Mind Your Manors
I spent all month working on just this 1 level & still wasn’t sure I’d get it all done, including recording playthroughs o’ the level, by the end o’ October. But I did.
This level idea started out as just some kind o’ vague HalloweenMuertoween-style mansion with this basic wallpaper & floor graphics, but all the layouts I came up with seemed empty & boring. Originally, I had bottomless pits in the mansion, which made no sense.
So then I came up with the idea o’ giving the player a flashlight in this level & challenging them to defeat all the ghosts to beat the level, & the 1st thing I did was prototype the programming for this to see if I could implement it in a way that didn’t feel awful. ’Twas tedious tinkering with pixels to get the rotating flashbeam & flashlight arm to align with the collision lines, but it seems to work all right. Since I knew this gimmick would have a risk o’ being janky, I deliberately made this level laid back & easy ( this also made recording easy & fast ’nough to do in less than an hour, as opposed to, say, “Brier Flier”, which took multiple days ).
Unlike almost everything else in this game, the flashlight collision isn’t just a box, but is 3 lines tested gainst the ghosts’ hitboxes, using some algorithms I found online, as well as some extra algorithms I had to fudge up to handle rotating the lines.
I remember 1 decision I hedged o’er was whether to allow the player to duck & slide down slopes ( in this case, the stairs ). I felt that having the down input make the player both duck & lower the flashlight, making it impossible to do either by itself, would be annoying1. Originally, I had the camera-up & camera-down imputs move your flashlight, which fixed this problem; but I found that too awkward & feared it might be hard for players to figure out or adjust to & thought adding a message box to mention it would be lame2. On a keyboard a’least ( which I still use for testing, e’en though I added controller support probably a year ago ), you have to use the same fingers for jumping & running as changing the camera, which is fine for the camera, since you rarely need to move it, anyway — I considered it a bonus mo’ than anything else. But for moving your flashlight, it’s far more o’ a hassle. ’Ventually, I judged that ducking & sliding wouldn’t be all that useful in this level, so I just cut them out. This had the unfortunate, but not dire, downside that it made the Flashlight Player’s code less clean & concise as, rather than just calling the general player update function, I had to copy parts o’ it with the ducking & sliding code removed. The biggest annoyance for a programmer is code that is very similar, but slightly different, so you have to debate whether to have copypasta ( which can make changing this copied code harder or risk adding bugs if they diverge ) or complicating the code & making it run slower for all with conditions.
I’m embarrassed to say how much time it took just doing the graphics for this level — as is common. All the slight adjustments needed for the staircases transitioning into ceilings & walls bloated the tileset ( which is already rooming with the forest tileset ) so that it almost took up all the tiles I have reserved, when most tilesets take up less than 10% o’ that space. All the lines & ridged shading kept misaligning, so I had to readjust tiles, only for this misalignment to cascade down all the tiles next to that tile, & so on.
Meanwhile, mechanics like the door & the rug monster I just slapped together in 1 day. The door is just a fancy way to force the player to go up to the attic & down to reach the back yard while still allowing them back into the mansion afterward — a necessity to prevent this level from becoming unwinnable, in case there are still ghosts inside. The rug monster I ripped off from Super Castlevania IV after watching a playthrough o’ it, as I felt like this level was a bit too easy & empty. There are so many weird creatures & gotchas you can do in a Muertoween-themed level — I know I also wanted to have a’least 1 painting o’ a farmer who suddenly comes to life & stabs their pitchfork downward when the player comes near — that ’twas a struggle to fight the urge to try implementing all that & to stay focused so I could finish this thing sometime this century.
Since this level is easy & wants you to stop & explore every nook, I made the gem score require collecting all gems… sorta. I also implemented a score system wherein you gain gems for flashing ghosts in quick succession ( the time-score run shows this off ), so you can get a li’l leeway if you’re strategic ’bout defeating ghosts. Howe’er, this is much harder than just collecting all the gems — specially since the hard-to-find gems are in such large bunches that the ghosts would ne’er give you e’en close to ’nough to make up for them.
In hindsight, I think I made the time score too easy. I originally calculated it based on my time going round defeating each ghost as quickly as possible, only to later realize it’s faster to lure ghosts into bunches to defeat them all in quick succession ( which is where I got the idea for the aforementioned gem bonus ). In the time score I recorded, I played sloppily, so I beat the time score by 3 seconds; but you can clearly see that a player who’s actually good could beat that by several seconds.
By the way, the ghosts here are “kappa-obake”, a pun off “kasa-obake”, those umbrella ghosts oft found in Japanese media, such as Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. 1 o’ the meanings for the word “kappa” is an ol’ fashioned term for a coat — so these are coat ghosts with a single eye & a tongue, rather than umbrella ghosts. They originated from the “DISTURBED RESIDENCE” episodes o’ Boskeopolis Stories.
Things I forgot to do till after I already recorded: I just noticed while working on this level that the enemy counter icon in the HUD is a Cowpoker from “Playing Railroad” & thought to change it into a ghost icon for this level ( & ventually a chicken icon for “Foul Fowl Farm”, which also has this icon ), but forgot to do it.
What doesn’t count: there’s a glitch with the diamond that causes it to still appear e’en after you already collected it, only to disappear when you get near it. This is probably caused by an optimization I made months ago so that block interaction doesn’t happen ’less you’re near it. Howe’er, this doesn’t seem to happen in many other levels, so I need to figure out how I fixed it in those. Either way, I deliberately didn’t fix it yet since I knew it wouldn’t show up in the video, since I don’t go near there after the 1st run.
Boskeopolis Land: Let’s Code a Crappy 2D Platformer Like Millions o’ Other People on the Internet & Lose Interest & Give Up Only a Few Months In, Part XXXXVIII: Stop & Go Space Station
Stop & Go Space Station
I actually finished this before “Brier Flier”, but was much mo’ mixed on the quality o’ this 1 & wanted to improve it mo’, ’specially its graphics. However, since then I’ve been able to think o’ any way to improve it & wanted to get this out before October, when I’d rather focus on “Mind Your Manors”.
I almost rejected this level’s gimmick o’ having to stop when the screen turns red every 3 seconds for being annoying & slow-paced, & I still wonder if maybe I should’ve. My thought process, in addition to urging myself to get this game o’er with, was that ’twas an original & memorable ’nough gimmick to be worth not being particularly fun. I also didn’t think I’d be able to think o’ anything to make this gimmick meaningful without making it feel impossible, but I think I was able to avoid that.
I don’t remember why I made the level have branching paths, but it works surprisingly well. Just beating the level is a short path to the end, which is good, since having to stop every few seconds draws e’en a short path out. But if you want the gem score, — which, for once, is much harder than the time score — you need to go all round.
I don’t like the diamond’s placement, but couldn’t think o’ a different place that didn’t feel forced. You can easily see where the diamond is when going round the top without e’en needing to particularly look out for it.
For some reason, @ the last second I switched out the regular space music used in “Lunacy” for elevator music. ¿I guess for variety? I like this song, but not when it keeps getting cut off.
As you can see, I’m still not fond o’ this level. The next level should be much better.
Boskeopolis Land: Let’s Code a Crappy 2D Platformer Like Millions o’ Other People on the Internet & Lose Interest & Give Up Only a Few Months In, Part XXXXVII: Brier Flier
Fun fact: when I 1st recorded this, this level’s name was spelled “Brier Flyer” ’cause I thought “flier” was 1 o’ those weird words that goes gainst the rules o’ English spelling just to mire me & for some reason didn’t look it up. I just found this out as I started typing this & saw my spellcheck yell @ me, just as how it yells @ me that “’nough” isn’t a true word, which is ridiculous. However, due to the way I recorded this video — I didn’t want to have to keep going through the motions @ the beginning, including waiting for long ’nough for viewers to be able to read the goal text, every attempt I made @ this level, so I just spliced 2 separate recordings together during the pause on the goal message screen, when everything’s silent — I was able to fix it in post.
I chose to just show this level off in 1 playthrough, getting just the gem score & the diamond, since the automoving nature o’ this level makes the time score as easy as beating the level normally. It is possible to take too long, since the angles you turn in can make you go faster or slower.
But don’t let the shortness o’ this video imply that it didn’t take me hundreds o’ tries before I could get that gem score. When I set the gem score, I expected it to be lenient, only to find, to my surprise, that the few times I did make it to the end without dying I’d be off by a few gems ( 1 time I was just 100 ₧ off ). This is entirely due to me being a shitty player, though: this level’s gimmick is so simple & fundamental that I don’t feel like there’s any unfairness; it’s just a case o’ are you good ’nough to time your turning or not.
Like “Petrol Pond Place”, I mired o’er this level for mo’ than a year. My original idea was that you’d control an owl; but I couldn’t think o’ anything to do with that that wasn’t a pointless ripoff o’ Donkey Kong Country 2. I then experimented with a normal level with enemies that chase & push you into bramble walls while having bouncy heads for reaching high places. However, for some reason, I was insistent on having this Kafka reference for the goal message, & didn’t find this gimmick much mo’ interesting. Then the idea struck to have a paper plane weaving through thin bramble passages like that minigame in WarioWare, inc., Mega Microgame$!, ’cept with simpler, mo’ straightforward controls ( the WarioWare minigame had mo’ realistic gravity physics that caused you to move mo’ quickly when pointing downward & had slippery turning; in this level, you always go forward the same speed & turning has a static acceleration rate ) & it all fit perfectly. & despite all my frustrating failures @ completing my own level, I still find this level fun.
I e’en like the diamond placement for once. After finding every attempt @ adding a secret branching path to a diamond too trite, I was surprised I’d ne’er tried the obvious trick before: having the level just straight-up continue past the keycane. This works particularly well for this level, since the keycane is in a tight passageway with harder-than-normal controls. I also liked being able to make the spaces within the bramble walls secretly a passage you will ’ventually move through later on. I didn’t like the idea o’ making the player turn back round & go back after getting the diamond or adding a circle back to the keycane ( which would either be too easy & would entice players to just go that path to the diamond or would require double the level design ), so I just added ’nother keycane right after the diamond. It’s not as if there’s any law gainst having multiple keycanes in a level.
Speaking o’ the bramble walls, I hope you like the look o’ all those extra bramble stalks ’hind the walls, ’cause they were tedious to tile together. E’en after all the times I’ve talked ’bout how it’s usually the case, you’d be surprised @ how much less time I spend coming up with the actual gameplay layout o’ the level compared to the time I spend on the aesthetics. & keep in mind, this game isn’t exactly gorgeous — there’s a reason a basic run & shoot action game like Cuphead took mo’ than 7 years to make, & it wasn’t the programming.
If I have any qualms ’bout this level, it’s that the Pufferbees don’t have as much a role as I feel like they should — just a small section where you weave through them. Part o’ me feels like I should’ve had moving Pufferbees to make them different from just functionally a different graphic from the walls, as I experimented earlier in the level; but I feel making the player dodge moving bees with li’l reaction time may be too unfair. Gameplaywise, how it is is best, with the focus being on dodging the brambles, & bee-dodging just a short refresher in the middle; it’s only thematically that I feel the bees should be mo’ present.
I have ’nother level I’m close to completing & I’ve also been ruminating o’er for a while, so hopefully there should be ’nother update soon.
Boskeopolis Land: Let’s Code a Crappy 2D Platformer Like Millions o’ Other People on the Internet & Lose Interest & Give Up Only a Few Months In, Part XXXXVI: Petrol Pond Place
The main delay for this level was designer’s block. I knew I wanted a level with sunset harbor graphics, but I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do with such a level. Early on I decided on implementing oil water, which basically works like the water in “Rusty Bucket Bay” in Banjo-Kazooie: you lose oxygen faster & don’t regain your oxygen till you return to land ( as opposed to just leaving water into the air, which only stops it from decreasing, but doesn’t replenish it ). But then I had trouble figuring out what to do with said oil water.
Round that time I also wanted to have pipes you could walk through that maybe went down into the water & kept you oxygenated, but couldn’t figure out how to make it work well. This game uses block-based collision, & whole blocks were too thick for pipe walls. Plus, I wasn’t sure how to make them show you will the oil water still hid everything ’neath.
In the process o’ making this level, I developed numerous sprites, ’bout all o’ which are used in this level: window monsters that fall from their hidden place & roll after you ( also taken from Banjo-Kazooie ), a machine that shoots pikes out o’ either end, Octopigs that hop & shoot oil balls @ you, an iron wall that forces you to swim down & hit a switch to make it lower, a water spout that causes a barrel to rise & fall, & crate platforms & harmful hooks swooping back & forth in a half-circular motion. In my defense, half o’ these are tied to the oil water: while the spout is just fancy paint o’er a rising & falling platform, the pike machine & iron wall are basically ways to challenge your ability to maneuver through oil water & get out before drowning. So they didn’t seem too thrown-in, I brought back the window monsters & pike machine @ the beginning o’ the level into the end o’ the level, too, just with a trickier pattern ( the water spout glorified rising platform & swooping platforms are too generic to need much extra use — there are plenty o’ moving platforms in other levels ). I also planned to add mo’ Octopigs @ the final stretch, but cut that part out as I found it too difficult & stretched out a level that was already going a bit too long. Part o’ me wishes I kept the ladder up to the keycane wherein you have to dodge the shots o’ Octopigs; but I already have ’nough o’ that in “Good Ship Lifestyle”.
I don’t consider this my best level, but I s’pose it could be worse.
As an addendum, I’ve recently created a website dedicated to this game at https://www.boskeopolis-land.com. So far it’s still very simple, but I plan to continue updating it. For example, I hope to create some script that will scrape these posts & create a list o’ links to them all to make them easier to find.
Boskeopolis Land: Let’s Code a Crappy 2D Platformer Like Millions o’ Other People on the Internet & Lose Interest & Give Up Only a Few Months In, Part XXXXV: Gravity, Hypocrisy, & the Perils o’ Being in 3D
Gravity, Hypocrisy, & the Perils o’ Being in 3D
I’m surprised this made it past the rejection bin. This started as an idle, silly idea that I planned to procrastinate to the sequel, ’specially due to the rigidity o’ this game engine, thanks to me to being a terrible programmer who was an e’en terribler programer when I started mo’ than 2 years ago. However, I figured out an easy way to do it by just adding some flags to hide all the blocks, make all the sprites invisible, & then just create a background that draws everything seen in this level. This is thanks to the MapLayer class being ridiculously flexible: it’s basically just an update & render virtual method.
This level & associated classes all have “Doom” in their name, but they should truly be called “Wolfenstein3D”, as this level uses the much simpler raycasting method that that game uses, rather than Doom’s mo’ complicated ( & mo’ powerful ) BSP trees. Raycasting works better for this game’s engine, as it works well with grid-based maps, which this game engine uses, whereas Doom’s system is based on lines which can be @ any angle ( & thus can have walls that aren’t all @ 90° angles, as Wolfenstein 3D & this game have ). That’s fine for me, since this is just 1 level & it’s s’sposed to have a retro look. I can tell you that I’d worry ’bout how primitive the 16-pixel block textures ( smaller than Wolfenstein’s, actually, but the size o’ blocks in this Mario-inspired engine ) look stetched out before I worry ’bout perfectly square walls. Since this works well with grid-based maps, I can just use a regular grid-based map & keep their usual behavior. This pseudo-3d gimmick is nothing mo’ than a visual gimmick o’er a normal isometric 2D level — basically just “Maybe I’m a Maze”, but with simpler, slower enemies that you can kill off. The walls are just regular solid blocks, the gems & hearts are the same gem & heart blocks used in all the other levels, & thus I didn’t have to add any new behavior there. Only the hero, enemy, & bullet sprites needed much new behavioral programming, & that was mostly to handle moving in various angles.
For those curious, the gist o’ raycasting is that you calculate a ray for each vertical stripe o’ the screen measuring the distance ’tween the nearest solid block on the grid & the player ( to be mo’ accurate, a point on an invisible line perpendicular to the player & a li’ in front o’ the player to prevent a strange fish-eye perspective ) & using that distance to calculate how tall that line o’ wall should be, with larger distances giving shorter lines & shorter distances giving longer lines, simulating walls shrinking in the distance. ’Course, there’s many other complications, like applying a texture to these lines ( in my case, I just calculate which texture X it should have & just stretch the texture block o’er the height o’ the line, which is mo’ efficient for SDL & GPU than manually calculating each pixel ), creating perspective textures on the floor & ceiling ( it’s a blur to me how I did this, though I do remember that the #s for the ceiling & floor are the same, just using a different offset for different textures ), & adding in “objects”, like the crab enemies, the bullets, the gems, & hearts & cutting out parts that are hidden ’hind walls ( this was actually the hardest part ). Since I have no idea what I’m doing for e’en basic programming, it’s obvious that I relied on learning how to do this nonsense from other sources, with this tutorial as a major influence, as well as Fabien Sanglard’s excellent in-depth study o’ Wolfenstein 3D’s source code, The Black Book of Wolfenstein 3D, which is what inspired this idea in the 1st-place ( though Wolfenstein 3D used so much assembly & so many arcane optimizations that most o’ its code wouldn’t work well for my project ). I did, however, twist the code I copied a lot so that it’s now virtually impossible to recognize, sometimes for petty anal-retentive reasons ( I don’t like free variables that change round a lot ) & some for optimization reasons, due to the difference ’tween low-memory computers that these guides were aimed for & modern computers with their strange GPUs & SDL with its immensely limited GPU control compared to OpenGL.
I ran into many subtle bugs ’long the way, ’cause this 3D-like business, e’en if just a graphical illusion, is far beyond what I’m used to. For instance, I don’t think my high school or my joke o’ a college I went to taught trigonometry, so I was just going off vague memories. ( I still don’t know what sine & cosine do, but I know I remember I used it for calculating angles on the shmup level I still haven’t finished yet, so it makes sense here ). & then I would just rely on trying things out & seeing what happens. The last bug I ran into was when I changed the shooting so that the bullet appeared a block or so in front o’ the player when shooting, so the bullet starts @ a size you’d expect to come from the slingshot & not @ the size o’ the screen ( which would make it look like Autumn is shooting rocks bigger than she is ), only for it to start @ the sides o’ the player when pointing in certain angles ( which makes e’en less sense, visually ). When creating this, I set the bullet to be an offset from the player’s center, which seemed most balanced; turned out, simply changing it to the x & y position ( which is the top left ) made it work exactly as expected. This still makes less sense to me.
For a long time before that, both bullets & the player moved in weird angles. This was less obvious for the player, since you can’t see them; for the longest time, I just thought ’twas just my imprecise angling while playing. I finally realized the cause was that the acceleration & velocity system I use for regular 2D movement doesn’t work with this strange angled movement. For those who don’t already know, almost all sprites move by setting acceleration, which is added to velocity every frame, which gets capped @ a set top speed, & that velocity is added to position. This works great for, say, 2D platformer movement ( & is, in fact, how movement in Mario games works — though they oft have weird acceleration oscillations for reasons I don’t understand ). However, for angled movement, this, with the velocity cap, creates a subtle problem: if your angle is so that you move mo’ on 1 axis than the other, then that axis’s speed will be greater than the other axis. However, due to the speed cap ( which is necessary to keep you from going just zipping through everything ), after the bigger axis reaches the speed cap before the other axis, the other axis keeps gaining speed till it reaches the same cap, which gradually transforms all non-straight angles ( all angles that don’t have the lesser axis as exactly 0 ) to 45°. This, logically, causes the very effect I could see from the beginning: veering parabolas. The level as shown just has constant speed for the player & bullet sprites, which fixes this ( though, an example o’ this game engine’s stupid built-in rigidity, ’cause I have it built into the core sprite class that collision detection relies on the built-in velocity properties to work, I do still have to set velocity, or else do a bunch o’ work creating a new collision detection just for this level ).
The 1 exception to this fix are the crab enemies: they still fall under the ol’ movement glitch, as you can see by their weird sideways movement in the video. I did this on purpose as I prefer this movement for them — it fits their crablike nature perfectly. The only bug with them is why I have crab enemies in a dungeon. The answer: I can’t think o’ an enemy design I like better than them & they have a simple animation that isn’t a headache to depict.
The challenge offered by the crab enemies is interesting to me: since this is a 1st-cycle level, I made this level very easy. The crabs aren’t very fast & you have to basically try to get hurt if you see 1 coming up to you & can’t shoot it down before it touches you. That is if you’re not racing round with strafing ( like in most games with 3D movement, strafing is quicker than just moving forward, which is why I move like a Goldeneye 007 speedrun in the time challenge part o’ the video ); if you are, they can sneak up on you when you can’t see them clearly.
Since this level is so easy, I didn’t feel any qualm with forcing the player to explore the whole maze & collect every gem in the level to get the gem challenge. But man can it take long, & makes me wonder if I should’ve picked a less monotonous song for this level ( “Boskeopolis Underground” had this same problem ). I was not happy when recording this video & actually dying to a crab somehow when halfway through attempting this, making me do it all o’er ’gain.
The time challenge, meanwhile, is easy if you know the strafing trick, ‘cause I didn’t want to force players to figure out such an obtuse trick to complete the game.
Boskeopolis Land: Let’s Code a Crappy 2D Platformer Like Millions o’ Other People on the Internet & Lose Interest & Give Up Only a Few Months In, Part XXXXIV: Through the Sharp Hawthorn Blow the Winds
’Cause everyone loves wind gimmicks.
Those who have been paying attention to these posts since their earliest entries ( surely nobody ) would recall that I had been working on a level with this gimmick, forest theme, & palette since near the start, but couldn’t be arsed to finish due to other levels shoving it aside. ’Cept for the longest time, ’twas called “Windy Woods”, which was too unbearably cliché for me ( & “Gusty Glade” was already used by Rare ). Sick o’ so many Rareware alliteration names & puns, I stuck with an age-ol’ Shakespeare quote, showing no regard for the fact that this level has no hawthorns, & that such a name would better fit a bramble sky level than a forest level.
Thanks to using such a long name, I finally forced myself to stop being a slob & update the o’erworld inventory & level select screens to accommodate larger level names, which was done through giving the level names in both an extra row. As o’ now, this looks weird to me; hopefully I’ll get used to it ’ventually.
This was also a level, ’long with “The Minus Touch”, that I’d always planned to be 1 o’ the most challenging levels in the game ( though not nearly as challenging as “The Minus Touch” ). This can be seen in the 20-minute video, wherein, for once, I didn’t edit out the deaths @ all, so viewers can see all o’ my many failures ( since I already did the many-deaths cut for “The Minus Touch” ).
Trying to make a difficult level can be difficult itself since it can be hard to tell whether difficulty is legit or cheap. In particular, I worry ’bout the birds & the bouncing spike balls being beginner’s traps, since it’s hard to see them before they strike. But then, ¿isn’t challenging players to have quick reflexes perfectly legitimate? There’s also a spike ball near the start that you can’t see till it’s already falling ( ironically, just after a fake spike ball that doesn’t fall @ all ) — unintentionally, since it doesn’t fit in the camera from so high up. I left it in since it’s extremely unlikely a player will get hit by it since there’s no reason to just stand under it & ’cause I thought ’twas funny to have a spike ball fall after where you’d expect it to fall. The graphics may also be crowded, making it hard to make things out. The limited palette doesn’t help.
In the end, I chock this level up to be a Rareware level ’long the etchings o’ “Lightning Lookout” or, perhaps closer, “Gusty Glade”. Hell, a’least I made sure my wind mechanic stays perfectly consistent throughout the whole level.
Since the level is hard ’nough to beat ( by my low standards a’least ), I didn’t put much stress on the gem & time scores. I filled the level with gems, making its 20,000 ₧ requirement easy to meet if you wait round grabbing most o’ it in all the big caches. As the video shows, you can beat the time score by 6 seconds, which surprised me. I didn’t put much effort into trying to beat the time score when I 1st set it &, as the video shows, I was able to spontaneously figure out a way to easily slip past the bouncing spike fruit. I’ll still keep the time score, though, since it’d be refreshing to have a time score that isn’t as stringent as possible. They’re made for ordinary players, not professional speedrunners.
I’ll note that playing any other level after playing this level too much feels weird, since I’ve found I adjusted to the wind & found Autumn’s newfound lack o’ resistance o’erbearing & would way o’ershoot jumps.
You can’t completely break an artwork from the media it’s made in any mo’ than you can completely break the abstraction o’ anything from its concrete basis. Artwork literally can’t exist without a medium.
A corollary o’ this is that if you change a work’s medium, then you change the work itself. This is why adaptations are so controversial. For instance, ¿why is The Shining movie with Jack Nicholson that’s inaccurate to King’s original book popularly viewed as superior to the mo’ faithful miniseries? ’Cause movies are different from books: what makes good literature doesn’t necessarily make good film, & reverse.
This applies equally to video games. The problem is, many game developers still haven’t figured this out yet, probably ’cause it’s still a young medium & new media oft stumbled while trying to ape older media as it tries to figure out how to be its own thing. Much o’ video game storytelling is still done through cutscenes &, e’en worse, dialogue boxes, which are just inferior versions o’ movies & literature, respectively.
Cutscenes aren’t nearly as bad. Theoretically, it’s possible nowadays to make cutscenes that are just as good as real movies if one uses live action or pre-rendered footage. However, in reality, the economics o’ game development has ne’er led to the existence o’ video game cutscenes that look as good as a Pixar film or have the acting & directing quality o’, say, The Godfather1. &, ’course, video games are much pricier than movies, so if the video game doesn’t offer useful gameplay, — if the game’s claim to quality is based entirely on its story — then buyers are still ripping themselves off. Video games don’t just compete with each other; they must also compete with movies & literature, which are just as hungry for time & money. ¿Why waste my scarce money & scarcer time on a game whose claim to fame is cutscenes cluttered in chunky polygons & trite writing when I could better serve my time on earth watching Breaking Bad? ¿Why read the 1000th medieval RPG with hokey, inaccurate “ye olde English” when I could just read Shakespeare & get the authentic thing, which sounds 1000 times better?
But I would rather focus on dialogue boxes, since they’re worse, & worse in ways many have probably not noticed, but as someone who reads literature a’least round 2 hours per day, I have noticed quite blaringly.
The easiest thing would be to point out that many games highly acclaimed for their story don’t compare much with highly acclaimed literature. People who praise the story o’ games like Ocarina of Time or the average Final Fantasy game would probably be shocked if they were to learn that, if these games’ stories were put in book form, they would be laughed out o’ any serious fantasy or science fiction guild. ( You’d think anyone who has watched The Game of Thrones, based on the Song of Ice & Fire series would realize this, since the stark difference in nuance, character, & world-building ’tween that series & the average Zelda or Final Fantasy game is glaring ).
This is likely ’cause, unlike music or art assets, the average game’s written not by professional writers, but whoever they have standing round — usually the narcissistic director ( I’m looking @ you, Other M ) — based on the delusion that anyone can write well. This is on the level o’ logic that any guy with the generic title “game designer” you have lying round can compose Beatles-quality music. Interestingly, 1 o’ the few video games I consider to have literature-level quality writing, Mother 3, was written by an actual published writer.
But e’en if the words written are good, dialogue boxes are still an absolutely terrible way to tell story. It’s striking to me, ’cause e’en I hadn’t noticed it consciously till recently: I’ve always had this inexplicable preference for reading books o’er reading in video games, but couldn’t quite tell why till recently.
The answer is that dialogue boxes suck. They’re tiny windows wherein you can only read a few lines o’ text @ a time, whose movement speed is oft highly constricted, & wherein trying to go back & read text that’s already gone by is either a pain or impossible.
Contrast this with books: what I like ’bout books is that they give you complete control o’er the speed & flow o’ story progression. This is why I still prefer reading to watching TV or movies or e’en watching tutorial videos online. Not only that, but I can read in whatever sequence I want. Most people think o’ reading as just a purely linear, uninterrupted path. This is why so much contemporary literature is terrible — ’cause people don’t know how to read well anymo’. No, the true way to read is to go back & reread sections for clarification or just to comprehend other layers o’ the writing ( which are nonexistent in most modern literature, since, as we’ve established, they’re incompetent ). Just imagine trying to read, for example, a Shakespearean play & understand the plot, the references, the meter, the rhyme, the imagery, the tone, the theme, the use o’ consonants & vowels, & all that when you can only read a few lines @ a time & can only read them once.
Unfortunately, many self-described video game critics still don’t respect video games as a medium for what it does best. ¿How oft do these critics praise games based on shoddy story & hardly talk ’bout level design, control, physics, the general coherence o’ gameplay mechanics, &, least o’ all, the quality o’ the game’s programming beyond noticing flagrant bugs? This is probably ’cause the average game critic is probably a failed creative writer — & it’s here where the ol’ acorn, “A li’l knowledge is mo’ dangerous than no knowledge” returns too true.
This is troublesome, as it’s a bad influence on video games. When you consider how li’l attention the hardworking, brilliant programmers who were able to squeeze games like Super Mario Bros. 3 onto such primitive technology as the NES compared to some jackoff who scribbled out some tripe ’bout a goody-goody hero fighting gainst a grrrr evil villain in a couple minutes & puked it onto Unity, I can’t be surprised game developers nowadays just hack their games together in some bloated engine & demand their customers have o’erpowered computers on a certain operating system with a certain brand o’ controller to run their bloated code with every shortcut taken. Gamers can’t complain ’bout getting shit if they can’t tell what shit is. That video games are, @ their core, code, makes this sentiment ridiculous — but it is true. Just as how ridiculous it is that so much modern literature tries to ape film in the vain hopes o’ getting a movie adaptation, ignoring that tiny li’l problem that literature sucks @ being film just as much as video games suck @ being literature.
From the annoyingly-titled, “I’m a Developer. I Won’t Teach My Kids to Code, and Neither Should You.” ( ¿what savage puts a period in a headline? ), which, according to the page title, is also called “Teaching kids to code: I’m a developer and I think it doesn’t actually teach important skills.”, which is either to get extra SEO juice from different keywords or a hilariously incompetent mixup from modern newspapers too cheap to give a shit anymo’:
That is, of course, ridiculous. Coding is not the new literacy. While most parents are literate and know to read to their kids, most are not programmers and have no idea what kind of skills a programmer needs.
Programmer walks into a social issue & completely misunderstands history. Yes, most parents are literate — now. But during the boom o’ literature that led to the Industrial Revolution, most people weren’t. & those people who weren’t were @ a huge disadvantage.
Coding books for kids present coding as a set of problems with “correct” solutions.
& books aimed @ teaching kids literature present them stories with just 1 “correct” story, & the vast majority o’ literary schooling is still teaching kids the “right” way to write. Your school won’t give a shit how creative a rapper Ice Cube is: you write your term papers in ebonics & you’ll get marked down. I don’t see him bemoaning the fascism o’ language arts class. Maybe that’s ’cause, looking @ some o’ the style he uses, he probably hasn’t studied writing in a while…
And if your children can just master the syntax, they’ll be able to make things quickly and easily.
Hardly any learning material tries to get beginners to “master the syntax”. In fact, most hardly talk ’bout the syntax, which is a problem for those trying to learn, in-depth, how the language they’re using works in total, but works fine for those who just want to get things done to see how it feels like. That’s why they do it — it’s training wheels.
But that is not the way programming works.
Yes, & writing books doesn’t work by taking a crayon & writing inane nonsense, but that’s how most kids learn ’cause kids are kids & aren’t smart ’nough to program like true professional programmers. But if you get them used to computers & creating things on them, then it will make it easier for them get better @ it as their brains develop mo’.
Programming is messy. Programming is a mix of creativity and determination.
So is reading & writing, so I guess kids shouldn’t bother trying to learn those, either.
While both literature & programming involve creativity, you can’t just do whatever you want. It’s an objective fact that there are programs that simply won’t run. Typing out exactly what a book tells you to type out will get you closer to avoiding that than having a kid just type random buttons on a keyboard & hope it works. Similarly, being considered “literate” requires certain rules. If your kid just writes random letters that don’t spell any true words, they fail school & aren’t considered literate ’cause, just as a random jumble o’ code doesn’t give any useful info to the computer, jumbles o’ letters don’t communicate any useful info to other people, & communication is the only reason for words & programming.
Early in my career, I wrote some code to configure and run a group of remote servers. The code worked great. At least that’s what I thought until about 18 hours later, when my phone dinged in the middle of the night telling me a group of the servers had failed. Staggering from bed to my laptop, I ran the code again to replace the broken servers. Hours later, a different group failed.
“21-year-ol’ me didn’t just copy what a workbook said. ¿Why can’t these dumb 5-year-ol’s?”.
¿What does this prove other than that this writer isn’t good @ programming, but the demand vs. supply for programmers is good ’nough that his employers can’t rely entirely on great programmers? This sometimes happens to me, ’specially when it’s an unfamiliar system somebody else made; but I would ne’er pretend to myself that this process is better than actually knowing what’s wrong & figuring out how to fix things through logic & expertise, nor feel proud o’ my ability to fix my own fuck-ups.
There wasn’t a syntax problem.
But there would be if you hadn’t figured out the syntax yet. It’s also true that college literature students don’t usually fail their final ’cause they couldn’t figure out what the word “the” means in Shakespeare, but we still need to teach children that.
This guy says “early in my career”, not “when I was learning”, so this example is completely irrelevant. I can bet you that when he did 1st learn how to program, he had to learn syntax, ’cause last time I checked, programmers weren’t born knowing any programming language.
Coding is like that. Try something. See if it works. Try again.
Only a shitty programmer codes like that. Most programmers think a’least a li’l ’bout what the code will do before typing it ’cause they’re not monkeys bashing their fingers randomly on their keyboard. I’m sure Mozilla makes their programs by just typing random strings, compiling, & seeing what shit sticks. <Hmm… “error: ‘asfsdfsa’ does not name a type”. I guess I’d better type in some other sequence o’ letters & see if that will name a type. I’ll find 1 o’ those crafty fellows ’ventually>. As for syntax, having code with coherent ’nough syntax so that your code compiles is the minimum requirement, which is why those dumb books probably focus on that when teaching kids, just like how dumb reading books waste time teaching young kids something as easy & frivolous as the alphabet before teaching things they’ll truly need, like how to judge a sentence’s trustworthiness by the information not written ’bout.
If a problem was straightforward, it would be automated or at least solved with some open-source code.
¡Stupid Kindergartens! ¡Wasting our tax $ having kids write down all the letters in the alphabet when they should just have 5-year-ol’s run “npm i alphabet –save-dev” in the terminal!
If this guy had looked outside his window @ the real world he’d be surprised by how many straightforward things are not automated. Customer service isn’t quantum mechanics, but still hasn’t been automated. & open source code comes with caveats: it may only be available for other projects that are open source, may have slight incompatibilities with your project’s goals, or may just be badly made — which leads to the catch-22 problem that, in order to know whether the open source code does what it does well, you have to be knowledgeable ’nough to know what a good version o’ the code would be, & thus need to know how to make the good code, essentially. This is why people still “reinvent the wheel” so oft: it’s a great way to learn how wheels work so you know which wheels are good & which aren’t.
Finally, ’less you take the time to carefully check the open source code, it may contain security flaws or outright spyware — & may develop them after you 1st decide to use them if you upgrade the open source code without carefully checking the code ’gain, as had legit happened to WordPress plugins after they had secretly been bought by someone unscrupulous. This is why the npm leftpad controversy has caused npm to become a laughingstock by so many programmers: it’s oft simpler to code something yourself & be sure that the code is exactly as you want it than have to trust complete strangers.
All that’s left is the difficult task of creating something unique.
Which you can’t do till you figure out how to do the things everyone’s already done. That’s why John Cormack literally started by copying code out o’ magazines & running them on his own computer. That’s why Shakespeare started by translating already-written Latin texts. Indeed, read ’bout the history o’ Shakespeare’s learning & witness how much monotonous reciting & robotic copying & memorization he had to go through in that relatively conservative school he went to. Somehow he still figured out how to create well-beloved works ( technically not “unique”, since e’en the most renowned English writer copied other people ).
Also, his claim is disproven by his own example. Configuring & running remote servers isn’t e’en close to creating something unique. The vast majority o’ programmers are doing things already done ’cause the reality o’ the costs o’ using foreign code is different from the abstract ideal this programmer made up in his head.
Besides, as that emo story o’ the Bible, “Ecclesiastes”, & many emos hereafter have said: there’s nothing new under the sun, son.
There are no books that teach you how to solve a problem no one has seen before.
Which is why it’s a good thing none o’ these books offering to get kids started programming don’t promise to do that. ¿Have these books promised that your kid will be the next Linus Torvald? I haven’t seen those books myself.
Writing unique literature is also something you can’t learn from books, & yet many societies have somehow caused the literacy rate to jump from a tiny few elites to the majority by wasting their time teaching kids to robotically memorize the basic elements o’ writing so they could use that knowledge in creative ways when they are older.
The entire basis o’ his argument is, “These books don’t teach kids everything ’bout programming so they’re baby Donald Knuths, so clearly they are completely useless”. This programmer should learn what “Perfect solution fallacy” is.
One day, my son was concerned that a chair of his was wobbly. We looked at it and he helped me isolate the problem: One of the screws was loose. I found one of our many leftover hex wrenches and showed him how to screw it back in. After that, he was curious what would happen if he screwed the other way, which he did until the screw came out. We ended up taking the chair all the way apart and putting it back together a couple of times, often mismatching pieces, before he was satisfied the job was finished. Try something. See how it works. Try again.
“& now he’s already working for Google, so clearly this is better than all those dumb books”.
People did this kind o’ thing for centuries before programming e’en existed, which proves that this isn’t sufficient for learning programming @ all. You would think a’least 1 o’ the many mechanics working in the 1800s would’ve invented the kind o’ computers & software we have now centuries earlier, since apparently knowing how to unscrew screws is sufficient knowledge to become a programmer. That’s why I always put “I spent my whole day bonking pieces together till it closely resembled a chair” @ the top o’ my resume when applying to Microsoft & Nintendo. I have no idea why they’ve ne’er called me for an interview yet. Those books he complains ’bout, meanwhile, will a’least get someone a working program, e’en if it’s not impressive in the slightest, whereas this li’l adventure doesn’t lead to a working program @ all.
Of course, getting something working is just the first step of building software.
& the 1st step is necessary for any further steps, so you better make sure, ’bove all, that you can do it. & no ’mount o’ wobbly-chair sleuthing will help you if you can’t e’en write a program with correct ’nough syntax that the compiler or interpreter can understand it @ all.
The next step is to make code clear, reusable, and neat.
Many great programs, — far greater than this guy has probably come close to doing — from ’bout every game on the NES & SNES to Linux kernel code ( which is somehow the most secure kernel code, relied on by the vast majority o’ web servers, while using those dreaded gotos ), fail these 3 criteria. There has ne’er been any true scientific, empirical evidence that “clear, reusable, and neat” code is anything beyond subjective taste.
Once, early in my career, I wrote a feature and gave it to a senior developer for review. He took one look at my sloppy spacing, mismatched lines, and erratic naming conventions and just said, “Do it again.”
¿Anyone remember how this article was almost entirely him ranting ’bout how unimportant syntax is? But now “sloppy spacing, mismatches lines, and erratic naming conventions” are o’ huge importance. Clearly teaching kids a grounding in these basic things is a waste, then. I would love to know how learning ’bout why chairs wobble would solve this problem.
The syntax was valid. It was still wrong. Good coders don’t just get something to work. They want it to be good.
Which books can’t teach you, ’cause spacing & keeping lines matching is too complicated to teach, e’en though these are subjects that can have specific, consistent answers ( e’en if people may disagree on which answers are best ). Indeed, if this writer is a professional programmer, he should know that companies have documents that specifically delineate the rules they demand you follow, like Google’s Style Guides.
He goes on to reiterate that real programming is hard — which is no different from real writing, & so goes gainst his claim that being literate in programming is completely different from being literate in human languages. This is ’cause it’s not: both are just writing. The only difference is that traditional literature is aimed @ only humans, while computer programming is aimed @ computers, which think in much mo’ radically different ways from humans. & that’s the point those who make the comparison: that just as it’s vitally important that humans be able to communicate with other humans through writing to thrive in modern society, as computers become mo’ & mo’ prevalent, it becomes mo’ & mo’ important to develop the ability to communicate with them, & those who do ’head o’ the rest may have advantages o’er those who don’t.
He continues with ’nother irrelevant example o’ showing his son how to bake cookies, & claiming that it, too, teaches his son how to program better than books that aim @ teaching programming, e’en though it teaches general skills he would probably already learn in a million o’ other places & is not sufficient for learning programming — which is why all chefs can’t also make iPhone apps.
He then ends the article with the kind o’ flowery poetic bullshit ’bout how having a “blatantly employable skill” isn’t important that only a ditsy upper-middle-class parent who’s rich ’nough that they’ll ne’er have to worry ’bout their kid being able to get a job when they grow up would write. Parents who can’t afford to keep paying for their children into their 20s or who can’t afford to game on the small chance that their child will whimsy themselves into their dream job may want to stick with the solutions that actually has empirical evidence ’hind it & make sure their children are well educated in matters that will make them employable, & thus able to keep themselves ’live when their parents are no longer ’live, as well as maybe their own kids, which will require mo’ money — money the vast majority o’ people get by being employable. When they’re doing that, they can also work on becoming creative, & use those boring ordinary skills they learned as the backbone to their creativity, since it’s actually quite hard to think ’bout things in new ways when you don’t e’en know what things are ol’. If the ditz who spewed this nonsense had read a biography o’ just ’bout any great creator they’d know that almost all o’ them, while they may have done wacky, fun experiments with wobbling chairs, also spent a significant ’mount o’ their time when young sitting the fuck down & learning fundamentals.
If this article has shown anything, it shows that most people aren’t quite as literate as popularly thought. You could say this article’s syntax was “valid” ’nough that I can identify it as English that says something, but it’s not good: its central point isn’t backed by most o’ the arguments he makes, — &, in fact, some o’ his arguments contradict his main point — & some o’ his examples are so irrelevant they verge on nonsequitor; his grammar is full o’ choppy small sentences that he doesn’t e’en try to tie together, which adds to the rambling feeling o’ this article; & for someone who emphasizes uniqueness & creativity, he’s just spewing the kind o’ empty bourgie philosophy millions o’ others have already done before just to cast the appearance o’ depth onto others without putting in the mental effort to actually say anything profound ( or e’en coherent ). Like this writer’s programming interviewer, if he had turned this in to any writing professor, they would simply say, “Do it again”.
This writer’s central problem, in addition to being bad @ writing, is that he can’t comprehend the very basic idea that the people comparing learning coding to learning how to read are making. They’re not saying every kid should become a professional programmer any mo’ than schools teach kids how to read so they’ll all become professional writers or teach kids math so they’ll all become mathematicians. E’en when almost every kid in developed countries learn these 2 subjects, they usually are far too bad @ them to excel — as proven by this guy who obviously learned how to read & write when he was young, e’en though he ne’er became an accomplished writer ( though for some reason he thought that he could be one ).
’Course, there was a time when everyone who learned how to read & write were a minority o’ upper-class scribes & everyone considered learning to become literate useless for petty workers. Then society changes, as it tends to do. ¿How does this writer know that only professional programmers will be programing in the future? So many other professions are already invaded by technology that is becoming e’er mo’ complicated so that their users have to give e’er mo’ complex instructions that creep close to being like programming in the need for infinite options for creatives. Already professional artists learn how to program macros when working in Photoshop, many writers & accountants use regular expressions for complex search & replace, & many people on social media run into short snippets o’ HTML & CSS all the time. Someone I work with knows nothing ’bout programming, but knows ’bout “hex” color codes used for describing colors on the internet, though they don’t know what “hex” means.
Meanwhile, the ideal o’ only a few programmers making tools for everyone else to use is showing its weaknesses. The internet is slow & annoying ’cause too many people who need websites have the delusion that they can make 1 without programming & ’stead just get junk like Wix & its ilk spew out. There are too many examples o’ computer software that’s s’posed to make things easier for people breaking & spewing out error messages that only a programmer could understand, which just feeds the need for customer service. It’d be like a world where customers had to call for instructions in every place where we usually use written words — from instructions to setting up everything to knowing the ingredients o’ a food product — ’cause they ne’er bothered to learn how to read.
This writer himself demonstrates a complete hypocrisy himself in his regard: he claims that programming is too hard for the majority o’ plebs to do, & that they would be better off not trying, but has no trouble trying writing, e’en though people mo’ literate than him could tell him that he’s not good @ it. While we rightfully understand that writing & reading skills aren’t binary: we expect everyone to have a baseline level to be able to function in modern society, but only expect the highest skills in brilliant writers, this writer & many others treat programming as if you either can do it or not — e’en though the fact that this programmer apparently spent most o’ his time with remote servers ’stead o’, say, programming for NASA shows that there are clearly programmers superior than he is.
This doesn’t fit utility, as the demand for programmers is still quite high, & mostly for endeavors that don’t need the best programmers — which is, ’course, why so many people are jumping on the bandwagon, & why so many publishers are pumping out books to feed that demand. Businesses pay mo’ for programmers ’cause they can’t get ’nough for their needs. People realize that & aim for that career path so that they can make mo’ money. Thus, mo’ people want works or services that help them accomplish that goal. It’s possible this may change in the future; but it doesn’t seem like computers o’ anything is just a temporary fad. People who see that computer skills will be mo’ useful to society in the future, & thus the sentiment that mo’ people should aim for getting those skills is just being rational & useful for society. Just throwing caution to the wind & hoping someone will pay you simply for having curiosity is utterly irrational & irresponsible, & only works if you’re privileged ’nough to have people they can sponge off or scam.
Notably, the only biographies I’ve read where someone succeeded without working hard to learn tedious fundamentals when young were people who were essentially con men, like Steve Jobs1. Those are usually the people who like the spin the bullshit that these small whimsical stories are what got them successful ’cause they can’t talk ’bout what truly made them successful, since it would out them as a con man, & can’t use examples o’ actual technical knowledge, since it’s too easy to prove that these people don’t have technical skills. Thus someone like Steve Jobs would try to tell you that knowing some arcane, pseudoscientific inner knowledge is mo’ useful for something like programming ( which, Jobs, who forgot multiple times that computers need fans to keep them from o’erheating & dying, obviously couldn’t do ).
Interestingly, 1 o’ the aspects o’ being literate that schools teach you is what they call “critical reading comprehension” so you can read works & analyze what they call “authorial intent” & underlying meaning. Part o’ that includes, what they don’t call, seeing the bullshit ’hind writing. The fairy tale o’ the person who became a brilliant creator by learning not to put the cookie cutter in the middle o’ the dough is 1 o’ those. The fact that it isn’t based on any proof @ all, but just the author asserting that it is so based on logical fallacies so obvious e’en a dimwitted blogger could point them out is solved thanks to Americans’ habit o’ slobbering subservience to privileged figures, whether it’s some Silicon Valley mogul or some famous online newspaper like Slate.
Thus, why Mozilla, an organization s’posedly dedicated ’nough to fighting fake news that they show pop ups ’bout it whenever I open Firefox, decided to throw in my face an article without any science or evidence @ all, but not, say, the many scientific studies that exist. Maybe that’s good: maybe science should only be kept for the professional scientists & we plebs should just get by with quirky stories o’ being curious ’bout wobbly chairs.
But Mozilla will get their effigy in my next editorial…
Boskeopolis Land: Let’s Code a Crappy 2D Platformer Like Millions o’ Other People on the Internet & Lose Interest & Give Up Only a Few Months In, Part XXXXIII: Catahoneycombs
I delayed this video ’cause I felt this level may have too much content — &, in particular, too many gimmicks — for just 1 level & considered splitting it into 2 levels, which would conflict with my theme system, since I already had 3 mine levels & no other theme where this level would fit, e’en in a game that already stretched level themes beyond their logical boundaries ( quite a hefty problem for a game revolving round revolving level themes, which needs meaningful level themes for the cycling o’ said level themes to have meaning ).
I mentioned in an earlier post that I prefer to have multiple li’l gimmicks in a level than 1 all-encompassing level gimmick so that the level doesn’t feel too 1-dimensional; however, too many gimmicks either bloat the level too long ( & I feel most games have levels that are too long ) or leave some gimmicks underused, which I fear may happen here, particularly with the sticky floor gimmick. Other than a few places near the beginning that simply show without telling how sticky floors work without risk, the sticky ground is only used in 1 small section in the middle o’ the level challenging you to dodge Pufferbees while traversing sticky floor. This can be ’splained by the fact that I didn’t consider adding this gimmick till late in this level’s development: originally, this level went straight from that 1st platform with a white ant on it to the next.
’Twas mainly this gimmick I planned on cutting out into its own level, while leaving this level as ’twas originally. But in addition to not having ’nother level slot for ’nother beehive level, I came to the conclusion that there probably wasn’t much else to do with the sticky floor gimmick. Plus, I don’t think ’twas a particularly enjoyable gimmick to stretch much longer, either.
’Sides, the other gimmicks in this level aren’t strong ’nough to hold a whole level. The honey bubbles that form this level’s predominant gimmick1 are just floating water, & the honey falls are just vertical lines o’ water with greater downward force. I didn’t e’en bother to eliminate the oxygen mechanic o’ these water blocks, which I considered, but then declined, since I didn’t feel it worth the effort & felt the oxygen element added an extra complexity to these simple gimmicks, ’specially to the honey falls, adding a bit o’ extra challenge to getting all those gems down there. Meanwhile, the white ants are just a new enemy type that could hardly be called a “gimmick”. Also, I considered taking them out, since, as the video was nice ’nough to show, they glitch out sometimes for reasons I still haven’t figured out. It can’t be due to some blocks not spawning messing up their block detection, as the “blocks_work_offscreen” flag is turned on so that the square-formation bees near the beginning are already moving when you get there ( a necessity if you don’t want the 1st jump to be free & you want to ensure the bees are always in sync with each other ).
Recording this level’s video went surprisingly great: I was able to get it all in 1 take. That’s rare & surprising for a level so tricky — with so many tight jumps where it’s easy to just nick a bee or spike — that I’m considering moving this up from the 2nd cycle to the 3rd & putting “Curse o’ th’Ladder-Splayed Caves” in the 2nd cycle ’stead. The only true hitch was the obligatory level error remaining during recording: the white ant that spins off its platform into space.
I was ’specially surprised I got the time score 1st try, since I flubbed up so much, including the part where I miss the initial bee space due to brain flatulence & waited there a whole second like a buffoon. A’least I was able to show that with quick but tiny jumps you can go through the middle section with honey floor & bees without pausing, as I detest when game’s make you stop. Also, I think I miscalculated the gem score: as the video shows, e’en if you don’t collect every gem, it’s still easy to get mo’ than 10,000₧, while the score requirement is only 9,000. I should bump it up to 10,000.
This level’s music, by the way, is not by the elusive public domain composer Kevin MacLeod, who made most o’ these songs I used, but by Lobo Loco & came from my other main repository for free music ( well, Creative Commons, which works fine for me, since my game is on Creative Commons, too ), freemusicarchive.org. None o’ MacLeod’s songs fit a beehive theme particularly well — which you can’t blame him for, since it’s a rare level theme. I thought searching “bees” in Free Music Archive would be a far fetch, ’specially since, unlike MacLeod, that website doesn’t focus on video game themes. So you can imagine my surprise when I heard Lobo Loco’s “Save the Bees” & heard exactly what I wanted. It reminds me a lot o’ the “Flight of the Zinger” song from Diddy’s Kong Quest, used in that game’s beehive levels, which is exactly what I was thinking o’ when imagining what I wanted this level’s song to sound like.
Boskeopolis Land: Let’s Code a Crappy 2D Platformer Like Millions o’ Other People on the Internet & Lose Interest & Give Up Only a Few Months In, Part XXXXII: Good Ship Lifestyle
For once the layout & programming took mo’ time than the graphics — probably ’cause much o’ the graphics are reused from other “pirate” themed level. & for once this is actually pirate themed & not a beach or bathtub.
It’s hard for me to get difficulty right ( or I fail to get it right ), since I’m bad @ games, so I can’t tell if I made a level too ridiculous or if I just suck. ¿Does dodging some o’ these anchor bullets require luck or just sharp eyes & reflexes? I considered lengthening the minimum shoot delay, since it seems like the most seemingly unfair hits were when it shot just after shooting, but decided not to, since I figured I was just reacting too slowly.
Anyway, the gem & time scores are lenient & I’m quite sure all o’ the trouble I had gathering the footage for this day’s video was due to sloppy playing. The time video here particularly shows that off, as after near flawless playing through the 1st half I flop round as if my fingers were covered in butter & hesitate as if I developed Alzheimer’s & still make the time score — though right on the last second.
The ladder shafts & the final stair climb are so saturated with anchor bullet sprites that it caused slowdown, so I had to fiddle together some optimization tricks. The 1st 1 I did had nothing to do with sprites, but eased the level’s run load so much that it made up for it: many o’ the tiles are background tiles, & I noticed that none o’ those tiles animated or changed. I’ve realized for a while that drawing all these li’l blocks is probably 1 o’ the most inefficient things this game does, since it calls the SDL_RenderCopyEx function for each block, which valgrind has consistently told me is slow. ( This is what led me to realize many updates ago that loading a small image & tiling it for a background is slower than manually tiling it into a large image & just loading & drawing that large image once per frame ). So I created a branch o’ the background tile code & created ’nother version that @ the beginning creates a texture o’ all the level’s background tiles & just draws the portion o’ that that’s on the screen every frame, turning what could be o’er 200 SDL_RenderCopyEx calls per frame into just 1 per frame.
That seemed to get rid o’ the slowdown. But I still wasn’t sure or satisfied, so I made 1 other quick & easy optimization that was actually relevant to sprites & I should’ve fixed a while ago. When a sprite is killed off, it’s simply erased from the vector o’ sprites. I’ve read on the internet that vector’s erase method shifts all entries after the deleted entry backward to fill the space & still maintain the order o’ entries. Unfortunately, I don’t care ’bout sprite order — it’s arbitrary, anyway, based on whatever order the map reader finds them, which isn’t tied to the order the player is likely to find them. Moreo’er, this is slow — I believe worst-case O(n). So I changed it so that it now just replaces the data o’ the sprite to be deleted with the final sprite’s data & then just pop off the final sprite.
I must confess I didn’t come up with this idea myself, but learned it from this chapter on “Object Pools” o’ the book Game Programming Patterns. In fact, I’ve known ’bout it for years & used it in earlier programs I’ve made, which is why I said I should’ve used it earlier.
As an extra maybe-optimization that didn’t hurt is I set the sprites vector to reserve 50 spots @ the beginning to hopefully avoid going past the size o’ the vector & having to slowly reallocate memory, move the data, & delete the ol’ data. When considering this optimization, I considered changing the vector to a classic C array, since I wasn’t sure if vector e’en allowed you to delete any entry without automatically shifting other entries; but realized it didn’t matter, since the sprites are held as unique pointers, so I could just release the last entry’s data & reset the unique pointer o’ the sprite to be deleted to that data. I decided to stay with vector for the greater size flexibility it gives. I prefer the balance o’ safety & speed I can get by having a vector with a moderate # o’ space reserved so that having to enlarge the vector is unlikely, but still gives me the chance to enlarge the vector if absolutely needed, for some rare outcome that I can’t predict.
’Course, the fact that sprites are held as pointers & not data itself means that this vector can’t take advantage o’ data locality, — which I also, coincidentally, 1st learned ’bout from a chapter o’ Game Programming Patterns — which is also a rather big inefficiency. However, fixing that would take a lot mo’ work — I would basically have to refactor all sprite code so that it uses discriminating unions — which are both racist & socialist, so neither side o’ the political spectrum likes them — ’stead o’ polymorphic sprites. In hindsight, I would’ve preferred using discriminating unions for this & a few other reasons, but it’s too late; so we’re stuck with slow & stupid polymorphic classes. I could think o’ many other optimizations I could make, some big & some so small it’d be a waste o’ time — & some big, but would require me to reprogram large parts o’ the game’s integral code. This isn’t so much “fix all inefficiencies I can think o’”, which would make this project take decades to finish, but “fix inefficiencies that are obvious & ridiculously easy to do”. I’ll save these bigger ideas for the sequel, where I can start from scratch. Now I want to just get this sloppy mess finished & out o’ my sight.
Anyway, these optimizations not only seemed to clear all slowdown in “Good Ship Lifestyle”, they also seemed to fix the slowdown that has been in “Value Valhalla” for probably o’er a year. ( Didn’t fix most o’ the sprites disappearing after a loop, though ). Why this happens, I can’t understand, since this level has neither any background tile layers nor sprites that are deleted.
& I must say, this level’s music is a true banger. This time it isn’t by Kevin McLeod, but by a band called Blue Wave Theory, found on Free Music Archive, released under Creative Commons ( & thus OK for me to use ). It’s surprising how much high quality music you can find for free — which is great for people like me with absolutely no musical talent.
Final Fun Game: Try & find the minor graphical ( technically, level-design ) flaw I made & didn’t notice till after I already recorded the video this time.
- white ice ( deja que solbrille el invierno ) [ VERGESSEN SIE DEN GLAMOUR UND MURMELN SIE EINEN PRESSLUFTHAMMER LEISE ]
- PJ Watches Me Play Mario Party 2
- still spreading…
- Jack in the Box ( ES UN TIEMPO MARAVILLOSO ESTAR AQUÍ ES AGRABLE ESTAR VIVO ES UN MUNDO BONITO [ FÜR DICH ] )
- Die Herbstzeiten eines Volkes
- A Look at RPGs
- Antiromantic Sonnet
- Boskeopolis Land
- GBA Tribute
- GBC Tribute
- Great Stages
- Haiku, Senryu y amigos
- Legend of the Four Switches
- Literature Commentary
- Mezunian Sonnet
- Misc. Software
- My Crimes Gainst Art
- Pokéme Comics
- Shakespearean Sonnet & Parodies
- Short Stories
- Sucky Stages
- Video Game Music Reviews
- Video Games
- Web Design
- What the Fuck Is this Shit?
- Yuppy Tripe