Final Report

A. In the project review document, start by addressing these main questions:

  1. Game concept: How and why did your game concept change from initial concept to what you implemented?
  • Shuo Huang: Initially we wanted to create a game with a medieval background and all characters use magic to attack their opponents. However, since we spent so much time struggling with animation system and modeling, it was really difficult for me to either draw complex and artistic medieval scenes or make animations for the characters. Instead, I thought creating scenes with low poly models and using machines as characters would alleviate our issue of poor graphics while the game might still look nice.
  • Kevin Cao: Mechanics wise, we wanted the game to have a lot more characters and choice for the players. Time-wise, we didn’t get all that we wanted done. We were also limited by the complexity of animation, collision detection, complex movements that we imagined from the beginning but had no time or resources to get done.
  • Yicheng Yin: We had to compromise on graphical part of our game. Though we spent a lot of time on building FBX models and loading them in the scene, at last we did not integrate the functionalities into our game since the textures and animation system were not quite done yet.

2. Design: How does your final project design compare to the initial design, and what are the reasons for the differences, if any

  • Shuo Huang: The background and characters of the game are changed, but these changes actually don’t affect our game that much. Most of our goals at the initial design are achieved.
  • Kevin Cao: Agreed. The core of our game is solid. If we had more time to hash out more complex interactions, we would have a better variety.
  • Shuming Cao: The only core function lacking is animation, which can lead to prediction from players, making the game more fun.

3. Schedule: How does your final schedule compare with your projected schedule, and what are the reasons for the differences, if any? (You should be able to glean this from your status reports.)

  • Kevin Cao: I think we had trouble correctly estimating the time frame in which things would get done. We did get the core game done by week 7 but things like fbx and collision took way longer than predicted from the beginning. Since we had no idea what to expect going in, miscalculations like this are expected.
  • Yicheng Yin: We did pretty well in the first half of the quarter. However, as we encountered more and more problems in FBX and collision system, our schedule had to be adjusted. We were still able to finish the core game but the graphics were not as good as I expected.

Continue reading “Final Report”


Overall Status

  • Implemented death system
  • Designed new models
  • Added window for spells
  • Implemented cooldown for spells
  • Added particle effect on bullet
  • Integrated player class and timer
  • Added a new stage for the end of a round

Continue reading “WEEK 8”


Overall Status

  • Everything about elementary bullets, their calculations (currently untested), and rendering are all implemented
  • Server to client interactions for this are close to finished
  • Improved UI
  • Added health bar for characters (time countdown)

Continue reading “WEEK 6”


Overall Status

  • Collision detection and position fixing when players hit walls on movement
  • Handling disconnection
  • Adding texts as basic UI
  • Starting implementing start menu
  • Continue working on FBX loader
  • Improving game logic

Continue reading “WEEK 5”


Overall Status

  • Implemented network communication between two computers
  • Integrated network module into our game
  • Finished isometric view, basic map, and setup for models
  • Implemented movement control based on server’s data
  • Implemented synchronized movement on multiple clients
  • Started modeling a simple character
  • Basic game design

Continue reading “WEEK 3”