VVVVVV’s source code is now public, 10 year anniversary jam happening now

Post by sirsar » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 11:44 PM UTC

takeda wrote: post #181

Avery3R wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch out, this gives a NSFW redirect

Is owner of the server playing some tricks, when I tried that URL on Firefox Focus on my phone, it is just the text and I believe what parent wanted to submit, but indeed it looks fishy, I got 403 when tried to see what the redirect was using curl. What did showed for you?

Post by esnard » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC

pdpi wrote: post #72

Oh gods. VVVVVV's core mechanic is that you don't so much "jump" as you just flip gravity, and you only get to do so when your feet are firmly on the floor. This leads to some very interesting designs. The stage "Veni Vidi Vici (Doing Things The Hard Way)" is possibly the evilest level I've ever completed in a video game. Just a tiny little block, trivial to jump over, but the lack of a jump button means you have to.…

Post by chrisseaton » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 11:57 PM UTC

Seenso wrote: post #170

chrisseaton wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The source code is a bit of a tangle here. There are magic numbers ( https://wiki.c2.com/?MagicNumber ) all over the place, plenty of god classes ( https://wiki.c2.com/?GodClass ), and in general you will have to do a bit too much archaeology to figure out what a particular class or member function is supposed to do (the function and class names don’t give you enough, and there are no comments to help out). There a…

> Maybe these supposed anti-patterns don't really matter as much as we think they do for successful software? Given that plenty of successful software has them. There's more than one variable involved. You can write successful software full of anti-patterns, but you'll probably pay for it in some other way (like increased QA effort or a low bus-factor [1]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor

Post by chrisseaton » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:06 AM UTC

klodolph wrote: post #125

ehsankia wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not really out of the ordinary for successful, released, real games Well said. A lot of people will nitpick and talk big about how they would use proper abstraction and write very clean code, but probably none of those people have ever had a successful indie game out.

To be fair, one of the most vocal advocates of higher code quality is Carmack, who has put out a few games. What I’ve seen is that it’s hard for someone who’s not released a game before and supported it post-release to know where and how you can sacrifice code quality for a faster development time.

Post by vvanders » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:41 AM UTC

phoenix616 wrote: post #172

chrisseaton wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The source code is a bit of a tangle here. There are magic numbers ( https://wiki.c2.com/?MagicNumber ) all over the place, plenty of god classes ( https://wiki.c2.com/?GodClass ), and in general you will have to do a bit too much archaeology to figure out what a particular class or member function is supposed to do (the function and class names don’t give you enough, and there are no comments to help out). There a…

Game development mostly relies on getting creative stuff implemented fast, not good. And if it works then it works, why spend any more time on it if you can implement even more cool ideas (or release it). And Minecraft is one of the best examples for a game that is still paying for such a development style.