PDA

View Full Version : Multiplayer possibility?


Emcitement
July 18th, 2011, 01:12 AM
Not sure if this has been covered before. I used the search and found nothing of it.
If you think multiplayer attempts would be a waste due to linking issues then read the bottom of this post.


Anyways.
In the third generation games, upstairs in every Pokecenter is the two rooms - the wireless and normal link room, the second being like in the traditional games.

In the normal link room, you move in real time with each other. If you open two emulators and put them side by side, you literally move at the exact same pace on each. It's very smooth.

If you use a walk-through-walls code and go into the Pokecenter when you aren't linked up, you can still access that room. If you try to use the trade/ battle machine, it'll disconnect you but otherwise you can freely roam the room and talk to the NPC in there.

What I'm getting at is it's possible to have two players interact on the same map without a problem.

So what would happen if say, you modified the FRLG game much in this way:
First, you block off the exits of Viridian City. Next, you go into the Viridian Pokecenter and into the link room to the right. Inside of this room, you remove the NPC and the trade/ battle machine and basically turn it into a normal map.

Some things might not function correctly such as pokemon appearing in grass, or going through doors and whatnot.. but from my observation of how the link room functions it's just another part of the game's map.
The room isn't different than any others apart from the fact that to get there in a legit-manner requires you linking up with someone.

But ideally, you could replace the first Pokecenter's trade/ battle link room with an entire copy of the game and be able to play through with another person. As for trading with them, every Pokecenter (that's within the link room Pokecenter) could be set up so there'd be no NPC blocking the door since you're already connected and you can just walk up and access the trade/ battle machine like regularly.

You'd just never disconnect after. If you wanted to disconnect you would go back to the place the multiplayer map starts (Perhaps through the south wall of the Virdian Center's second level/ Red's houses second level).


Now before you say "OMG NOOB THIS WOULD NEVER WORK OMG".

I just want to know why this wouldn't work exactly?

I've been considering trying to get something like this to work, but chances are it isn't possible or people would have done it by now.
So I want to hear the complications as to why it wouldn't ever work before I waste my time trying to do it. xD








Note:
I've read that a lot of people have trouble connecting emulators with Pokemon therefore never bother with multiplayer content.

However, it's extremely simple to set it up.

I've never gotten the wireless to work and can't link up correctly at all on the newer versions of VBA.
I've gotten into the room on the left in the Pokecenter but when attempting to make a trade - disconnected. I've almost gotten into the room on the right but disconnected beforehand. Same with Mystery Gift.

Then I downloaded VBAL 1.72. Keep in mind, I'm not entirely sure if the version I downloaded is the same as the one offered for download on the site.

I went to the room on the right on two emulators. Talked. Saved.
What do you know?
It linked up without the tiniest flaw. I was able to get in the room, make a trade and everything. It worked fine. It even worked for rom hacks very well.

I use it regularly with a friend when we play the games together.
It's just like connecting to someone's gameboy with a link cord. :]

Jambo51
July 18th, 2011, 12:55 PM
You're basically asking if we can make the ENTIRE game co-op friendly?
As far as I can tell, that would be a no... However, there's no doubting it would be f**king awesome if we could.

However, afaik, the code for normal trainer/wild battles would completely freak out. And there's certainly NO way you could battle together.

I'm also 99% certain that most "normal" actions are illegal in the trading environment, so this is probably a no starter, sadly.

Aside: Thanks for the trading info, could be VERY useful :)

I Am Number 3
July 19th, 2011, 06:11 AM
Wouldn't the easiest way to see if that would work would be to test it on a ROM you have? I think that it wouldn't work as well as you except. I don't think that in Generation III there was 4 way battles between trainers (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). But if it is in the game I think that if you did some serious hacking (like ASM) you could trick the game into thinking some computer trainers are human trainers and you could have the four way battle.

So yes, I think you both can walk around, but I don't think you two could battle together or interact a lot.

Cold Ivory
July 19th, 2011, 09:24 AM
Is the location of that map data (tileset/scripts/etc...) known?

Emcitement
July 19th, 2011, 02:13 PM
Oh no no. I wasn't actually talking about battling co-op or much interaction outside of the regular battle/ trade machines. I just meant being able to actually play the game in the same map as them and do your own thing.

However, co-op battles would be awesome.

Though, I do think something could be done with multiplayer so I might have to look into this and see what can work.

Putin
July 21st, 2011, 02:33 PM
So... Like for the purpose of racing, or something? Or potentially for solving puzzles?

Also, every version of no$gba's been capable of doing this (linking smoothly that is) as long as I've been using it. I still don't get why there is such a bias toward using VBA as the end-user, though as an hacker I understand its utility, so I am sure there is something I am still missing here, but linking issues were technically resolved ages ago.

Liquid Twilight
July 22nd, 2011, 12:14 AM
Personally, I was thinking of attempting something like this myself but there seems to be a lot that could wrong. Sounds good though :)

Emcitement
July 22nd, 2011, 06:19 AM
So... Like for the purpose of racing, or something? Or potentially for solving puzzles?

Also, every version of no$gba's been capable of doing this (linking smoothly that is) as long as I've been using it. I still don't get why there is such a bias toward using VBA as the end-user, though as an hacker I understand its utility, so I am sure there is something I am still missing here, but linking issues were technically resolved ages ago.I don't know. No huge purpose.
Just to be able to play through the game together I guess.

Personally, I was thinking of attempting something like this myself but there seems to be a lot that could wrong. Sounds good though :)I agree. But you never know. I've seen people do some crazy stuff so there could be something possible. :]

DavidJCobb
July 24th, 2011, 12:37 AM
I am going to say something that is going to sound completely irrelevant at first. But it's not. Just bear with me.

Halo: Combat Evolved for the Xbox was ported to the PC by a company named Gearbox. After Halo PC's release, Gearbox released Halo Custom Edition, an expansion that allowed people to create their own maps. It came with a rudimentary map editor, which was quickly hacked, forked, and extended.

Halo maps could contain scripts, NPCs, and the like -- much like FireRed maps. However, none of these things were designed to appear in multiplayer. If you tried to play a map that used them in multiplayer, they'd desync -- horribly. You'd see players drop dead for seemingly no reason, because they were killed by an Infection Form or something on the host box (but on your computer, the NPC was on the other half of the map).

HCE mappers quickly learned something: if it wasn't meant to be used in multiplayer, it probably won't sync in multiplayer. Avoid it.

The same is true here. If it wasn't meant to sync in FR/LG's multiplayer, then it probably won't. Especially if it's random. That immediately rules out wild battles, some OW movements, egg hatching... And by virtue of the latter two, it basically rules out all OW movement (probably desyncs if an egg-hatch stops one player) and collision-checking with OWs (randomly-moving OWs desync across the games, so they could block a player in one emu but not in another).

Now, granted, someone could probably alter the game engine to make everything sync. But it'd be a huge edit. It'd be a complicated edit. Something only one of the master hackers here could do -- and perhaps even difficult for them. Depending on how the current syncing works, they may have to literally rewrite the game engine.

Deokishisu
July 26th, 2011, 08:28 AM
To reinforce the above point, already when linking, if you talk to the woman in the trade/battle rooms and force her to turn in your game, she won't in the others. The OWs on that map aren't synced, so the OWs on others would not be synced as well.

Though I don't see a huge problem with it, until your linked friend walks on top of an NPC that's standing there in your game but has moved away in theirs. We don't even know if warping will preserve the link, as you don't warp in the normal link rooms while linking.

It is a good idea though, I'm going to try it out I think, just to see what happens.

Team Fail
July 26th, 2011, 09:09 AM
I think it could be a possibility, but I want to prove it. I'm going to make a quick hack in Fire Red and see if all goes well. If it does, I'll give you a patch for it and you can try it.

Deokishisu
July 26th, 2011, 09:22 AM
Time to post my little experiment!

What I did was edit an otherwise clean FR Rom. I added a connection to Pallet Town from the trade center room in the Pokemon Center, then proceeded to play through both files until I could trade. Linked em up, all looked normal in the trade room (except the added connection of course). I then proceeded to walk both games up into Pallet Town.

I passed into Pallet fine in both games, and they were still linked and I could still see the individual movements of each game's player. The problem was, none of the doors worked, eventually each game's movements desynched, so one player would be in front of the player's house in their game, but somewhere else according to the linked game. The desynching happened primarily when I walked up to Route 1 on one game. Wild Battles didn't work. I eventually got to the point where it desynched enough that the movement permissions were off, giving me some invisible walls. I successfully made it back to the trade room in both games and traded. Then tried again, thinking it as a "refresh" basically. Same deal.

I don't think what you're envisioning is possible on the GBA games. Maybe when we're more versed in fourth gen hacking, you can use the Underground to create your region, allowing anyone to enter and play in it with you.

Team Fail
July 26th, 2011, 09:55 AM
I can't seem to get it to work. I must be doing something wrong. :\

HackChu
August 25th, 2011, 01:38 PM
This is most likely impossible. I tried a long time ago, linked the games up and created a map with trees and NPCs. One person would talk to the npc while at the same time the other player could talk to the same person. Basically, you can't do anything at all except battle eachother and nothing else. However if you just want to walk around for no reason, than be my guest.

NarutoActor
August 25th, 2011, 07:33 PM
I think it would be cool if we limited the co-op. Like both players are transported to one map where they can play in a series of multilayer games. Gen 5 has synched play.

SwirlyBirds
August 25th, 2011, 08:45 PM
I think it would be both possible and fun to do this. I've always believed that nothing is impossible, especially in ROM Hacking. If we could use ASM to reprogram the game to be multiplayer...Man, that would be awesome. Also, if we used ASM, it wouldn't have to have anything to do with the Link Room, or even a Pokemon Center at all. I'm gonna talk to some people who know ASM, see if this is at all possible. Because, if it is, I think we should try it, fast.

HackChu
August 26th, 2011, 09:03 AM
I think it would be both possible and fun to do this. I've always believed that nothing is impossible, especially in ROM Hacking. If we could use ASM to reprogram the game to be multiplayer...Man, that would be awesome. Also, if we used ASM, it wouldn't have to have anything to do with the Link Room, or even a Pokemon Center at all. I'm gonna talk to some people who know ASM, see if this is at all possible. Because, if it is, I think we should try it, fast.
I'm not all that saavy with ASM, but even than I still think it wouldn't be possible. The game itself would need a COMPLETE overhaul, the battle system, everything.

SwirlyBirds
August 26th, 2011, 07:41 PM
The game itself would need a COMPLETE overhaul, the battle system, everything.
I don't think so. At least not to start with. I though of an idea. So here's how it'd work:
You play normal most of the time. However, the ROM automatically links up with other people playing nearby. You don't join them, however, if you run into them in the field, you may battle, trade, chat, etc. The game would not have to be reprogrammed, it would merely require the ROM to check for other people playing nearby and automatically link with them. You will still find them in the same places that they are currently playing. so your chances of running into them are quite small, given that they can be anywhere in the region.

We can invent more about this later, but for now, I don't think it would be nearly as hard as others imagine.

DavidJCobb
August 27th, 2011, 12:58 AM
I don't think so. At least not to start with. I though of an idea. So here's how it'd work:
You play normal most of the time. However, the ROM automatically links up with other people playing nearby. You don't join them, however, if you run into them in the field, you may battle, trade, chat, etc. The game would not have to be reprogrammed, it would merely require the ROM to check for other people playing nearby and automatically link with them. You will still find them in the same places that they are currently playing. so your chances of running into them are quite small, given that they can be anywhere in the region.
You're oversimplifying.

In order for the game to synchronize an action -- say, taking a step in one direction -- it must send data to all connected clients whenever that action takes place. Those clients, in turn, must be "listening" for that data and must respond to it appropriately -- say, by updating the other players' OWs on-screen -- when it is received.

This must be done for everything that is synchronized. If you need to synchronize wild battles, then the games must be coded to send, check for, and respond to data packets when they are initiated. Movement, trainer battles, random OW movements -- same thing.

Essentially, you'd literally have to hack nearly every facet of the game engine and modify them to make them sync. Failure to hack even one system -- the random movement of NPC OWs, for example -- can lead to massive desyncs in the manner I have described earlier in this thread.

And an auto-connect system like you're describing would require even more work -- constantly listening and broadcasting for additional connections, and synching several connections at a time... Having to spawn new OWs and sync new data at any moment, should a player come within range of the Wireless Adapter... All of this, as opposed to a direct one-to-one connection between two and only two players, initiated with a specific trigger (i.e. talking to an NPC to start a link) and deactivated with another specific trigger.

Full Metal
August 27th, 2011, 06:51 AM
^ And furthermore, I believe the bandwidth for the accessory port on the GBA is tiny. Maybe 4 bytes, if I remember correctly. So you'd be re-inventing P2P.
Send Header ( 2 bytes ) "Move Change" New ( relative ) XY position ( 2 bytes )
Send Header ( 2 bytes ) "BattleReq" - trainerID ( 2 bytes )
Send Header ( 2 bytes ) "Accept" - trainerID ( 2 bytes ) #global. the one with that trainerID is listening for this after a "BattleReq" or something is sent.
Send Header ( 2 bytes ) "TradeReq" - trainerID
Send Header ( 2 bytes ) "Leave" - trainerID
Send Header ( 2 bytes ) "Enter" - OW type

trainerID is just the order in which player's entered the area.
So basically, you would still need to sync the games ( like they do in the pokecenter )
Then every 1/60th of a second, check for any headers. If there are any that apply to your game, then apply them. However, I see one problem with this: You have more than 1 person. IDK How that would work. Would one message overwrite the other? [ I still have yet to do any actual research on this ]. And in general, it would just be fairly disappointing.

HackChu
August 27th, 2011, 07:16 AM
I don't think so. At least not to start with. I though of an idea. So here's how it'd work:
You play normal most of the time. However, the ROM automatically links up with other people playing nearby. You don't join them, however, if you run into them in the field, you may battle, trade, chat, etc. The game would not have to be reprogrammed, it would merely require the ROM to check for other people playing nearby and automatically link with them. You will still find them in the same places that they are currently playing. so your chances of running into them are quite small, given that they can be anywhere in the region.

We can invent more about this later, but for now, I don't think it would be nearly as hard as others imagine.
Thing is...who would you even find near by? I'm sure that us people on this forum are really the only ones who still play these games being that they're a bit old and outdated.

NatureKeeper
August 27th, 2011, 05:55 PM
8|

Nothing is impossible. You just need to know HOW-TO-DO-IT. If the multiplayer system can be repointed AND hex edited, that would be possible. The game already has data for 2v2 battles, and multiplayer movement, they can be edited to fit the requirements. However, all other things need to be synced, which would probably piss everyone off before finishing. It is brutal to do, but is possible.

TL;DR : Base Hex Editing.

DavidJCobb
August 27th, 2011, 08:16 PM
So here, off the top of my head, is a few things that would need to be synchronized for multiplayer to run stably outside of the Union Room.

Wild/Trainer battles and their effect on the overworld
If Player A gets into a battle in tall grass (or with a Trainer), code will need to exist to alert Player B, so that attempts to talk to A fail appropriately ("DAVID is in a battle!"). Player B can still move around while A is battling, so when A finishes, he'll need to resync everything.

Problems can arise if B starts their own battle while A's is already in progress -- particularly if A finishes before B. In that case, A will need to resynchronize with B even though B is mid-battle.

So there are two approaches. Synchronization of overworld data can be made possible in the middle of a battle; only one player can be allowed into a battle at a time; or some sort of "cooperative Double Battle" mechanic can be coded, such that if one player enters a battle, the other is dragged in.

NPC OWs: movements and interactions
Movement of NPC OWs will have to be synched. This may mean a modification of the part of the game engine that handles OW behaviors ("Look around", "No Movement", etc.).

If Player A talks to an OW, and Player B attempts to talk either to A or to that OW, then a message will need to be shown for Player B ("They appear to be busy right now." or some equivalent). This is without taking the OW script itself into account...

If a player talks to an OW, the effects of that script -- applymovement, etc. -- must be synched. Running the exact same script for both players would not make sense, however (Player A talks to someone, and Player B suddenly gets asked if they want to buy an Egg by some random guy on the other side of the city). Some commands would also produce obvious issues with synchronization (warp, for example -- especially if it warps to a specific X/Y coordinate).

The solution would be to make some script commands sync, but not others. Things like weather can and must sync, whereas things like preparemsg can't. The effect is that of the two players, only the one that triggers the script runs the script -- and the commands themselves trigger synchronization of any relevant data. This could also have the beneficial effect of allowing both players to run scripts independently of each other but with synchronization, although if the scripts are contradictory (i.e. both changing the weather to different values) some issues could arise. That would be the kind of contradiction that the scripter could be trusted to avoid, I think.

Hidden items (as Signpost scripts)
If Player A picks up an item, should Player B still have access to that item on their overworld? Or should it vanish from both worlds, thereby granting a reward only to the first player to claim it?

If the latter, then code will need to track and sync all flags related to hidden items. The relevant flags -- and only the relevant flags, lest something that should not sync end up synching -- would need to be synchronized when their states change. This would produce problems when the two players connect: which set of flags should be propagated to both games?

Visible items (as Poke Ball OWs)
The same issue, but with the added problem that if the items' states are not synched, then a tile may end up being walkable to one player but not to the other.

...

I'll stop now before I give myself a headache. This idea may as well be impossible. The number of things that would need to be synchronized, managed, and carefully tracked is massive.

leews24
August 27th, 2011, 08:27 PM
I'm not much of a rom hacker,
but wouldnt it be somewhat different if we modify the emulator(vba)
Mod the gba rom engine itself to connect not to a seperate emulator,
But a seperate server?
I mean, Gamboys can do it with a bit of a mod,
Why not the emulator?

Come to think of it, we'd might end up reconstructing the gba, instead of modding

SwirlyBirds
August 27th, 2011, 08:47 PM
Thing is...who would you even find near by? I'm sure that us people on this forum are really the only ones who still play these games being that they're a bit old and outdated.
Well, you have a point about that. I dunno.

8|

Nothing is impossible. You just need to know HOW-TO-DO-IT. If the multiplayer system can be repointed AND hex edited, that would be possible. The game already has data for 2v2 battles, and multiplayer movement, they can be edited to fit the requirements. However, all other things need to be synced, which would probably piss everyone off before finishing. It is brutal to do, but is possible.

TL;DR : Base Hex Editing.
And probably not worth it, though.

So here, off the top of my head, is a few things that would need to be synchronized for multiplayer to run stably outside of the Union Room.

Wild/Trainer battles and their effect on the overworld
If Player A gets into a battle in tall grass (or with a Trainer), code will need to exist to alert Player B, so that attempts to talk to A fail appropriately ("DAVID is in a battle!"). Player B can still move around while A is battling, so when A finishes, he'll need to resync everything.

Problems can arise if B starts their own battle while A's is already in progress -- particularly if A finishes before B. In that case, A will need to resynchronize with B even though B is mid-battle.

So there are two approaches. Synchronization of overworld data can be made possible in the middle of a battle; only one player can be allowed into a battle at a time; or some sort of "cooperative Double Battle" mechanic can be coded, such that if one player enters a battle, the other is dragged in.

NPC OWs: movements and interactions
Movement of NPC OWs will have to be synched. This may mean a modification of the part of the game engine that handles OW behaviors ("Look around", "No Movement", etc.).

If Player A talks to an OW, and Player B attempts to talk either to A or to that OW, then a message will need to be shown for Player B ("They appear to be busy right now." or some equivalent). This is without taking the OW script itself into account...

If a player talks to an OW, the effects of that script -- applymovement, etc. -- must be synched. Running the exact same script for both players would not make sense, however (Player A talks to someone, and Player B suddenly gets asked if they want to buy an Egg by some random guy on the other side of the city). Some commands would also produce obvious issues with synchronization (warp, for example -- especially if it warps to a specific X/Y coordinate).

The solution would be to make some script commands sync, but not others. Things like weather can and must sync, whereas things like preparemsg can't. The effect is that of the two players, only the one that triggers the script runs the script -- and the commands themselves trigger synchronization of any relevant data. This could also have the beneficial effect of allowing both players to run scripts independently of each other but with synchronization, although if the scripts are contradictory (i.e. both changing the weather to different values) some issues could arise. That would be the kind of contradiction that the scripter could be trusted to avoid, I think.

Hidden items (as Signpost scripts)
If Player A picks up an item, should Player B still have access to that item on their overworld? Or should it vanish from both worlds, thereby granting a reward only to the first player to claim it?

If the latter, then code will need to track and sync all flags related to hidden items. The relevant flags -- and only the relevant flags, lest something that should not sync end up synching -- would need to be synchronized when their states change. This would produce problems when the two players connect: which set of flags should be propagated to both games?

Visible items (as Poke Ball OWs)
The same issue, but with the added problem that if the items' states are not synched, then a tile may end up being walkable to one player but not to the other.

...

I'll stop now before I give myself a headache. This idea may as well be impossible. The number of things that would need to be synchronized, managed, and carefully tracked is massive.
Well yeah, you're right about that. I guess it'd not be worth it to make, at all. Especially given HackChu's point (that there'll probably be no one close enough to talk to anyways). So...are we just gonna abandon this?


I'm not much of a rom hacker,
but wouldnt it be somewhat different if we modify the emulator(vba)
Mod the gba rom engine itself to connect not to a seperate emulator,
But a seperate server?
I mean, Gamboys can do it with a bit of a mod,
Why not the emulator?

Come to think of it, we'd might end up reconstructing the gba, instead of modding
I don't really understand what you mean here.

DavidJCobb
August 27th, 2011, 08:54 PM
I don't really understand what you mean here.I think he's suggesting that we find a way to create some sort of dedicated server for PKMN Advance multiplayer. Which is not how it works at all...

leews24
August 27th, 2011, 09:18 PM
I think he's suggesting that we find a way to create some sort of dedicated server for PKMN Advance multiplayer. Which is not how it works at all...
I know that, since I think I've described this wrong.
By "server" I meant more a of a bridge between two emulators, or just build it on to the vba. sorry, my english ain't the best.

Anyway if that makes no sense, forget what I said.

DavidJCobb
August 27th, 2011, 09:22 PM
I know that, since I think I've described this wrong.
By "server" I meant more a of a bridge between two emulators, or just build it on to the vba. sorry, my english ain't the best.

Anyway if that makes no sense, forget what I said.
That actually does sort of make sense. But unfortunately, it would be even more difficult. It would require asynchronous networking (or it would be insanely laggy), and I'm pretty sure that the existing functionality is synchronous.

U.Flame
August 28th, 2011, 09:27 AM
Why haven't I seen this thread before? I tried the exact idea of making hacks co-op friendly. Obviously it didn't go well and many things weren't functional at all. If there is any possibility, some major hacking is required. But I settled for replacing the simple link rooms with one huge area filled with activities, adventure, and multiplayer-friendly events. Progress wasn't too bad but I gave up for a while due to lack of proper testing and help.

If anyone is interested, I can try to release another team thread for it. (The last one had ZERO replies the whole month.)

VBA has a thing where it can connect to IP addresses for linking, pretty much making games wi-fi compatible right? I can see how that can be expanded to make a server. I don't know the first thing about making that sort of thing but I hope people who do can try it.

HackChu
August 28th, 2011, 09:29 AM
Why haven't I seen this thread before? I tried the exact idea of making hacks co-op friendly. Obviously it didn't go well and many things weren't functional at all. If there is any possibility, some major hacking is required. But I settled for replacing the simple link rooms with one huge area filled with activities, adventure, and multiplayer-friendly events. Progress wasn't too bad but I gave up for a while due to lack of proper testing and help.

If anyone is interested, I can try to release another team thread for it. (The last one had ZERO replies the whole month.)

VBA has a thing where it can connect to IP addresses, pretty much making games wi-fi compatible right? I can see how that can be expanded to make a server. I don't know the first thing about making that sort of thing but I hope people who do can try it.
It doesn't really matter. As David said, there is just too much needed to make things work correctly. He's said it pretty darn well a few posts back. ASM hacking is must when it comes to the rom, and probably a emulator itself.

U.Flame
August 28th, 2011, 09:36 AM
True, but I still made a semi-stable area with compatible activities. Not as good as I wanted it but it's a start.

Shiny Quagsire
August 28th, 2011, 01:49 PM
I really don't think this would work. I am 100% sure it'd be easier to make a game to be exactly like pokemon, with Multiplayer abilities, than to hack one into fire red.

Full Metal
August 28th, 2011, 02:02 PM
I really don't think this would work. I am 100% sure it'd be easier to make a game to be exactly like pokemon, with Multiplayer abilities, than to hack one into fire red.

What he said. Listen to him. Quit resisting the inevitable. >:C

U.Flame
August 29th, 2011, 08:25 PM
The inevitable? I can clean up what I have now and release it. It's already better than the 3rd gen's normal multiplayer rooms. (It's in Ruby by the way. But I think I can do FireRed.)

POKEMONMASTER260
September 26th, 2011, 03:41 AM
You mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ydt8wVG4As&feature=channel_video_title

U.Flame
September 30th, 2011, 02:27 PM
You mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ydt8wVG4As&feature=channel_video_title

That's a pretty good example of my point. In mine, I created an area not just for exploring, but for multiplayer-friendly fun!

joshblevins
October 24th, 2011, 03:34 AM
If somebody can get me a tutorial or two on how to program extensions or plug ins for vba/n$gba for c++ i can start up a project to create a plug in that makes the users computer speak with another users computer in order to create a connection.



What he said. Listen to him. Quit resisting the inevitable. >:C

you would be extremely wrong because im working on programming a pokemon game in c++ and the engine (most difficult part of the game) takes calculus and such just to do the graphic rendering which is very basic for a game programmer.