credit where credit’s due – it’s simple to use but not at all a great performer.

No related posts.

The “I” shaped objects represent doors, while the “O”s with the funny curves are windows. A window is currently selected by the player (the red circle) and a little image shows you how fortified it is. Red arrows mark entry vectors. Oh, and survivors can’t walk through barricaded doors or windows… so keep that in mind!

Still lots to come, so hang tight!

No related posts.

Development is ongoing and I’m getting closer to an alpha release – much closer than the previous incarnation of Zafehouse 2 ever managed. Trying to hit dates, but it really is unpredictable right now. Just know that I’m working hard on the game every chance I get. This is about 2-3 hours a day right now.

PS. Ignore the note text… it’s purely placeholder. ;)

No related posts.

Welcome to the new-look Zafehouse 2, or Zafehouse 2.5 to help separate it from previous efforts. The game is based entirely around manipulation of a dynamic journal. Chapters keep locations, events, supplies and survivor information nicely contained. A special context-sensitive entry system allows you to configure events, lock them in, and then accelerate time. When something occurs, time will stop, allowing you to react however you see fit.

Survivors will report in as they return from their adventures, meaning you must rely entirely on them for information. Figure out who to trust, and you’ll do fine. Piss everyone off, and you’re all doomed.

Expect more shots and info in the coming weeks.

No related posts.

The code also did something unexpected but extremely neat – zombies fade into view as they move adjacent to a survivor, so it looks like they’re coming out of a fog to attack you. It’s quite terrifying.

I know a lot of this sounds like gobbledygook as combat has changed so much since the initial video, but I wanted to let everyone know ZH2 is definitely alive. Well, as alive as a zombie game can be. Once you play the combat demo, it’ll all make sense. Trust me!

I’m moving onto the firing code tonight, because it’s been bugging me for a while now. I’m trying to figure out an elegant solution to adding bursts into the existing system, but I’m concerned I’ll need to rewrite it. Which would suck, as I’ve already rewritten it once.

Ah, to refactor or not refactor… that is the question!

No related posts.

Fiddling around with the firing logic too. At the moment, survivors try to guess how many shots it’ll take to kill each zombie in their line of sight, starting with the weakest. I thought it was cool until someone pointed out that it’s not realistic. At all. It’s also annoying when a survivor guesses a zombie should take two shots to kill, they fire those two shots and… one of them misses. Cue unexpected flesh-munching.

What (trained) people usually do when they fire a gun is use bursts. The new firing logic will go “Okay, I’m going to fire x rounds at the closest, weakest zombie I can see. If it dies, move onto something else. Otherwise, fire another burst”. The x is determined by the weapon and experience level of the survivor.

Once the combat demo is out, I’ll be curious to hear how people find the auto target selection/shooting done by survivors. I wanted to add more control, without entirely sacrificing the feel of the first game.

No related posts.

Truth is, I underestimated how long it would take to debug. I managed to get the demo feature-complete, but the polish just wasn’t there. I’m really disappointed I didn’t get it done, but I’m continuing to work hard to get it out as soon as possible.

On the upside, setting a deadline helped me focus on what was important and it’s looking good. It also made me chop and change parts of the design that weren’t working, and combat plays a lot better as a result.

The biggest change is the addition of awareness arcs. Originally, each weapon had a firing arc that would determine bullet spread. As time went on, this arc made less and less sense, and the only weapon it applied to in any significant capacity was the sub-machinegun. I wanted to keep the arcs, but disconnect them from weapons while buffing their usefulness.

The result is the awareness arc. Each survivor can be in a focused, normal or heightened state of awareness. These states determine the width of that survivor’s awareness arc. A focused arc grants increased accuracy, but reduced defenses against zombie attacks. A heightened arc reduces accuracy, but the survivor has a better chance of avoiding zombie attacks.

The other big change is that zombies not inside an awareness arc are hidden from view. Each combat you will have to sweep the room using your survivors’ awareness arcs and set where each one should look. This means the cop can be focused on killing zombies, while civilians can make sure he doesn’t get attacked from behind. It also reflects that a lone survivor is more likely to be attacked than a group. Survivors are always aware of zombies directly next to them.

Obviously, a focused arc doesn’t let you cover as much of a room as the heightened arc. Survivors will have access to different arc states depending on their experience level, with a character like the cop able to select from all three and newbies being stuck to one (the normal state).

Melee combat is implemented and working, but I’m not 100% happy with how it works. I’m likely going to cut it from the demo, but it will be the first thing I put back in for subsequent releases. Really, the combat demo will represent an alpha test of the game.

I hope you guys can tear it apart and make it even more awesome.

No related posts.

The article itself is an extract from a series of essays for the Australia Council, so I’m not entirely sure how it ended up on The Age. It’s possible Mills is completely unaware that his diatribe is being viewed by eyes outside of his regular professional circles, and as such, open to criticism from the industries he so flippantly denounces.

Mills’ piece focuses on the New Media Fund, or specifically, its demolishment. More broadly the article puts forward the need to hold on fiercely to our artistic heritage and that all resources, primarily monetary, should be funnelled into is preservation at the expense of the new, regardless of form or credentials.

You’d think the essay would be entirely academic. Not so. In fact, Mills’ is happy to take low shots at anything he deems “nonsense”:

I opposed it [the New Media Fund] vehemently – and in vain – as it seemed to me just another example of meretricious, self-serving claptrap, which confused content with process, masquerading to the weak-minded as new, with a healthy sense of entitlement to whatever funds might happen to drop from the perch of government.

For a man so deeply involved in the performing arts, an industry propelled by creativity, this is an exceptionally narrow-minded view and, to put it bluntly, an immature one. I cannot see how anyone right of mind would approve of stagnation for any discipline, let alone embrace it with open arms, flowers, and a jar of body chocolate.

That’s not the end of it, however.

I had to read the following paragraph several times before I could fully appreciate its callowness:

No one buys a ticket to the theatre or concert hall to witness something ordinary, something that can be done by any reasonably intelligent person with a modicum of application and training, such as making a computer game or designing an earring.

This does not sound like the opinion of an informed individual. Far from it. What it does sound like is someone with little regard for what they deem insignificant. Anything they don’t understand or unwilling to expend the time to comprehend should be ignored.

The author’s argument can easily be reversed – with the correct training and education, any reasonably intelligent person can play an instrument or perform on stage. Heck, during my younger years I acted in and directed a number of plays, and I can confidently say that the performing arts and games development share a common but positive afflicition – a thirst for creativity. Both serve as fair outlets for the imagination. Something being “older” doesn’t automatically make it faultless or above question, and it certainly should not be wielded as a weapon to cut down perceived upstarts, especially ones that have proven countless times to be the basis of valid and respected industries for creative and commercial success.

I would go so far as to argue that developing a computer game requires more talent than playing an instrument. With enough practise, anyone can play a piano, guitar or violin competently, as can any discipline reliant on muscle memory. Making a competent computer game? People have been at it years and still churn out stinkers. Computers can also put together songs algorithmically that sound decent (we’ve been doing it since 1995), but ask them to make a computer game of any significant depth and you’re going to struggle.

But I digress. I don’t want to argue that games are superior in some way to traditional arts, because I don’t believe it to be true. They have their merits and drawbacks, and can be appreciated in myriad ways.

When Roger Ebert (perhaps naively) took to the Internet with his opinion of games and their lack of artistic merit, he eventually relented. While he did not capitulate on his view of games not being art, he did admit his interest in them was minimal, to the point that provided with the hardware and a title to play (thatgamecompany’s Flower), he still declined to give it a shot. As such, could not really assert his judgement as law, and the roaring flamethrowers of gamers everywhere withered in respectful silence. An excellent compromise, I feel.

As long as attitudes like Mills’ prevail, games will never be taken seriously at the higher levels of government where decisions on funding take place. Sadly, I believe it will take a generational shift to oust this view once and for all, or at least temper it with some much-needed humility and common sense.

Let us defend our heritage arts [The Age]

No related posts.

A shakycam trailer of The Walking Dead from Comic-Con 2010. Colour me excited, or whatever palette you feel strongly signifies happy.

Is This Zombie TV Show Tipping Its Hat To Dead Rising? [Kotaku AU]

No related posts.

Mind you, if the undead do start bashing down our doors, downloads of Zafehouse 2 will be the least of my concerns!

How much do indie PC devs make, anyways? [Gamasutra]

No related posts.

Combat’s looking solid right now, as you can see from the above screenshot. Lots of shells, blood and graphical niceties exploding about the place. What’s not so solid is what happens outside of combat. You know, the walking around, searching for gear part of the game.

See, I don’t feel there’s enough going on when you’re not fighting zombies. Sure, you might say, that’s okay – it’s all about putting the undead back to bed – but I don’t think it is. I think there needs to be more going on when the hungry masses aren’t directly in your face.

I can recognise when I’m too close to a project, so I’m putting the call out for some ideas. At the very least, it’ll rejuice my drying creative cogs.

Best to start with a list of things you can do:
1) Move around inside buildings and out
2) Trade items, including ammo, weapons
3) Searching furniture for items
4) Breaking furniture for barricades
5) Barricading. Or yeah, barricading. I meant to show you guys this a lot sooner:

Neat, right?
6) Dispense medicine, break bottles, drink
7) Erm… that’s it, really.

What I believe needs to happen is for more “stuff” involving the survivors themselves. Tweaking personalities or statistics… some element of micromanagment. Something you do on a turn by turn basis to produce… stuff, be it a resources or survivor improvement.

See what I mean? I’m not really churning out the killer ideas here. That’s where you come in.

So, come in!

No related posts.

Embarrassing game magazine covers [GamesRadar]

No related posts.

:P

No related posts.

Whimsical metaphors aside, I decided to do something about my .NET focus and its destructive hold on my game development future. So, I present the above screenshot, a little piece I’m working on in Unity. It’s inspired by polyhedral dice and the excellent Dice Wars.

Unity is really, really good. Not only does it support three scripting languages (including C#, yah!), but you can switch between a “Game” and “Editor” view and examine the properties of objects at runtime. It provides an unprecedented level of debugging power, and problems that’d normally take hours to track down and fix can take minutes or seconds in Unity thanks to its potent visualisation abilities. It could do with a script debugger, but I hear that’s on the cards for Unity 3, due in… August. I think.

Unity also allows publishing to iPhone, PC, Mac, Wii and web. You need to make a few purchases to access the iPhone and Wii functionality, but there’s nothing stopping you from doing the gruntwork in the free version.

As for Zafehouse 2… I’m still keen to get a demo out by the end of July. I can’t say it’ll be fully functional, but it will give you a taste of what the game has become. I’ve reduced the scope and halved the length of the a Z2 day to 12 hours. I didn’t feel the intensity was there for 24, and the systems don’t allow for interesting gameplay for such a lengthy period of time.

Looking back at the code, there are a lot of things I’d have done differently. The one building/multiple floors idea was a good one and I’m not sure why I abandoned it. There’s also a heavy focus on combat, which is not what survival horror is about. The original intent was to make Z2 strategic, not tactical, yet that’s where it’s ended up.

I have some ideas for Z3 (yeah, yeah, finish the second one first, I hear you say) and I think Z2 has helped me focus in on what a strategic survival horror game should be.

No related posts.

The blog format doesn’t lend itself to theses, of course; 150-word can generate as much traffic as a 1500-word. Still, the odd full-bodied local piece would be appreciated.

The US site, on the other hand, does sporadically come up with some great content… even if it’s not produced by its staff writers. An example of such content? This article by Laura Michet.

Ever found a minigame in a title that’s as (or even more) enjoyable than it’s parent? Wished said minigame was its own product? Welcome to the crux of Michet’s post.

The most intriguing idea to come from the exercise is “Herbalist Adventure”, based on the potion-crafting aspects of Bethesda’s Oblivion. To quote Michet:

Herbalist Adventure would be my favourite game of all time. You’d be practically helpless: a weakling lost in a VAST world (let’s make it much bigger than Oblivion; make this a Just Cause-sized world, a huge thing with a million different kinds of plants). Your only skill: the ability to turn flowers into juices. All combat – what little of it there’d actually be – would be enabled by the crazy cocktail of stimulants and steroids you’d chug before every encounter. See a kobold? DRINK THAT POTION OF STRENGTH! DRINK TWELVE!

While the open-world bit makes me ill to my toes, the rest is golden.

Distilled To A Purer Substance [Kotaku Australia]

No related posts.

But, I’ve been thinking over the last few days that the supply model could be folded into the item system. The result would be that supplies would no longer be counters with maximums, but discrete items, just like guns and furniture. In this way, a survivor could load themselves up with barricades, at the expensive of ammo, medicine and alcohol.

What makes me strongly in favour of this system is that it opens up more choices for a stronghold. If you think the hospital is your best chance at survival, you can now literally drop everything and cart barricades over from other buildings to fortify it, rather than a couple at a time.

The main interface would still keep track of how many of each supply type you have so the information is available at a glance, but the trade window would recognise them as singular items. The system would probably necessitate a weight system, and items like bullets and medicine would need a stacking mechanism… because I can’t see anyone staying sane with the prospect of moving 50 bullets from one inventory to another.

The risk is that trading and collecting supplies might end up with a Diablo-like inventory mini-game, but I believe this can be avoided.

No related posts.

A recent update to the Freeplay website included MP3s from some of the talks, mine being one of them. I haven’t listened to it, so I don’t know if I sound like utter balls, but I’m hoping at least some of the content that spurted from my mouth was decent. I believe it was, because I managed to mention Salvador Dali who, as we all know, has been long associated with video games.

Ha.

Freeplay will again be held this year at the State Library in Melbourne, Australia. Not sure whether I’ll be speaking, but I’d happily welcome an invitation. In the meantime, click the link below to listen to my ramblings.

Games Criticism and the Danger of the Fanboy (or Fangirl) [Freeplay]

No related posts.

As I mentioned in a previous update, the original combat implementation was ground into a fine, code-tasting dust and packed away, replaced by an infinitely deeper (and juicier) solution that uses firing arcs.

Entering into combat hasn’t changed – you still click on the event in the event window – and the representation of the room is similar too. The difference is that zombies are no longer shown as one large group, they’re now broken up into individual flesh-eating nasties. Weapons have also evolved, the far/close/melee profiles exchanged for variable firing arcs and shot modes. For example, the shotgun has a wide firing arc and shoots pellets in a spread, but it can only fire once per turn and has a short range. A submachine gun on the other hand has a medium firing arc and range, but you can shoot up to six bullets at one or multiple targets. Keep in mind that each bullet fired in the same turn reduces the accuracy of the shot that follows it.

Hit the jump for an additional screenshot which show projectiles in flight. Yes, I said projectiles.

No related posts.

If you’d like to see me in action (specifically, because I’m all about the spiffy), jump straight over to video #3. However if you find me boring or in some way contagious, Chung’s interview is positioned in video #2.

Of course, if you just want to start at the beginning and absorb all the raw neatness of Brendon (and us), you can watch Part #1. Laughter is assured whichever course of action you take.

No related posts.