No offense to the author, I'm sure this is a very well made game, but not making it for 83 just sucks. Isn't that the whole purpose of Ion... a shell where you can make versions of the game for both 83 and 83+? Come on... how hard is it to put the maybe 3 lines of code that make it compile for both calculators?

- Jeff

i aggree, however i know as being a programmer myself that often i just want to get it working before i do all the extra stuff. jake probably only has an 83+ and even if he does have an 83 it's better to release the rpg into the calculator community before trying to perfect it.

Hey Jeff, give him a break. It's not for the 83 yet. It'll come out, just wait. Oh yeah, I'm glad you didn;t post "1st comment" or anything of that sort. That gets annoying.

Hey, you guys got Punchout! first, just wait!

Okay, everybody shut up! Us TI-83 users will get this game sooner or later. Also, you got Punchout about 4 days later. Everyone, just chill!

I knew this one would come up. (Didn't everybody?)

One of these days the author will come to his/her senses and port the game, or a friend of the author with access to the source code will.

Be patient and mature.

--BlueCalx

you dont hafta port ARPGCS (Action RPG Construction Set) games, it makes 83p and 8Xp files automatically. the author probably just forgot to put it in the zip. I don't know why I posted this, cuz probablt no one cares.

I noticed that someone asked about source code. I bet there isn't any. This game looks like it was made with ARPG. its in /pub/83/asm/games/ion

Oh What a surprise another game made with ARPG. I'm starting to get really sick of those, and why did this one receive the honor of being posted as a news item???
Sure the author did spend some time on the graphics and the storyline but it's not like he really wrote a whole new game. That's what pisses me off about all those ARPG games, they take away from the glory of the REAL asm programmers (which i certainly am not, i only know BASIC tried asm once but gave up after 1 week). I'm gonna shut up now and check if there's something new on Litestep.net.

yeah, I think that the idea for ARPG was good, but all the games that I have seen that were made by it, weren't all that good. Most people are probably like me, I have only about 14000 free in arc and 12000 in RAM, and I only delete the stuff I have if a game is really good

This one got an article because it's a rediculous 18k - THAT draws attention

Yeah, I agree that people make too many RPG games with my friends ARPG prog (it's just degrades the asm programming), and most people even leave the original gfx, and all these games suck too. If you want a nice game try the Lode Runner 83 (not Lode Runner 83 +, that's just beta version that was ported and not the final one) it's a cool looking/playing game we've made few moths ago, but the 83 version didn't draw that much attention cause of hundreds of other 83 games. It also has a level editor. (this one however is in ASM games section not ion, cause it has a zasmload port)
So try this one, and if you want i can give you the hot and last version that's not in TICALC's archive.

zkostik

I agree, ARPGCS games tend to suck (no offense to anyone who uploaded theirs). I made one, and was incredibly dumb. They are fun to make and share with your friends, but they're definetly not newsworthy.

Hello all, this is Jake Olson. I know all you just wanna put down on my game, but the reason why I used ARPG is because im not very good at programming (yet), and I have great ideas about games. I stand up for all those who ARE NOT good at programming, but just wanna make a game because they have awesome ideas. Now COME ON PEOPLE, its a game, its not like im going to win a million if my game hits the top. I greatly appreciate all the kind compliments, but to all the mean ones, please, just learn a few things before you complain next time. It certainly doesnt make me very happy to hear people making fun of me.

Jake, I don't think that these people are making fun of you. I think they are angry because a news article was published for a game made using RPG construction set, not in C or native assembly code. This is kind of a "TI-Basic programs are not newsworthy" thing. Personaly, I have no experience with the RPG construction kit, but I think it's great that it can help people to make games, who may not know assembly code, but nevertheless have ideas and want to carry them out. I agree with them, with respect to the time and skill it takes to create a game in assembly, versus a game constructed by a kit. I cannot speak for other programmers, but I really don't play games on the calculator (you kind of grow out of it when you go to college) so I respect the skill it took to make a game more than the game itself. And to those who say bad things about this program, let Jake have his week or so of fame. I would hope that everyone show the same respect to me, when I have a news item on the front page.

-harper

Thank you Harper! I understand where everyone is coming from and all, but please understand one more thing that I noticed. There are no other RPG games for the 83 or 83 plus, so in making this gam I also thought I was helping out others. I aslo am going to present the 83 version to ticalc AFTER I get all the bugs out of the game. I want to say one last thing. I do not mind to be told what I could do to improve, but please, do not rip on me. I completely understand how it may upset a real programmer, I KNOW it is VERY hard at times to program. I respect all programmers to the highest degree, wether their game be made by ARPG or completely out of thin air. Once again, I thank you Harper, for realizing where I am coming from.

Jake

Exactly. I agree 100% ; this is precisely what I had in mind when I wrote it.

>I would hope that everyone show the same respect to me, when I have a news item on the front page.


Lol, you do have one on the front page.
"Harper Maddox Releases Punchout! Demo"

BINGO! Kot IS a cool game, but it is definitly not newsworthy. I would be hapy if, however you called it a beta until you learned asm.

We know you don't like to be made fun of, but it makes us pimply faced TI geeks feel big.

Seriously though, I wasn't trying to bash you or your game, I was merely saying that ARPGCS games aren't very good. And they aren't. Let's face it, they can't do If/Then statements or anything like that, the monsters can get killed by only one weapon thing is a pain, and they take up a ton of space. It's not the game-makers' fault, and KOT is one of the better example's of good ARPGCS games, but is it really newsworthy, when so many other games go unmentioned?

"ARPGCS games suck" is as much a generalisation as "BASIC games suck". The problem with them is that they are all very similar as they use the same engine, but there is no real reason why it can't be a long, complex and involving game.

If you look at many ARPGs they are in fact games continually doing more or less the same thing ; it is just hidden by some clever game design and story telling (e.g. Secret of Mana).

However, most people who program an ARPGCS game start off by hacking the demos ; this is actually advised in the ARPGCS manual, but they then often will just build on that. To get a decent game out of ARPGCS you have to start with a game outline and plan it ; the skills are probably about equivalent to simple BASIC programming in that you still have to able to track the flow of the game in your head.

If (as most have done) you just hack it out as you go it will look and feel pretty slung together, because it is. But this applies to any other game as well, especially RPG types.

As regards assembly language ; anyone who is writing an RPG in raw assembler is rapidly going to come to a screeching halt. You really do need an engine of some sort to write a decent RPG, even if it has hooks for Z80 programming. Programming the whole thing in Z80 code is an unnecessary waste of effort.

There were about 5 or 6 different designs I came up with for the ARPGCS, ranging from almost just a painting design to a fully scripted multi-process OO language where everything in the game was an Object.

But in the end I decided to plump for making the game creation system open to anyone who wanted to play, which slams limitations immediately.

Personally, I think that there should be a "levels" type subdirectory for ARPGCS, rather as there is for SQRXZ and Penguins ; there are not at least 10 ARPGCS on ticalc.org

are you putting down Secret of Mana (Seiken Densetsu II)?

Yes and No. I think it's a great game, but it is actually quite a simple engine and game which is used cleverly.

>"As regards assembly language ; anyone who is writing an RPG in raw assembler is rapidly going to come to a screeching halt. You really do need an engine of some sort to write a decent RPG"

Why would it come to a screeching halt? Programming *raw* assembly for RPG's is no different than assembly for other types of games/programs.
You do need an *engine* (I have always hated that word when used in this context) but what most people do is just sit down and write one. It isn't hard at all, you cough out a few routines to get the map data and draw the sprites accordingly, a getkey routine, and a crash detection, and boom you have a *engine* for an RPG. All you need to add are some extra goodies that make RPG's fun.

Programming raw assembly for RPGs is different. The reason is, with an RPG you have two coding levels ; firstly there is the engine of the RPG itself, and secondly there is the actual story of the RPG which progresses in a not dissimilar way to a program, though it is usually much more linear.

The story for a RPG is done in a linear fashion. But how is your progress in the RPG stored? Through a state machine, albeit a complex one. In that sense an RPG is no different then your progress through, say Mike Tyson's Punchout. After you defeat an opponent in punchout, your score goes up... this is similar to your experience and level ( think extra life ) in an RPG. As you advance in the game you have access to new places by setting map variables, such as you advance in punchout you get to fight new enemies. The point that I am trying to make is that most (if not all) games are programmed in your "two coding levels".

Of course, but the state engine for "PunchOut" is much simpler than the state engine for an RPG. For a game with a FSM there is normally the hardware layer, then the fsm layer on top of that running the game.

An RPG could well have 3 layers ; the hardware, the fsm/engine layer driving the interaction between the tile map, the sprites and so on, and the actual game layer on top of that.

It would not be sensible for a game like "Punch Out" to build a scripting engine to run that game, whereas it is a far more sensible approach for an RPG.

Using a interpretive engine allows more code in the same space (compared to Z80 code) with a lower possibility of errors ; it also allows an OOPS approach to RPG element design, OOPS doesn't fit Z80 assembler coding awfully well :( You can always have the option to "add in" sections of Z80 code if it is really needed.

One of the ARPGCS designs did have a subclassing design which would have been extremely efficient in terms of code, but I decided it was too complicated for people to use ; I wanted the pick up and play design I settled on.

It also allows reusability ; the same engine and script could be used to generate different games, and you would not be quite so limited to a single game style, or at least not quite so blatantly as with the ARPGCS.

One of my favourite games I ever wrote was a shoot-em-up in which all the game objects were processes ; they could spawn other processes. (I actually wrote it originally to teach the basics of multiprocessing systems.) It sounds wierd but you could put together waves of attackers quite quickly, and it was efficient in terms of code space.

Not all RPGs are linear ; most only are in a very general sense, as small subquests are more common than not ; only the main plot is linear. However some RPGs (e.g. the Ultima series, especially 6 onwards) are very definitely non-linear ; they are an FSM (or a set of FSMs to be precise !) in their own right, seperate from the engine.

I like where you are going with this. A more OO type environment would certainly reduce errors, and perhaps the most reusable game format is the Role Playing Game. I think OO fits Z80 just as well as it does any other processor. An OO compiler and programming environment would just be really hard to write. I would probably try to write something like this if I knew a little more about how to use graphics in C.

I figure eventually i'll write a compiler for either TI-Basic to z80 or C to z80. The basic compiler would be interesting, since doing optimizations on the real number stuff would be difficult. It would be tough to choose when to store them into temporary memory, or when to expand them as OPs when doing mathematics. Ideally this program would work like such "enhance myprog.83p", which would compile the basic code into z80, add the necessary headers (ie. ION), then compile the z80 source into an 83p.

Also, I liked what you said about all of the game objects in your shoot-em-up game being processes. In pretty much anything I write nowadays, the objects are queue (FIFO) based.

I have had a little go at this. The "Berzerk" clone I wrote does have a *very* basic OOP pre-processor ; the various things on the screen are objects, and they are subclassed appropriately.

It is really duff and badly implemented :) and the object structure isn't well thought out either, but even so it made coding somewhat easier.

Basically you could define an object that was a subclass of one parent class with fixed methods (you even had to hack subclassing different methods). It worked on a message sending basis like Windows.
Code had things like

Enemy::GetDirection

for labels which were scanned by the preprocessor and converted into CL_Enemy_MT_GetDirection, these were then used to build method tables.

I did consider extending it so that there were multiple VMTs (one per subclass), still with fixed classes, and making it more typically procedural, which wouldn't have been a great deal of work, but never got around to it :(

The great thing about RPG persistent objects is that you can (if your objects are neatly designed) create all sorts of nifty variants without very much work.

I don't think such a compiler would be a lot of use. Most of the time in TI-Basic (Games anyway !) when you write C+1->C its an integer, but you'll have to do every calc as a real, which will be slooooww..

Better might be to do a subset/enhanced TI Basic ; keep the same "Basic" design but have integer only variables (maybe longints too ?), lose a lot of the maths stuff and replace it by some graphics and sprite drawing routines ?

Right. You can't just "slap together" an engine and then add some clever game elements and VIOLA, have yourself an epic RPG. As far as programming goes, the more complex the RPG, the more complex of an engine you need to develop, and it has to be able to account for a wide variety of "situations". The other side of the programming, which isn't anything like programming the engine, is the game data. You have to have programs that keep track of where you are in the game, and what exactly you have done. You may have gone quite deep into the game, but still not talked to several people. The other programs would have to account for this and make sure that what they say when you talk to them remains "up to speed" with where you are in the game.

In short, programming an RPG is a lot more than just "an engine and some game elements". It's a long drawn out process, which in the end can be very rewarding, if done right.

-Professional Essayist Fil and his $0.02

Phillip,
I think you are an ignorant fool! Cigamit knows what he is talking about! And as far as keeping track of where you are in the game it is mearely done with a simple counter. It really isnt that hard to keep track of what level you are on.

I think that ARPG should generate .z80 as well as a .8xp and a .83p so you can use it for the main game, then make little changes here and there.
(Mabye in the next version?)

... and another thing... the extra goodies, as you call them, are a whole project in their own right.

The most basic type of "RPG" is something like the Rogue game ; random dungeons, develop your character as much as possible. This rapidly becomes pretty tedious, however well coded, so it needs to have a story built around it to keep the player on track. You visit a town, go out and battle in a dungeon and/or solve a few puzzles (depends on whether its an FF style game or a Zelda style game), come back, get your reward then go off again. The trick in RPG programming is to write a sufficiently good story to hide the fact that you are basically doing the same thing most of the time with different graphics. (which is what SoM does so well).

In some ways, the "engine" part of the RPG is the easy bit ; you have some graphic wanderings, and a battle scene (in many RPGs the battles are almost incidental to the game, and could be removed without changing it that much !). All that is pretty simple.

Writing the storyline, designing the various areas (and, in the case of TI83 et al making it fit in 28k RAM) can take as long again. If you have a nice flexible engine it will be much easier, and much less error free.

It's not the engine that determines the quality of the game, it's the skill of the author. ARPGCS is a good engine and people who know how to make good games will make good games with it! If you do not believe me that a good game can be created with it, check out the new game that will be posted on ticalc.org very shortly - the name is IRONHEART. You'll see what I'm talking about. And one more thing. I don't know why you guys put down ARPGCS so much. Games can be made much faster without the author having to spend months programming the engine! The author can concentrate on the game design itself! If you think the games that came out iwht ARPGCS are bad, it's the skill of the author that determines it.

And I gotta love how you people put down the person who appeared on the news rather than congratulating him.

ahhh, I thought I would take a look at Litestep, seemed pretty cool and actually messed around with it for about an hour. Then it ****** my computer, bad enough that Mcafee couldn't restore it properly, and I'm having to reinstall windows. :[
Just would like to say that we all have to start somewhere if you plan on ever getting there. Should try to be more supportive of peoples efforts, regardless.

Later

Rogue

make sure it's not something simple.

if it's popping up a white error that suggests you reinstall windows, ignore it ...

restart, boot up, push F8 a lot or whatever it is on your system, and boot into command prompt only.
then make sure that it's looking for the correct file as the shell... just a suggestion. A lot of times you can fix litestep problems by editing the .ini or .rc files

ARPGCS isn't designed to "take away the glory from ASM programmers" as you put it.

It is classified under "Assembly Programs 83/83+ (Ion)" because that's what the resulting files are. It really should be classified as a "level set", because the developers input is raw data.

However, developing for ARPGCS is no more "assembly programming" than writing in Basic is (because you need an ASM program, the BASIC int, to run your program).

What the hell is wrong with you?

You're a complete failure at ASM, and yet you still have the gall to critisize an up-and-comming ASM programmer who uploads his work for the sole purpose of giving ungrateful fools like you something else to do in math.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."?

KnightRT

I agree with you totally. I mean, what has "he" ever contributed to the calculator community? Any person who attempts to learn a computer(calculator) language and deems themself a failure after just 1 week does not have the will to do anything. After all, after 1 week, the best I could do was display text. But now I'm an advanced Z80 Asm programmer. It just takes time...

You people need to chill, all I'm tryin to say that (in my opinion) ARPG is a program that lets you do your own games (which is a great idea) and show to your friends (like a little RPG whose main purpose it is to kill some teacher or whatever) or to uplaod as levels for the ARPG "series", but it just isn't enough for a news item. Matt Roberts GlassCars on the other hand would have "deserved" that news item, seing how "groundbreaking" his engine is for an puny little 83/83+. And the reason i quit ASM was that i just wasn't interested enough, i'd rather do graphics for Litestep and fiddle around with it's step.rc .I didn't mean to insult the author of the program in any way, I'm just sayin that you're taking this WAY too seriously.

Go back and read your original post. You basically insulted every ARPG programmer in the book, and you expect the rest of us to let that slide?

Ya know what, I think we have differing opinions on newsworthiness. Any author willing to spend his time to make a significant contribution to the TI archive has every right to a moment in the limelight, regardless of whether or not the work is based on a kit.

This is ARPG's intended purpose; to promote the creation of new RPGs by providing the core code on which to build.

Have you played Soldier of Fortune? That game is based on the Quake II engine. Does the fact that the programmers licensed an engine automatically mean that the game is destined to suck, or to resemble Q2? NO.

The idea's in it's infancy on calcs. It began with the concept of libraries and has since advanced to code engines. Give it a chance to succeed and it will.

Now, I'm not even going to respond to your allegations that the TI-83 is puny, or how you could even call a calculator puny to begin with. It really isn't anything more than flamebait.

KnightRT

the puny thing was sarcastic ( i own a 83+ and am proud of it), however when compared to high end pcs the calc is "puny" ( i did the comparison because Matt Roberts managed to get a 3d engine working on a calc), so before i make even less sense i'll just shut up.

Personally, I think this is sickening. A bunch of grown up people sitting around BITCHING about a damn game that I made. All you people sicken me with the exception of a few, such as Harper Maddox, KnightRT, and other people who have been there and told the truth. IF TICALC DIDNT THINK IT WAS RIGHT FOR SOMEONE TO USE ARPG, THEN THEY WOULDNT HAVE POSTED IT. PERIOD. If all you immature people dont like it, make your own webpage with your own games and your own editing staff, as for TICALC, dont complain to them, they posted my file because they felt it was worthy enough to be up there. Thats All I have to say, and I would GREATLY appreciate all the immaturity to go away. Thank you.

No. It is a development tool. You can write very simple games very easily, and you can design quite complicated ones as well.

It is true to say that it is easier to write a simple game in ARPGCS than it is in BASIC, but to write a big game takes time, effort, skill and a lot of thought.

I don't see what is so spectacular about that engine for the 83/83+. Look at what Daedulus and Maze 3D did in 15k for the 85/86.

Also, if you think this can't be done on the 82/83. It has. Check out Defiance for the 82. It uses non orthagonal walls and B/W graphics.

Personally, I think glass cars should try to use some kind of a rudimentary texture mapping to black out everything that is not the track.

Possibly because its a generalised 3D engine, not a Doom type.

Doesn't Zkart3d do that?

Z-Kart 3D sort of does that, but it's engine is much less complex than that in Glasscars, to say the least. In Z-Kart 3D, the track is always straight ahead (it will only narrow or weave a little, but doesn't turn), so it's possible to simply draw a black line from each side of the screen to the edge. Z-Kart 3D doesn't even use a fully correct 3D projection.

Since you can see edges of the track in Glasscars, this very simple method wouldn't work. Of course, I'm sure it still could be done...

While Daedalus was first and I really respect Sam Davies and Andrea Ess, Clem beat the pants off it with Maze 3D. His engine was at least 3 times smaller (around 5k vs. 15k?) and probably a good 2-4 times faster. While he never added enemies or other objects to it, I would say that Maze 3D is the closest Wolf 3D style game that there has been for a Z80 calc.

I agree, if you don't like ARPG games,

then DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM

DUH!!!!!!!!

Yeah, but that isn't what bother's me. The praise for 'smooth graphics' is what does. Why does HE get credit for Paul Robson's work? I suppose I am being hypocritical, because I made an ARPG, but I still think that ARPGs should get a folder of their own, just like levels do ('cause ARPGs take as much work as levels)