Skip to main content

Seeking Questions (and DOM/HTML5 Game Layout)

I had been pondering some architecture issues after a day of refactoring and cleanup on an HTML5 game I’m building at work. Some common data/UI integration problems were bugging me, mostly just for the feeling of good separation, and I was about to post to r/gamedev:

I'm looking for advice on some minor architect issues in some HTML5 gamedev work I've been up to. My background is as a web developer professionally and a very trivial game developer as a hobby, and I"m only recently combining those. However, for lots of reasons related to the positioning of this game as *part* of a larger web project at work, it isn't a traditional <canvas> HTML5 game, but being done with a combination of DOM and concern-separated logic.

I'm having trouble figuring out how where to draw the lines between the bits that implement my UI and the bigs that run logic behind it, and how to keep them in sync efficiently. There are patterns for this, but I don't feel like my usual approaches make sense in a game context, so I'm looking for any advice you've got.

This is a card game, though the situation and question would apply to other types of games, as well. Right now, I have a new refactoring that gives me two parts: a card logic component, which shuffles the deck, draws cards, manages a discard pile, play states, etc; and, all the animations and transitions of the card sprites that I display.

BAM. Right there the answer smacked me in the face. And at that moment my first thought was how interesting it is for the act of writing out a problem to trigger the solution in your head, and this isn’t a new idea in the world of even for myself. It is, however, something I want to cultivate, both in myself and others.

Write more and often, about your projects.

I try to keep a development journal and used to do a better job of it. I’m going to look at setting up some kind of prompt to keep myself reminded through the day and maybe that will help. But, on to the solution here.

If I were responding to this post, rather than writing it, maybe this is what I would say:

Separation is great, but at some point these different parts just have to talk to each other. At least, something has to connect them. You’re going to be redundant if you model all the card state twice, both in your logic and your UI, so keep one of them dumb. That’s probably going to be the UI.

Those visuals need to respond to the state changes in the logic, rather than trying to mirror them.

That logic going on, tracking your cards moving between the deck and the hand and discard pile and whatever other states you have needs to allow some reponse to that state changing. When the logic draws a hand from the deck, the visuals need to know which three cards to slide across the screen into your hand. When you play a card, the player needs to see that happen.

Just fire a simple event when the state of a card changes in the logic, and let the DOM update accordingly.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this. CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer.  One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC? It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on

The Range of Content on Planet Python

I've gotten a number of requests lately to contribute only Python related material to the Planet Python feeds and to be honest these requests have both surprised and insulted me, but they've continued. I am pretty sure they've come from a very small number of people, but they have become consistent. This is probably because of my current habit of writing about NaNoWriMo every day and those who aren't interested not looking forward to having the rest of the month reading about my novel. Planet Python will be getting a feed of only relevant posts in the future, but I'm going to be honest: I am kind of upset about it. I don't care if anyone thinks it is unreasonable of me to be upset about it, because the truth is Planet Python means something to me. It was probably the first thing I did that I considered "being part of the community" when I submitted my meager RSS feed to be added some seven years ago. My blog and my name on the list of authors at Plan

Pythonic Defined

Introduction Losing is Good Strings Dictionaries Conclusion Introduction Veterans and novices alike of Python will hear the term "pythonic" thrown around, and even a number of the veterans don't know what it means. There are times I do not know what it means, but that doesn't mean I can define a pretty good idea of what "pythonic" really means. Now, it has been defined at times as being whatever the BDFL decides, but we'll pull that out of the picture. I want to talk about what the word means for us today, and how it applied to what we do in the real world. Languages have their strengths and their idioms (ways of doing things), and when you exploit those you embrace the heart of that language. You can often tell when a programmer writing in one language is actually more comfortable with another, because the code they right is telltale of the other language. Java developers are notorious for writing Java in every language they get their hands on. Ho