I've recently started a collaboration with Zentropy under the name Zenobit Studios - for now you can find us at @ZenobitStudios on Twitter if you want to know more.

Our first project was the November 2016 GitHub Game Jam, where we spent a month creating a very basic RTS. The game wasn't that great (and our artist went AWOL which didn't help), but we had a working RTS with a multilevel enemy AI by the end of it.

For the game jam, our RTS was built on the back of an "ECS Architecture", and I want to describe here why we both thought that this was a good approach for game architectural design that can be applied to many different game genres.

I should probably point out at this point that I don't believe there is any such thing as "the best" architecture in software. In fact, the following is 100% subjective and opinion based. Your opinion may differ, which is fine. If you do want to chat about it, hit us up on Twitter or the comments below.

As this post turned out to be quite long, I think I'll break it up into three parts. In this first part I'm going to give some background on ECS architectures, and some of the decisions which lead us to write our own. In the second part I'm going to go into why we thought a pure (non-Unity) ECS was worthwhile, and I'll finish off in the third part with a practical example.

### What is an ECS?

ECS stands for Entity Component System, which refers to an architectural pattern. I'll just put this here from Wikipedia:

Entity-component system (ECS) is an architectural pattern ... [that uses] composition over inheritance... Every Entity consists of one or more components which add additional behavior or functionality. Therefore, the behavior of an entity can be changed at runtime by adding or removing components. - Wikipedia

In other words, a generic ECS system is just an approach to structuring the code of a game which uses:

• Components to hold data and compose the way an Entity acts,
• Entities to bundle together components, and
• Systems to apply game logic to the data

For example, an Entity can be composed by adding Components together. An enemy could be made up from Health, Movement, and Shield components.

Various systems perform mutations on that data, (although some purists may prefer Components to be immutable) for instance a MovementSystem might find all the Movement Components and update them to move the entity around the game world.

While there are many different ways to build an ECS, generally a key criteria is that components are very loosely coupled. This means there are few links between them, and each in theory is only responsible for its own particular area of interest, such as tracking Health, or Shield status.

### Why not just use Unity's standard approach?

At this point I picture you yelling at your screen. What I described above was very similar to Unity's standard approach of GameObjects (entities) and MonoBehaviours (components and systems). Unity's approach could certainly be viewed as a brand of ECS, and in fact most of the things you can do with a "pure" ECS you can do within Unity's structure. However, as I hope I'll show in this series, doing it in plain C# is just a bit less... well, a bit less ugly and a lot more flexible.

I'm going to take a simple example, and consider it from a number of angles below. Say you have an enemy Entity with Health and Shield Components (or MonoBehaviours). Shields have Energy which reduces damage, but not every enemy has a shield.

In the traditional Unity approach you would put the Health and Shield components on the same GameObject, then either link them in the Inspector or cache references to the other MonoBehaviours in the Awake or Start methods.

Caching MonoBehaviours is pretty much standard practice in Unity because people say that GetComponent is a little slow, although its not clear that this is still true. FindXXX on the other hand should be used with caution as it iterates over every GameObject and Component in the scene!

In the "pure" ECS approach you may have a HealthSystem and the enemies would be represented by Entities, some of which just have a HealthComponent, while others have a HealthComponent and a ShieldComponent. This is the composition part both Unity and pure ECS systems offer - if the Entity has a ShieldComponent, then it adds the "shield behaviour".

The Unity version might look like this:

public class HealthComponent : MonoBehaviour
{
public float Health;
public float MaxHealth;

[SerializeField] private ShieldComponent shield;

public void TakeDamage(float damageCaused)
{
Health -= shield == null ? damageCaused : shield.GetDamage(damageCaused);
}
private void Update()  { // regeneration logic }
}

public class ShieldComponent : MonoBehaviour
{
public float Energy;

public float GetDamage(float damageCaused) { // logic }
private void Update()  { // regeneration logic }
}


It's relatively easy to follow, however there is a dependency between the Health and Shield logic, and the logic is spread out over two classes.

The "pure" ECS implementation on the other hand may look like this:

// The System
public HealthSystem : AbstractEcsSystem
{
public void Update()
{
// find damage, shield energy and current health
// reduce shield energy and health as required
// set DamageReceived to 0 once handled
}
}

// The Components
[Serializable]
public HealthComponent : AbstractEcsComponent
{
public float Health {get; set;}
public float MaxHealth {get; set;}
}

[Serializable]
public ShieldComponent : AbstractEcsComponent
{
public float Energy {get; set;}
}


Interestingly, we are no longer exposing public methods - all the logic is done in Update. This reduces the "surface area" of our API, making it much easier to debug - if something goes wrong, we generally only need to look at one method.

To replace public methods, such as weapons calling healthComponent.TakeDamage(4f), we now modify component data, for instance by executing healthComponent.DamageReceived += 4f. When the system runs, it uses these values to allocate damage.

If logic and data are separated, and each System is responsible for only doing one thing, then its very hard to have 1,000 line mega classes. Our longest system is 167 lines long including comments, file headers and so on, but the majority are a lot less than 50-100 lines all up. These systems are standalone, responsible for only one thing, located in the same place in our namespace hierarchy, and are generally trivial to understand.

### Aren't there already ECS systems?

Both @Zentropy and I (the two parts of Zenobit) were familiar with Unity, but uncomfortable with a lot of the design decisions in the underlying framework, or at least with the way that Unity encourages you to design your code.

We had both briefly considered other mature ECS solutions such as Entitas, however there were aspects of most systems that we weren't happy with and they seemed quite heavyweight for what we were after.

We had both independently started developing our own very lightweight ECS frameworks in plain C# before we started making games. Mine grew from this snippet. When we began to collaborate, we brought the best of our systems together, and what we've ended up with what we think is a fairly robust, lightweight architecture for developing games. Of course, we are only developing our second game using the system so it's possible we will totally change our mind in a few months!

## In Conclusion...

Ok, I think that's enough setup for now! In Part 2 of this series, I'm going to step through some different scenarios where we think a "pure" ECS approach provides some benefits.

If you want to discuss anything about this post or to find out more about Zenobit, feel free to get in touch via Twitter, @ZenobitStudios or @wlhart. Follow us to get notified when the next parts get posted up!