Elysian Shadows

Bosses on Bomberman games are actually easy. They're BIG mofos who literally float over the course so we don't need any "Blow this up" or "Can't walk into the wall here" AI. He just basically floats around and attacks almost stupidly. I know it sounds bland, but for bomberman it works out really well.

I see. So, what kind of story are we going to have?

Bomberman gets his ass kicked by a big boss, so goes and cries to Mario and all the other characters, who come in with guns and stuff? Yeah, that'd be perfect!

j/k

Anyway, you need to start posting more. I want in depth progress. I know JS Lemming is working on teh editor. LET ME SEE IT!

Gyrovorbis, you're working on the main engine? Post screenz please.

Bosses on Bomberman games are actually easy. They're BIG mofos who literally float over the course so we don't need any "Blow this up" or "Can't walk into the wall here" AI. He just basically floats around and attacks almost stupidly. I know it sounds bland, but for bomberman it works out really well.

Yes, that would work out well, but you need a larger variety of bosses. They each need to have a special charactoristic. You could possibley use alpha blending goodness to make one fade out and in? Or use it to make one teleport randomly and drop bombs?

Also, I think they need different methods of attacking. On the bomberman games, some release little "flunkies" that chase you until you blow them up. Others have orbiting ball things that you must destroy before you can attack them. And some you cannot attack until their mouth is opened.

You know what I mean? Also, there shouldn't be just one boss. On bomberman there are bosses ever 2 or three levels.

Yes, I know this is all up to you, but I am just giving ideas..

Erm.... I'll let you see it when I'm finished Arce.

Remember, lets not get to carried away with this. Needs to be finished fairly soon in order to return to my baby. I personally think we should focus more on multiplayerness.

Did you not say earlier that you should focus on one player first?

Anyway, I'm just telling you that a boss needs to do more than just float around and attack randomly. That's the basic concept, but it really does need to do more. No, I'm not getting "carried away," I am just assuming you have no previous bomberman knowledge and giving a billion examples of bosses. :spin:

No, I didn't say anything about focusing on player one.

What do you think the best way to hold graphics for things like weapons and bombs are? Here was my original plan: At first glance, it might look like a sensible thing to do. You have a 2 dimensional array that holds the location of three files containing the images for the explosion surfaces for every bomb.

But then think about it. For every bomb. Each bomb will use the same explosion image. It would be really dumb to have each object with its own surface pointer if they're all going ot use it.

Dear god, don't say globals...

Globals is an easy alternative, and a logical one at that. But just the grahpic will be global. Twould speed up the "construction" of a bomb class since it won't have to copy over image data everytime one generates. But then again, I doubt it will affect performance. Whichever you think is easeir to work with should be the way to go.

Ugh, I'll see if I can think of another alternative. So far it looks like globals would be the best (THEY STILL SUCK THOUGH!) method.

Today at school I worked out the laying of bombs and all of the Object Oriented stuff with bomb/player classes and stuff...

I've decided that if we're going to go with C++, we may as well go all out. Bomb laying and all that stuff will be linked lists (so far). Don't worry though, we're using the lists from the particle engine and they've been proven to work and they're insanely easy (just an update and create function).

But yeah, I haven't even started on my Geometry Origami project and it's already night. Then I have the geo test tomorrow. I just won't actually get to program this out until tomorrow. Sorry about that...

*busts out paper and starts folding paper penguins*

It sounds like your making this way more complicated than it needs to be. but if you want to do all that crazy inherited crap, be my guest. Its just that I find that kinda thing more usefull when dealing with huge games that have complex entities in them. BTW, whats wrong with global things, especially when the thing being global is used throughout the program?

What the? I didn't even say "inheritance" once in my post. You're the dynamic whore here who's obsessed with the heap rather than the stack. There's nothing complicated about dynamically allocating something that has no certain/set amount of times that it'll need to be used.

I can't believe that you'd want to dynamically allocate a static image that only needs one reference, but when it comes to bombs that each player can have different amounts of you're all against it. That's just crazy.

There's nothing wrong with globals. I've just managed to avoid them in my programming in the past. They aren't a very good practice and definately shouldn't be used excessively. I see no better choice than to go with globals in this case though.

GyroVorbis wrote:What the? I didn't even say "inheritance" once in my post. You're the dynamic whore here who's obsessed with the heap rather than the stack. There's nothing complicated about dynamically allocating something that has no certain/set amount of times that it'll need to be used.

I can't believe that you'd want to dynamically allocate a static image that only needs one reference, but when it comes to bombs that each player can have different amounts of you're all against it. That's just crazy.

There's nothing wrong with globals. I've just managed to avoid them in my programming in the past. They aren't a very good practice and definately shouldn't be used excessively. I see no better choice than to go with globals in this case though.

Putting words in my mouth!?!? Where the heck did I ever mention "dynamically allocate a static image that only needs one reference." I was the one against allocating that image for every bomb. And what the heck is a static image besides the usuall definition of "static" as in not moving?

JS Lemming wrote:

GyroVorbis wrote:What the? I didn't even say "inheritance" once in my post. You're the dynamic whore here who's obsessed with the heap rather than the stack. There's nothing complicated about dynamically allocating something that has no certain/set amount of times that it'll need to be used.

I can't believe that you'd want to dynamically allocate a static image that only needs one reference, but when it comes to bombs that each player can have different amounts of you're all against it. That's just crazy.

There's nothing wrong with globals. I've just managed to avoid them in my programming in the past. They aren't a very good practice and definately shouldn't be used excessively. I see no better choice than to go with globals in this case though.

Putting words in my mouth!?!? Where the heck did I ever mention "dynamically allocate a static image that only needs one reference." I was the one against allocating that image for every bomb. And what the heck is a static image besides the usuall definition of "static" as in not moving?

What in the..? You were the one with that whole huge thing that returned a pointer to a dynamically allocated image on Dreamcast. I didn't put words into your mouth, you did it yourself.

No, you didn't specifically mention "dynamically allocate a static image that only needs one reference.", you did it. And allocating an image for every bomb on the stack is completely different from dynamically allocating and image on the heap like you were doing with that function not too long ago.

Please don't bring past experiences from long ago into new arguements. Matter'o'fact, I don't even feel like arguing. So whoever is right, lets just say you are right.