For those following my experiment...

[Vorax]

I have taken into account the initial concerns regarding targeting in Kumari; voiced when I posted the video clip. I've added a targeting cursor that allows you to percisley determine where your ball will go. Big thumbs up from my wife on that one. Thanks for the suggestions and ideas.

I've uploaded some screenshots to my forums if your interested.

Screen shots here (http://www.voraxgames.com/community/forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=13)

I played all the levels straight through and really enjoyed it. I hope others will, but that's no longer really a concern for me.

I almost don't care if the casual players can handle an action 3D match three (maybe they will?). If they don't, it'll be there loss in my opinion. I didn't start out trying to make money, I started out trying to build something entirely from scratch and learn, as long as I finish, I'll be happy.

For anyone that signed up to the beta, it's not started yet, but I am on track. You'll get an email when it does.

- Vorax

[Escapist Games]

Looks interesting. (And after watching the video I agree that the targeting cursor is an improvement.)

Good luck with this one.

[Raptisoft]

Hey Vorax, I think you should up your polygon counts a bit.

[Bmc]

i downloaded a demo of this from someplace, it's not bad but I think you should adjust the angle so it's more of a bird's eye view.

[Vorax]

@Escapist games - Thanks!

@Raptisoft - Do you mean just the balls (crystals) or everything? I may make the balls rounder, but I am waiting for the beta before I do that because I don't have enough info on what level of PC/Graphics card is needed. If I can get good FPS on a Geo2 then I'll have more flexibility for details.

@BMC - To far down that road for change now (would be alot of level rework) :( The targeting cursor makes the angle easier to deal with (wouldn't have been in any of the tech demos, which are fairly old now)

[Raptisoft]

Re: Adding polygons:

Personally, I'd make the backgrounds higher polygons, especially, first thing: the angles in the path are the sticking point here. For the balls, you could probably get away with billboards if you wanted to tweak things enough.

[Vorax]

Re: Adding polygons:

Personally, I'd make the backgrounds higher polygons, especially, first thing: the angles in the path are the sticking point here. For the balls, you could probably get away with billboards if you wanted to tweak things enough.

I see, good point - I will be able to go back and smooth out some of the hard edges in the paths.

For the balls - unfortunetly they won't work as billboards due to the physics of the game (they really push each other along the path) and the collision detection for ball shots.

[soniCron]

For the balls - unfortunetly they won't work as billboards due to the physics of the game (they really push each other along the path) and the collision detection for ball shots. What does the way they're drawn have to do with the collision detection?

[Vorax]

What does the way they're drawn have to do with the collision detection?

Billboards are flat planes (2D), the game is 3D. Try slamming two pieces of paper together as opposed to 2 balls. Even if I did the detection with invisible meshes, it just wouldn't look right - balls would be not quite hitting other balls, or it would look like you hit a ball and didn't, or the opposite.

[soniCron]

Even if I did the detection with invisible meshes, it just wouldn't look right - balls would be not quite hitting other balls, or it would look like you hit a ball and didn't, or the opposite. Why? And why use meshes at all? You should be using spheres.

[Robert Cummings]

I don't think the market is ready for another zuma luxor clone. Plus currently your game does not look as good as the original zuma, let alone anything else.

As a learning project I think it is good. It just goes to show that 3D does not automatically mean great presentation.

You should be using mathematical collisions anyway... Is there a reason why you aren't?

[Vorax]

2D objects living iin a 3D world never look quite right. It's ok for particles, but almost never works for objects.

Take a look at any of the screen shots and picture the balls as 2D planes. For billboarding to work the planes all have to be angled at the center of the camera. The further the plane is from the camera, the worse it gets. The meshes would end up intersecting each other or intersecting with the path mesh and thus ruin the effect.

Particles in my engine do use billboarding and are z-ordered, this would help a bit with balls intersecting balls, but not balls intersecting the path mesh.

[Vorax]

Why? And why use meshes at all? You should be using spheres.

A sphere is a mesh.

[soniCron]

Sphere. Radius. 3D radius. You should be testing three dimensional radii, not meshes. (And, no, a sphere is not a mesh.) :)

[Vorax]

I don't think the market is ready for another zuma luxor clone. Plus currently your game does not look as good as the original zuma, let alone anything else.

Well, thanks for the discouraging words ;) Fortunetly not everyone has the same view. I have done some side by side comparisions with individuals who aren't programmers, showing them my game and Luxor and the only feedback I have gotten is that mine looks a lot cooler and more interesting to play.

Also at least two ladies signed up on my forums to say they are intrigued with the game, considering that my forum is basically an obsure unknown on the net, I thought it was encouraging.


As a learning project I think it is good. It just goes to show that 3D does not automatically mean great presentation.

Eye of the beholder I guess.


You should be using mathematical collisions anyway... Is there a reason why you aren't?

I am.

PS: I still don't believe it's a clone, sure it's similar, but it plays very differently and has entirely new ideas. You say Zuma and Luxor, as though they are distinct, yet mine is further seperated (by a long way) then those two games are from each other.

[Vorax]

Sphere. Radius. 3D radius. You should be testing three dimensional radii, not meshes. (And, no, a sphere is not a mesh.) :)

Ugg..it is using radius, but the meshes need to touch - they aren't perfect spheres, nor is the path bezier.

And yes, a sphere IS a mesh when rendered in 3D - everything is a collection of vertices.

Edit: I see where I confused this issue:

. Even if I did the detection with invisible meshes, it just wouldn't look right - balls would be not quite hitting other balls, or it would look like you hit a ball and didn't, or the opposite.

Instead of invisible meshes, I should have said ball radius.

[g666]

This game is still looking good :).

Im slightly confused about using meshes for collisions of the balls, shouldnt the meshes just be used for rendering and just a simple sphere collision test for collisions? Having played the alpha I dont think billboarding would look to great for rendering them tho.

[Vorax]

yes see above - I confused it in a post (brain hickup). Balls are collision tested with each other using spherical collision detection.

Ok- Hopefully I have cleared that up now, or do I start posting code? :)

@Sonicron: Just to be clear - what you were describing is exactly what I'm doing.

[Robert Cummings]

Hey I didn't mean to sound discouraging! Apologies... I am making a "clone" myself except mine is sufficiently different enough to add something to it's genre.

I think your game doesn't look as good. IMHO 3D can't really beat 2D for polished graphics yet. Thats my own personal opinion. My game actually uses 3D hardware to render 2D graphics.

I wish you well with the game.

[Vorax]

You are a 2D gamer, I am a 3D gamer :)

I like 2D, and agree the graphics can be made slick and clean, often more so then 3D. My engine supports bump mapping, specular mapping and real-time z-fail (Carmack's reverse) shadows, pixel and vertex shaders are available - which if I used all that power, the game would look much better, but would also require a 2005 video card and P4, 2.5+Ghz processor to run. So I can't and have to keep things fairly simple. That's the advantage that 2D has, it doesn't take much to make things look good because it's all pre-rendered/drawn.

On the other hand, my game feels like you are some place, like your in a world where this giant puzzle is laid out before you. 3D feels much more like a living world then 2D. Zuma, Luxor and all other 2D match 3's don't and can't do that because they are 2D.

It's immersion vs pixel perfect. I personally prefer immersion and though it's not something associated with match 3 games, I saw no reason not to try to achieve it.

[Bmc]

It's immersion vs pixel perfect. I personally prefer immersion and though it's not something associated with match 3 games, I saw no reason not to try to achieve it.

Yes, because casual game players don't often play games for hours on end not realizing the amount of time passing them by.... pffftttt

if that's not being immersed then what is?

[Vorax]

Yes, because casual game players don't often play games for hours on end not realizing the amount of time passing them by.... pffftttt

if that's not being immersed then what is?

That's not immersion, that's addicted to the game mechanic, not the same thing.

EverQuest, Wow, etc (many MMORPG's). are games that have immersion AND addiction ("EverCrack")... games like Doom 3 just have immersion.

If I can achieve addiction with immersion, this is gonna be a #1 on Real! :D

[Robert Cummings]

So how is this actually different from tumblebugs which was 3D?

[Vorax]

So how is this actually different from tumblebugs which was 3D?

Tumble bugs is still a 2D top down orthogonal percpective. There is also no interaction with the environment and uses pre-rendered graphics and static camera angles. It has much more in common with a 2D game, then a 3D game - even if the marketing calls it 3D. It is an improvement though.

[Robert Cummings]

Your game is still '2D' much like tekken was '2D'.

The reason you're using 3D is because it cheaper than paying for many artists to get a visual quality you want to compete with.

[Vorax]

Your game is still '2D' much like tekken was '2D'.

The reason you're using 3D is because it cheaper than paying for many artists to get a visual quality you want to compete with.

Hungh? I did 3D because I wanted to and I wanted to develop a 3D engine.

If I wanted to make 2D levels like in Zuma, it would be a heck of alot easier then full out 3D models and all the textures to go with them. All a zuma style level would take is max, photoshop and a few hours. Any competent artist should be able to do 2-3 of them a day. It takes 3-4 times longer for one of Kumari's levels because there is much more art to do (both 2D and 3D).

I was a professional artist 15 years ago - oils, acrylics and inks. I have been doing 3D models, images and texturing for over 7 years as a hobby (and a bit of contract work for Activision on a AAA title - at their request). If I wanted to do pre-rendered like Beetle Bomp, I could do that as well, and again, it would be much easier then doing them in the game and the game would be done now.

Technically this game has been in development for over a year and a half between the coding and production. I could have built both Zuma and luxor with that much time - including all the art and programming.

I didn't choose 3D because it's easy, I chose it because it's hard.

[Ricardo C]

I hope Robert doesn't choke to death, what with having his foot stuck in his mouth right about now.

[Sharpfish]

Vorax - Initially I could see what Robert etc was getting at, and I think we all understand how hard it is to get 3D looking as crisp and pro as a *good* 2D game (i'm also working on a 3D game).

Now I feel you are just being given a hard time over it without any just cause. I don't really like the insinuations going on that people only do 3D because it's easy (!?) yeah - trying to make a compulsive and accessible gametype in 3D is a walk in the park next to 2D :rolleyes: I too would have finished my game a long time ago had I done it in 2D, but I wanted *immersion* also and in general I like working with 3D. The only thing that is easier is that you don't need a tonne of animation frames for every motion and don't need to hand draw lighting etc.. though even then you can use pre-rendered 2D. Textures are still a pain to get right, lighting is also tricky (a balance between environmental ambience and acceptable usability).. Coding work and control issues multiply tenfold or more.. there are many more issues that crop up when you do a 3D casual game *if* you are attempting to make it as polished as the 2D standard.

Sure anyone can throw a few meshes into an engine and call it a game - I'm not impressed by that either, usually a lot of shareware 3D games end up looking like tech demos while the (better) 2D ones look very pro. THAT is the difficulty in using 3D, the attempt at trying something different while knowing simultaneously that you are probably hampering sales (by using 3D) increase sys requirements and giving yourself headaches over controls and cameras that are just not an issue in 2D.

So, do we all go for the easy option of just using 2D forever more?

A sound business idea would be to stick to (low requirement/highly polished) 2D for any game at the moment, but some of us are just not interested in 2D development right now.

If Vorax wanted to work with 3D, I believe him (because I did), and it's like anything else, the first game may be a bit rough around the edges, the next a bit better, and so on.

My advice is that you concentrate on really polishing and testing your game and not be discouraged. Yes it is doubtful that it can compete with the best zuma clones that have so far thrived on simple 2D perspective and polished 2D graphics from a ROI point of view. Doubtful doesn't mean "Impossible" though and at some stage someone has to stick their neck out. If the game itself is addictive and fun to play it won't matter if it's 2D or 3D to the people who choose to buy it.

The only possible problem in all of this is that because you were using 3D you maybe should have sidestepped the "zuma clone" issue. However, remember there is a whole world outside of this forum.

I have to agree that the camera could have done with being a bit more birds eye because it will feel quite alien to the usual ball-poppers who thrive on simplicity. (I tweaked my *fixed* main cam in my game endlessly to reach the best compromise of usuability while retaining the immersive angle I required). Also I would always ask myself "What can I do with this now it is 3D that I couldn't do in 2D", and by that I mean layering of FUN and immersion. Actually using it to enhance the game rather than doing a strict "2D GAME" in 3D for the hell of it. I haven't played your game so I don't know if you have that covered or if the 3D only serves to confuse (again the hard part of using 3D in casual games).

As for the polys, I do agree you should maybe up them a bit (but I know how every bit counts in 3D - I have a similar "balancing task" at the moment) - The balls though, imo, really do need to be top class. These are what the main focus is on. And because you have zuma/bugs/luxor/bomp players as your primary target (maybe implicitly) they will be comparing the quality of them on a subconcious level. Looking at the screenshots, it could just be that the textures need to be a bit smoother/nicer and have a specular reflection on them (if you haven't already) as they look a little flat at the moment. I think a simple change of texture to something more "solid" would work wonders with them (I had a 3D ball game prototype in the works over 2 years ago that had contrasts ON the textures apart from their main colour - which helped the specular stand out). This may also help them look smoother when they rotate as the move (inline with the "famous" 2D versions). I know I am in the minority but of all the zumalikes, tumblebugs is actually my favourite - no camera issues of course but the balls do look great and it adds depth to the concept.

The environments could always have more polys but then you get into a battle with performance and style - I would advise you "spend" everything you have on getting the balls and the tracks to look amazing and then work on the environments, sympathetically keeping them within the same artistic style as the objects. Again easier said than done in 3D.

Good Luck.

[Vorax]

Thanks for your response Sharpfish - I was starting to feel a bit picked on. :)

Lots of good points in there. I'm going to print it out and do what I can.

[Sharpfish]

No worries :)

us 3D guys have got to stick together ;)

[turbo]

<passionately agrees with Vorax, Ricardo C and Sharpfish>:D ;) :cool: