3 ms·
Re: to it never goes well... I'm one of your aforementioned "College kids [with a] part-time project" to do an MMO, now graduated and working a day-job while t
by phaedrus 14y ago
Re: to it never goes well... I'm one of your aforementioned "College kids [with a] part-time project" to do an MMO, now graduated and working a day-job while trying to finish a game any game.
Let me give you some insight into why we decided and why we thought we could do an MMO. First of all, a subscription model is very attractive, because it's clear how the venture is supposed to make money. We thought, or at least I thought, that we could make an MMO more simply by making a game that's just the "multiplayer online part" plus a smaller "rest of the game". I got started immediately working on the network sync code.
I got as far as moving boxes that did in fact sync their positions on multiple computers. But going from that to a real game is about as big a gulf as going from nailing boards to building a house. It turns out, code to network sync a game is not going to go anywhere without a game to sync.
So now I'm working on a simpler single player game, built with the scripting language bindings that was one of the best pieces left over from the earlier endeavor. I think even experienced programmers from other fields cannot understand the soul-crushing amount of work it is to get even simple things working in a 3D game when you're doing it all by your self. Yesterday I got a green line to move on a black screen, and I was happy.
(The game engine, which can do more than that, had been not working for 6 months following a rewrite, so I was happy to see anything. And yes I know about the Joel Spolsky article about the folly of complete rewrites. I'll see your Joel Spolsky and raise you one Richard Brooks: "plan to throw one away. You will anyway.")
- rayval 14y ago"Plan to throw one away." That was Fred Brooks, not Richard Brooks. In one of the best books of all time on the subject of software: The Mythical Man-Month.
- Goladus 14y ago> I'll see your Joel Spolsky and raise you Possibly not necessary. The underlying theme with Joel's point, if you look past the hyperbole, is that you don't want to take successful software and start over, re-implementing everything from the ground up to do the same thing more efficiently or with better architecture or aesthetics. "Plan to throw one away" on the other hand, is about going through the building process to better recognize the problems you actually need to solve rather than the ones you thought you needed to solve. Assuming you rewrote your engine because it wasn't solving the problems you really needed it to solve, the conflict between the two maxims isn't significant.