well, if you make a new weapon you could extend for example the shockrifle, and make it fire twice when triggered.. it'd be like <20 lines of code.. and you only need to recompile that one class.

That makes Ut so nice to script

_________________
Serious game developer

http://www.persistentrealities.com
http://www.persistentrealities.com/vbfibre
http://www.ambiances.nl

If you want designers to develop things like items, weapons, armor, etc. and they're not programmers what do you do? Also, if you are planning 50 different weapons for your game, why muddy your code with 50 weapon classes? That just doesn't make sense. UT is different because there's not that many weapons. Can you imagine trying to hard-code all the weapons in Everquest?!? How about all the NPCs and mobs?!? You don't hard-code data normally, for good reason.

I thought it was common knowledge that data and code should be separated as much as possible.

Its a standard design idea. But that doesn't mean its the only one that should ever be used In cases where the dataset is small, then its more work to get it loaded from files than to just hard code it for example.

_________________
God must love stupid people, he made so many.
theraje: 'God doesn't love stupid people, they're just easier to make'
http://sharedillusions.blogspot.com

RPGs normally don't fit into the "dataset is small" category so hard-coding is not an option IMO.

I'm pro separation, I was just posting how easy it is to get code of UT .

In my western I'm doing a lot with Lua, setting health for objects and everything.

_________________
Serious game developer

http://www.persistentrealities.com
http://www.persistentrealities.com/vbfibre
http://www.ambiances.nl

I played with UnrealScript a bit back in the day. It's not bad, much easier than modding an id engine game.

_________________
Bored? Head on over to my blog and see what I'm up to.

Microsoft XNA MVP