| I say, kill off the players, only characters are needed. Jonathan Shaver |
| See below. We could do everything using messages pulling all game action to the lowest level which would be our own Smalltalk style messaging system. |  |
| What do you think about a context object of some sort? That way every object has a context and since every object parses, we can pass in context to the parser as an argument for parsing. Then the proper message can be sent to the proper object upon parsing. |
| Messaging is how Windows works, dude. Send message object with specific parameters which can be interpreted based on the type of message it is. Sounds like a good idea, but then you need to implement a message pump or something where objects poll for messages or where the message generates action on inception. What I'm talking about is deciding whether our system will be push or pull. Pushmeaning message is sent and action happens.Pullmeaning action is sent and then it happens when the recieving object pulls it and processes it. Macintosh is push Windows is pull, and what will KAYRADAdventureGame be? AGAction sounds like a good message object or maybe AGMessage? Hmmm. |
| I don't like bidirectional. It eliminates the possibility for having one way traversal, like sliding down a chute that you can't climb back up | Chutes and Ladders |
| Bidirectional attachment is just a macro to make things easier on for the game developer. 90% of all room transitions will probably be bidirectional. | Graham |
| What does this mean? | |
| Uh, could we have those, uh... double guitars? |
| But seriously, we should decide once and for all if we're going to make this thing multiplayer or not. If we are then a completely different messaging system (in my mind a push messaging system) is needed and we need to work around that from the ground up. If not, then a messaging system isn't as important since everything is turn based and we can stick with what we have which is a really crappy pull based messaging system (you know, accept, sent, etc.) which we can improve to make everything more sensible. | |
| I think that messaging should go and actions and interaction should come in. Objects can send requests to other objects and the character who you are can do the same thing. I think it would be very interesting to have a messaging system that can carry more than just indirection, but independent direction. What direction is up? |
| We need messaging. Things the player(s) are notified of are radically different than complex object interactions Graham |
| I have a radical redesign proposition. What about three and only two types of game things. One: There are objects. All other types of objects (world, player, character, daemon, etc.) are instances of an object. To make things simpler for the writer of the game we can provide prototypes such as world, character, player, etc. These prototypes can have properties preset, but the objects created can still be fully manipulated and changed. I think that we should also give the game writer the ability to create prototypes so that if we miss something, then the game writer can create a NEW PROTOTYPE. For instance, if Guz didn't say anything about daemons, the game writer can write daemon using the object prototypes. Two: There are requests. All objects send requests. Requests can have states like player and you can produce different types of requests, request prototypes. I propose two initial types of requests, mandatory and voluntary requests. Two objects in a barrel |