Multiplayer Tetris Architecture Evaluation

After examining the available blog posts and code, I’ll evaluate the architecture of the multiplayer Tetris game by looking at its design principles, component organization, and evolution across different parts.

Architecture Overview

The game is built as a client-side split-screen multiplayer Tetris game with these key architectural components:

1. Core Game Components:

   • Shape and ShapeType: Data structures representing game pieces
   • PlayerAction: Functions that modify shapes (move, rotate)
   • GameClock: Controls game timing and gravity
   • GameRule: Validates actions against game rules
   • GameRenderer: Displays game state

2. Player Input System:

   • Keyboard mappings for multiple players
   • Input listeners that translate keys to actions

3. Game World:

   • Manages active and inactive shapes
   • Handles collision detection and game rules
   • Orchestrates player actions and game clock

Architectural Patterns

The architecture follows several positive patterns:

1. Separation of Concerns: Clear distinction between game logic, rendering, input handling, and rules.
2. Functional Approach: Actions are pure functions that transform state, making the behavior predictable.
3. Event-Driven Design: The system responds to keyboard events and clock ticks.
4. Immutability: Later parts show a shift toward immutable state updates rather than direct object mutation.
5. Component-Based: The codebase is organized around distinct components with clear responsibilities.

Evolution of the Architecture

From part 1 through part 4, the architecture evolved in several ways:

1. Type System: Initially described with TypeScript-like interfaces but implemented in vanilla JS, later parts fully embrace TypeScript.
2. Testing: Later parts introduce unit tests, particularly for core game logic.
3. Architecture Decision Records (ADRs): Introduction of formal decision documentation for using TypeScript and Pixi.js.
4. Rendering Technology: Moving from simple DOM-based rendering to Pixi.js for better performance.

Strengths

1. Clear Component Boundaries: Each part of the system has well-defined responsibilities and interfaces.
2. Testability: The functional approach and clear separation make the code testable.
3. Extensibility: The architecture makes it relatively easy to add new features like different shape types or game modes.
4. Progressive Enhancement: The codebase evolves methodically rather than being rewritten.

Improvement Opportunities

1. State Management: The game would benefit from a more structured state management approach with clearly defined state transitions and reducers.
2. Network Architecture: To move beyond split-screen, a client-server architecture with state synchronization would be needed.
3. Performance Optimization: For a more complex game, optimizing rendering and collision detection would be important.
4. Input Abstraction: The direct mapping of keyboard events could be abstracted further to support different input devices.
5. Configuration Management: Game parameters are scattered throughout the code rather than centralized.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The architecture is well-structured for a client-side game but could be improved by implementing a more robust state management system, centralizing configuration, providing better abstractions for input handling, and preparing for potential network play by separating client/server concerns. Additionally, optimizing performance for rendering and collision detection would be beneficial for scaling to more complex game scenarios.