Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Interested in a FREE copy of HTML5 game maker Construct 2?

We'll be giving away three Personal Edition licences in next Tuesday's GDNet Direct email newsletter!

Sign up from the right-hand sidebar on our homepage and read Tuesday's newsletter for details!


We're also offering banner ads on our site from just $5! 1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


#ActualL. Spiro

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:27 AM

I have 2 problems with the above reply.
Firstly there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to write a game engine as an educational tool and the topic-poster had a very specific question about game-engine development. “Write games, not engines” is not the universal solution. If it was then guess what: Games would never be made since no one spent the time to write the engines behind them. Not only that but I would be out of both a job and a hobby. Some people, myself included, appreciate the lower-level technology behind game development and enjoy learning about it more than we enjoy making the actual games. It is also true that some people dive too deep before they are ready, but this is not the way to inform them of that fact.

The second problem I have is, Josh, Mr. Petrie, please change the title of your article. The things you say in your article are not wrong, but people coming into it start off with a false idea about what is trying to be proved and that is away with what they walk. I already posted multiple quotes from people who read your article and somehow took away from it that writing engines is a plague that must be avoided at all costs. They couldn’t even figure out how to write a game because every idea they had involved making some semblance of an engine and from your article they learned that that was evil.

The content may be accurate but the title is so misleading that I simply can’t support it in any way until the title is changed. The above reply is just another example of it doing more damage than good.


L. Spiro

#1L. Spiro

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:25 AM

I have 2 problems with the above reply.
Firstly there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to write a game engine as an educational tool and the topic-poster had a very specific question about game-engine development. “Write games, not engines” is not the universal solution. If it was then guess what: Games would never be made since no one spent the time to write the engines behind them. Not only that but I would be out of both a job and a hobby. Some people, myself included, appreciate the lower-level technology behind game development and enjoy learning about it more than we enjoy making the actual games. It is also true that some people dive too deep before they are ready, but this is not the way to inform them of that fact.

The second problem I have is, Josh, Mr. Petrie, please change the title of your article. The things you say in your article are not wrong, but people coming into it start off with a false idea about what is trying to be proved and that is away with what they walk. I already posted multiple quotes from people who read your article and somehow took away from it that writing engines is a plague that must be avoided at all costs. They couldn’t even figure out how to write a game because every idea they had involved making some semblance of an engine and from your article they learned that that was evil.

The content may be accurate but the title is so misleading that I simply can’t support it in any way until the title is changed. This is just another example of it doing more damage than good.


L. Spiro

PARTNERS