You can do quite a bit with Unreal. They have a visual scripting language called 'Blueprints' built in, which doesn't sacrifice power for ease of use; so even though he wouldn't be writing an actual language, he'd still be learning key programming concepts. If he ever got far with it, it maintains features of C++ all in Blueprint, so you can inherit/extend classes without ever really touching code. It can get tricky with things like character AI, but they have some basic functions built in to make it easier. Definitely enough for candycorn cowboys and fire bats. There's lots of documentation for it, and a lot of video tutorials that he could use to help him along. Unity is also a good option, but dealing with raw C# and their semi-convoluted component system can be a tricky thing to wrap your head around. That might be jumping a little into the deep end. There's also 0 help with AI systems (path finding, finite state machines, etc) last i knew, unless you start buying add-ons for it. Also, fwiw, there's nothing wrong with writing ye olde text adventure in Basic :) ... Or C# if you care to be current about it.

I'm intrigued by the concept of being able to make trade-offs for better statistics, but it does mean there's probably a point where all of your statistics can only get so high in relation to each other. I've made projects that revolve around the 'high score' mechanic, and it bugs me when ultimately you can only physically get a certain high score as a limitation of the gameplay itself. You can translate your individual metrics into a universally identifiable one; Say all of your combined metrics boil down to an overall score for the session, and still keep track of the individual metrics for the fun of it. This kind of serves both parties; those that just want to get a high score overall (best aggregated points for the match), and those than want a high score in X way (least turns, most 'kills', best time, etc). You can keep scoreboards on the individual metrics too to incentivise players to focus on improving them.

I have to say I agree with all of this. I think pretty much everything described here had occurred at some point. I never understood what the point was behind limiting ourselves to only 'section A' or 'section B'. I think the reason was some acute egotism or maybe self consciousness. They wanted a guarenteed way to say 'I was wholey responsible for X!' and given the nature of the project, the timeframe, and our work ethic, it was entirely counter productive. The way I see it, the existance of the completed product is proof enough of all of our hard work, no matter how big or small. I think the next time around, I'll make this point clear from the start; There was no sense in limiting ourselves and each other given our size and situation. It only led to problems... Everyone's name is still written in the same size font in the end.

I understand that I suppose. But I certainly don't agree... I won't deny that I used to think the same way. Guess I've just moved on from worrying about trivial issues like that... Its less like re-arranging furnature, and instead like purchasing furnature that you told me you were planning to get. Maybe its not the color you specifically had in mind, but I made sure not to get a vibrant hot pink at least :), and you can always throw it out when you find something better. I didn't do what I did because I disliked it, I did it because I needed it done. It wasn't a matter of ego or personal taste, it was a matter of necessity. Seems a bit silly to have to approach it with an 'on eggshells' mindset... But I guess that's what I'll have to do. Suppose it's easier to change myself than it is to change the world.

Quote:

Did this project ever have a written spec ? A time-table ? Milestones ?

Sort of. We spent the first couple days jotting down what the end product should be able to do, but we were always open to expanding and including new ideas. As far as a time-table, not beyond our agreed timeframe of a month's time. I mentally had an idea of what to prioritize based on time, but nothing was written in stone.

Quote:

Did the project have any formal leadership structure, and role assignments ?

No real 'leadership' position was chosen, and roles were basically just personal interests. It was a hobby project, so we had an easy going mentality to social structure... I had the mentality of "Whatever needs done, I'll do", so I didn't opt to focus on any part in particular, but I always made sure to let someone know what I was doing at the time I was doing it.

Quote:

Were meetings held where progress ... or lack of progress ... was discussed ?

Not anything formal. I made it a point to discuss the progress of the project with everyone every once in a while, but it wasn't anything set in stone. We know each other personally, but during the project we were all working in our free time. Some of us in college, some of us working jobs.

Quote:

Is it possible the project, from the beginning, was understood in very different ways by various team-members ?

I suppose that's a possibility, but it was made clear from all of us that we desparately wanted this project to simply be complete on time. Eventually, arguments on what the deadline actually was came into play as well... Possibly that lack of leadership biting us in the rear.

Quote:

Is it possible that different team members had a very different "stake" in the project ... personal commitment, conscious investment, dedication, sense of "ego" being "on the line" ?

This could be a huge factor. I know for at least 2 out of the 4 of us, our motivations came from simply not wanting to waste time on a destined-to-fail project. We sort of wanted to prove to ourselves that we could hold true to a schedule and actually 'release' a product.

Quote:

Did you ever consider calling a meeting, or sending out an e-mail, to notify other gr

Hey all, first post in the lounge. I want to get some opinions on the attitude of some of my peers while working on a project for fun... About a month ago we decided we wanted to start a project. We decided off the bat that one of our primary goals was to finish it, seeing as how this was like many previously launched projects that never saw the light of day. We started off by outlining our work, what needed to be done first and last, and who would be primarily 'responsible' for completing certain aspects of the project. The timeline of the project would span a month's worth of work, with the main goal being that we at least have a finished project (certain aspects were chosen to be considered 'final'). After a couple weeks, it became apparent that everyone on the team besides myself was becoming busy with real-world things; jobs, school, etc... This was understandably cutting down everyone's motivation, as any free time was spent doing things not related to the project. I, however, still had plenty of free time to devote to the project. So ultimately I overstepped some boundaries, as the aspects that I chose to work on required certain things to be completed by everyone else. Since they weren't able to do it and I was, I just went ahead and did it. Surprisingly, the reaction I got wasn't positive. It was argued that I should respect the boundaries put in place and that I was treating our hobby project too much like 'a job', despite the fact that we all agreed that having a finished product was the most important goal for the project. My intentions were not to block out my peers from having a substantial hand in the creation of the project; my intentions were to ensure we meet the deadline. It had already been mutually agreed that everyone would be credited for being involved with the project. All of this was explained, and still I was basically told I'm a butt-head for making sure a product was completed. I would figure doing someone else's work would be met with some praise, or at least a neutral response. I understand I have a lot to learn, so I came here to get some advice... Was I wrong to do this? Is this insensitive somehow? Does anyone else think this is an issue with ego getting in the way of productivity? Or am I really just a jerk for making sure we follow our promises that were decided from the start?

I started out with similar intentions when I first picked up C# about 7~ years ago. I started with the XNA Framework from Microsoft making simple PC games. It introduced me to some common problems and practices that are encountered in developing video games. After that, my job called for some in-house tools to be developed, and my knowledge of the language expanded to meet it. I started out with a program that scrapes files from a folder and emails them. My most recent project being more complex; an automatic update program that first checks for updates to itself, then loads and executes an assembly of update procedures for our flagship software. I guess an example of this would be my ACLib project at github, which was intended to expand on the native Windows console and add some functionality more appropriate for ASCII based video games. This is one result of my interests in video games and my collected knowledge on C#, and a weekend's worth of work. I've also used things like Unity, but I feel like they abstract too far away from letting you use C# to build a game, and instead they try to force you into their own little system of how things work. It chokes out the strengths of C# as a language by funneling you through their own libraries and ambiguously defined 'magic' methods. I am by no means in the leagues with some of the fine folk here on CP, but I feel that the path I've chosen has prepared me well enough to pick up a legitimate job developing software and I can only recommend anyone young and willing to do the same, especially if they have the free time.