Game developers...

[Glitteroutlaw]

 question for you that are somewhat expirenced... would somoen with huge math troubles be able to make it as a game developer? its whats kept me from trying to go to any school

Wrestling and video games are my passion and sicne im not a body builder this seems to be my only hope... i know maybe this is the place for this but though id ask.

[nodtveidt]

If you can do basic math, then you can make some kinds of old school games. Don't try to get into 3D game making though... you need a good firm grasp of trigonometry for that. If you plan on making a living out of game development, you're probably not going to get very far unless you're simply doing non-programmer game design... and in that case, you need to be the best of the best.

[Glitteroutlaw]

 yikes.... doing some retro games would be coool tho... i dont think id waste a college on that but... ugh... i dunno...

[grahf]

Maybe try your hand at Android development? The SDK is fairly easy to set up, and there are tutorials aplenty. If

[nodtveidt]

Yeah, Android is pretty easy if you're not already used to procedural coding.

[Glitteroutlaw]

i havent tried programming sicne Hypercard so if yourt old and had a mac you know how long its been haha....

i always wnated to get in the field cuz i love video games and didnt knwo what else to do with a career so ya... lol.

[Arkhan]

You don't need math.  It helps, but you really don't need it.  I know plenty of great coders that couldn't solve for X to save their lives on simple algebra 2 concepts.

There are plenty of things you can do that aren't mathematical as far as programming goes.    Menus and other interfaces require simple math (counting, etc.).   Dialogue, character systems, things like that... they require more elementary school math. 

As far as 3D gaming goes, you really only need math for physics relating stuff, including movement... but usually engines these days take care of that for you.  A buddy of mine did an entire game with the Quake 2 engine, and he's not exactly a math genius.  You'd be surprised how much the engine does for you.  Plus you can trial and error stuff if you aren't sure.  If you shoot a gun for example, and the bullet shoots straight up in the air, or goes backwards....... adjust values until it works.   It may take you longer, but it isn't a permanent roadblock.

As far as old consoles, etc. go... You need basic math yet again, and simple geometry concepts.

If you aren't pro at geometry, I wouldn't sweat it.  You really could go get like a "how to learn geometry in 20 minutes on the toilet" book, and get the basics enough to where you can put it into effect.

The BIG kicker is to get a firm understanding of hexadecimal and binary.  Knowing how to perform bit manipulation is very important stuff.  Even that stuff is easy to pickup on.  Most "how to program books" for nearly any old processor go over this stuff.   The Z80 one by Rodney Zaks did a nice job from what I remember.

[termis]

Wow, hypercard, eh? I haven't heard of that in years...

My 2 cents:

As a former software developer -- of simple internet apps, not games (this is a key distinguishment) -- I couldn't recall many instances where advanced math was needed.  I only did it for a year, but only in one instance where I used anything beyond basic math. 

BUT, there are some other factors.  I worked in a small company with about 8 developers, and some of the best ones out of the lot were math majors in school.  It's not that you need math to make good programs, but I found those folks who were good in math also had the skills to be good in programming with using overall logic in step-by-step instructions. 

[Arkhan]

Understand math is a good idea for programming considering the entire computer operates using math...

At the lowest level, is a bunch of circuit logic.  Its all Ands/ors/XORs, etc.   Its like discrete math, applied.

So if you are good at math/logic/problem solving, most computer programming things are simple.

[spenoza]

Here's the thing... for business software and high-level development you don't need to know much math. Some logic and awareness of basic algorithms is really helpful, but you can make software that works. In those cases you tend to be programming things that aren't particularly tasking to the computer and aren't overly complex. They just shuffle things around a bit and help people manage data.

When you're programming games, especially on low-end hardware which use low-level languages which are closer to the hardware and have fewer accommodations for "modern" programming languages and conventions, math becomes more important. Again, a great deal of it's advanced logic and algorithms, but you also need to do some actual math if you want any kind of performance, and computer math at that. It's hard to be a good retro console developer, because the skills are so different from stuff like, well, Hypercard and Java and JavaScript and PHP and whatnot.

If your game idea is simple enough (think retro arcade style games) you can get by, even on the PCE, without much hard math, as long as you're meticulous and careful. Look at what Arkhan's doing. None of it tasks the system overly much in special effects and crazy coding, but through careful construction and attention to detail it looks and sounds good and plays well to boot. And I doubt he's getting overly down and dirty with assembly, but I think he's picking game designs carefully so that he doesn't have to. (Arkhan, correct me if I'm wrong or accidentally insulting your efforts.) But you'll not be able to create the next Gate of Thunder or Street Fighter 2 using the community tools (most likely) and without really good math and low-level programming skills. Maybe an RPG, though. That's mostly about memory management, frankly. It's just that it takes so much writing and art development. So an RPG could be doable without too much math, at least not advanced math.

[TheOldMan]

When you're programming games....math becomes more important.

Not really. Being able to logically develope ideas is much more important. You can usually look up the math
formulae if you really need to.

If your game idea is simple enough (think retro arcade style games) you can get by, even on the PCE, without much hard math...Look at what Arkhan's doing. None of it tasks the system overly much in special effects and crazy coding, but through careful construction and attention to detail it looks and sounds good and plays well to boot/

Well, thats pretty much true of any game, really. Attention to detail is mucho important in any kind of programming.

And I doubt he's getting overly down and dirty with assembly.

Consider yourself corrected. Some things just have to be done in assembly to get the required speed. BUT, if you have it working (albeit slowly) in some higher level language, it's pretty easy to convert to assembly. Really.

But you'll not be able to create the next Gate of Thunder or Street Fighter 2 using the community tools (most likely) and without really good math and low-level programming skills. Maybe an RPG, though. That's mostly about memory management, frankly. It's just that it takes so much writing and art development. So an RPG could be doable without too much math, at least not advanced math.

Actually, you probably could, if you were willing to go all assembler with magic-kit (not Huc, though). As for RPG's, they are much more complicated than you think; it's not all memory management or writing or artwork. A lot of it is being able to foresee / plan for all the possible interactions that can occur. Like I said before, math isn't that important: the ability to plan and think logically is.

I've actually had this discussion with half a dozen people, including arkhan. The point of taking all those math classes isn't so you know the math - several of my professors admitted when they needed to know something specific, they -looked it up-. The point is that solving a math problem requires you to learn how to think logically to solve the given problem. And that translates directly to programming ability. It's a shame (to me, anyway) that they don't teach basic logic outside of math classes anymore. A lot of 'educated' people I know make very simple logical mistakes without even realizing it, and then are surprised when it is pointed out to them that their conclusions are invalid, simply because they applied a logical rule incorrectly.

[Arkhan]

What alot of people dont notice is that 80% of the games overall presentation is graphics.  when you get right down to it, Lords of Thunder and say, Gradius 1, are about the same thing.   horizontal shooters with weapons/bullets/stuff going on.

The thing that sets LOT apart is the amazing graphics.  No amount of programming skill can make the graphics better if they werent great to begin with.

Im not picking games that wont require assembly, Im just picking games from an era that was before the PCE, and as a result, not ON the pce.

There aren't many pre-crash style games for the console.

[spenoza]

When you're programming games....math becomes more important.

Not really. Being able to logically develope ideas is much more important. You can usually look up the math
formulae if you really need to.

I'm not going to address everything because I think it really comes down to this point. You DO need math in that you need to understand math. You need more than logic in that you need to know what formulas or equations to seek out. People who say they don't know math well usually aren't just poor problem solvers but also don't understand well mathematical concepts and relationships. There's more to math than just logic. Sure, many great mathematicians use computers and calculators to do much of the actual calculating, but they have to understand the concepts and WHY what calculations are done WHERE. In my mind that's math. Math isn't just working problems, but understanding relationships in space. With games, much more so than, say, business software, you have to track objects and the relationships between objects. In those cases, math, in the broad sense, is necessary.

Perhaps that will clarify my point.

Also, Arkhan, I didn't mean to suggest that you were picking "easy" games or not doing any assembly, but that you probably weren't doing the whole thing in assembly and likely weren't using as much assembly as some other games might require. In a relative sense, your output is potentially lower on the assembly-per-capita scale as a side effect of your game choices.

And yes, I neglected to note that RPGs also have lots of management of variables and game conditions. But writing is also essential, because if your writing sucks your RPG sucks. Good writing can still result in a shitty RPG, but without good writing it's guaranteed to suck.

As for graphics, well, a lot of the fancy graphical tricks require, well, trickery to make work, which makes for more complex code and need for more assembly to make sure everything's clipping along at a healthy pace.

Yeah, yeah, I'm generalizing.

[Arkhan]

In the grand scheme of things, a lot of the fancy dancy visual effects aren't much in the programming department, and if the base artwork looks crappy, it will still look crappy.   It mostly involves planning what you are doing.

Then there are games that don't use alot of fancy dancy nonsense and look great, like Bonk's Adventure.  The most complex thing you'll see is some parallax in the background as you walk.  Nothing crazy.

A majority of Insanity was rewritten in assembly.  Don't let the simplistic game designs fool you.  They're still a pain in the ass to write and require the same kind of fiddling that any big commercial game would've.  Any action-y game requires assembly.  C, especially of the HuC variety, isn't going to cut it.  Slower games will be ok. 

When you really get down to it, for such a simple game, there is alot of crap going on.  11 sprites (10 robots and you), 11 shots (10 robot shots and you), and possibly Otto.

and ALL of these sprites have to actively see if they are colliding with another sprite, or a wall (tile).

In the case of alot of kickass shooters, the collisions-per-frame check aren't even as high as Insanity, despite being better looking, faster paced, and better overall.

11*11   = 121 sprite vs sprite collisions  (You or robots colliding with one another)
1*10    = your shot vs. 10 other shot collisions
1*10    = your shot vs 10 robots
10*1    = 10 robot shot vs. your hero collisions
10*9    = 10 robot shots vs 9 other robots (cant shoot themselves)
1*11    = Otto colliding with any other sprite
1*11    = Otto absorbing shots
1*22    = wall checks for all 22 sprites

Thats like 285 maximum collision checks per vsync and the game doesn't slow down.  I might have missed one.

I can't think of many games that could be doing 285 collision checks max.   Thats what happens when most games don't have enemies colliding into each other and shooting each other, on top of shooting at you.

I imagine if Blazing Lazers allowed for enemies to hit each other too, the game wouldn't be so blazing anymore, lol


Another case in point:  The MSX scene.  Every homebrew game is written in assembly.   Save a few that were done in BASIC, that were obviously done in BASIC.

[spenoza]

Alright, then. Now that I've completely unintentionally insulted Arkhan's development efforts... I still stand by my statement that an understanding of math is essential for programming games. Not so much actual doing math problems, but a solid understanding of how mathy stuff works.