Has BSF lost its way? - No, just it's mind.

[the mulletron]

I love the creativity aspect of BSF the most, and never really cared much about gameplay itself (i still havent finished the campaign!), and i always thought shipbuilding has alot more potential and could use more flavor (custom sprites!). I am also a staunch proponent of promoting creativity in/trough games.

That's true. Few games allow users to fully express their creativity as much as BSF does, and I can see how people can enjoy creating good looking ships. On the flip side, that is only true if you are actually good at making ships. For those that are only mediocre at making ships (myself included), the novelty of making your own ships wears off, and creating a ship that only looks half as good as the next person's leaves you rather deflated.

If there was a way to properly use these ships in the game, then it wouldn't matter as much if the ships don't look as good, because then it would be more about how they fared in battle. For me, Shipmaker is only half the game, the real pleasure comes in seeing them in action.

But that's something that simply can't be done right now, not until we hear more about BSF2 and how BSF1 ties into that legally.

I think all that should be done with BSF now is rounding off a few loose ends - fixing bugs, wrapping up the campaign

To be honest, I'm not all that keen on the idea of a BSF2. I mean, what can be put in a sequel that can't be put into the original? Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, in my opinion, I'd rather BSF was improved to the point where it can be taken no further before we start thinking about sequels.

[Sponge]

To be honest, I'm not all that keen on the idea of a BSF2. I mean, what can be put in a sequel that can't be put into the original? Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, in my opinion, I'd rather BSF was improved to the point where it can be taken no further before we start thinking about sequels.

My understanding is that that Game Maker engine really sucks, and in general, limits what can be done with the game. A group of professional programmers using a half-way decent engine could probably add scores of features that would be impossible or at least too difficult to add in BSF currently. I'm thinking along the lines of multi-player, which would add to the entertainment factor more than just about anything else, and an actual campaign. As much as I enjoyed the campaign, I agree with Kaelis. I don't feel like it is or was ever a big part of the game. I wouldn't mind seeing some graphical improvements, either. I do love the current art style, but a good engine could likely handle much more powerful graphics without using too much more computing power.

[jwa8402]

One of my favorite things about the game has always been that not everything is done for you. At least in the older versions, if you wanted to make something look cool or different, you had to be creative to do it, ie the novelty weapons or having only a few dozen sections. Point being I would much rather see multiplayer functionality than better graphics or effects...

I read something about newer versions of game maker allowing for multiplayer...Thats just something that would have to be written into the code from the ground up though right? Imagine the player base we would have if BSF ended up on Onlive or something like that!

[Arcalane]

To be honest, I'm not all that keen on the idea of a BSF2. I mean, what can be put in a sequel that can't be put into the original? Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, in my opinion, I'd rather BSF was improved to the point where it can be taken no further before we start thinking about sequels.

We've reached that point. Admittedly, we got a lot more in in the meantime that would have had to have waited for a sequel if it weren't for Kaelis.

Sponge; a proper game engine would also be able to maintain the current graphical style, but with far, far larger fleets with much less system impact. It's a win/win scenario.

[th15]

Well, I'll put it this way, I am working on getting a sequel for BSF together with a proper engine and all.

What it boils down to is that I don't feel BSF has achieved its full potential. And in order to do that I have to get a fair bit of shit together. And that's been taking time, a lot of time. Also, I do have other commitments now (I'm working full time) but that being said, BSF was written while I was actively serving in the local Navy, so I will find time to work on it (and whatever other projects I feel like I'm up to) as and when I have the time.

I do want to finish the campaign missions, I have an idea outlined, but I keep waiting for some inspiration to do something really epic with the finale.

[Kaelis]

To be honest, I'm not all that keen on the idea of a BSF2. I mean, what can be put in a sequel that can't be put into the original?

As Arcalane mentioned, multiplayer and general performance. Well, okay, multiplayer for BSF1 could theoretically be implemented, but the thing is BSF wasnt built with multiplayer support in mind, thus it requires alot work and possibly massive rewrites. BSF is also already pushing Game Makers performance limits by a large margin; i think its the biggest GM game to date. It has reached a point where any further extension has to be carefully considered and weighted against performance drawback, not to mention that the farther you go, the more time it takes.

My understanding is that that Game Maker engine really sucks, and in general, limits what can be done with the game. A group of professional programmers using a half-way decent engine could probably add scores of features that would be impossible or at least too difficult to add in BSF currently.

Some clarification here. Game Maker doesn't suck per se. Actually, the opposite - its a wonderful platform for any amateur game developer out there, and in general a massive time saver. As far as 2d games go, there are no limits.

Of course, it has its quirks here and there, and two huge drawbacks - awful performance and not really suited for huge projects. But for small, graphically simple games its perfect.

As far as implementing new features in BSF goes, nothing is impossible. Yes, multiplayer might be hard and laborious to do, and there are performance concerns, but thats it, really. I don't think there is any gameplay feature that would be literally impossible to do in BSF.

I'd rather BSF was improved to the point where it can be taken no further before we start thinking about sequels.

We've reached that point.

Huh? There are still tons of features and improvements that could be added to BSF...

[Commodore111]

Yeah, everyone constantly improves, and I'm sure Th15 can make BSF more performance friendly. However, that would require a rewrite of a lot of the code. Making a new game is much more productive because you're not overwriting what you've already done, you're making a new game.
That, and BSF has amazing graphics for a GM game. I don't think that's the only reason for the slowdown, but turning off some graphical settings can massively increase the fps.

i think its the biggest GM game to date.

If you don't count music, that is. SOme games are larger because 80% of their filesize is music.

[Warpman]

Creating a completely new game is much longer and there will be bugs.
Still the game needs changes at it is sloooow even on my beefy pc.

[Silverware]

Switching over to a new engine doesn't necessarily mean that we can't keep the current BSF code. Why not make a port of BSF to Sponge? That way you can learn how Sponge works, increase performance and keep players happy with little extra code. Then BSF can be brought up to version 1.0 on Sponge and then version 2 can be worked upon.
To me this would be the most logical move, even if it is time consuming, but much of the code I would suspect could be ported almost directly, and taking the time to rewrite the code into Sponge might mean you find a bug or two, or find more system friendly ways of doing something.

Just my 2c

[Arcalane]

I'd rather BSF was improved to the point where it can be taken no further before we start thinking about sequels.

We've reached that point.

Huh? There are still tons of features and improvements that could be added to BSF...

Well alright, 'sane' limit. At this point it's probably wiser to just fix what we have now rather than trying to pile more things in at the last minute.

Regarding ports; if it were so easy, I imagine it would have been done already.

[Commodore111]

Porting games to different platforms/languages is really hard for one person(I don't know what sponge is, in case it's a OS or programming language).

[Sponge]

Sponge would be my name.

[Commodore111]

Why not make a port of BSF to Sponge?

I can't tell if he was being sarcastic or not.

[Sponge]

Why not make a port of BSF to Sponge?

I can't tell if he was being sarcastic or not.

Oh, damn. My bad. I totally missed that post. Yeah, I have no idea what the fuck he's talking about. Either he knows something Google doesn't, or we're dealing with an absolutely massive Freudian slip. Or a misinterpretation of an above post.

[Kaelis]

i think its the biggest GM game to date.

If you don't count music, that is. SOme games are larger because 80% of their filesize is music.

I meant in terms of scope/complexity... Size in kilobytes is irrelevant.

Still the game needs changes at it is sloooow even on my beefy pc.

Short of downgrading BSF and removing features, theres nothing we can do about that, its Game Makers fault.

Why not make a port of BSF to Sponge?

Because the only gain would be performance. Assuming that this 'Sponge' you talk about is actually faster than GM.

At this point it's probably wiser to just fix what we have now rather than trying to pile more things in at the last minute.

Well duh, thats rather obvious, is it not? Still, the point stands - theres still alot we could add to BSF before 'it can be taken no further'.