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.


#Actualrip-off

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:52 PM

Canonical answer to almost the same question.

There is no perfect design, the grass will always be greener. There will always be some new sexy way to do it, if you haven't heard of it yet it is approaching the horizon. And just because it is new and sexy doesn't mean that it is better at everything, there will be a trade-off.

It sounds like you might be designing in a vacuum. Write the games, not engines. When you're writing a game, whether the engine has a "god-like threading system" with "Task objects" is less important than whether you can actually achieve what you need within the current constraints that your engine has (there will always be constraints). Concrete goals with obvious milestones cut down the tendency to over-engineer and to over-think some of these things.

If your goal is to have the sexiest, cutting edgiest engine around, you'll have to accept that this is a moving target.

The main thing to realise is that the engine you haven't written yet will also be flawed and irritating, as is the case with all software that actually exists as opposed to imaginary software in your head. You don't imagine the areas that your architecture makes more difficult, you don't imagine the performance problems, you certain don't imagine all the bugs. If you can accept this, you'll find the willpower to resist this temptation comes easier.

#1rip-off

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:51 PM

Canonical answer to almost the same question.

 

There is no perfect design, the grass will always be greener. There will always be some new sexy way to do it, if you haven't heard of it yet it is approaching the horizon. And just because it is new and sexy doesn't mean that it 

 

It sounds like you might be designing in a vacuum. Write the games, not engines. When you're writing a game, whether the engine has a "god-like threading system" with "Task objects" is less important than whether you can actually achieve what you need within the current constraints that your engine has (there will always be constraints). Concrete goals with obvious milestones cut down the tendency to over-engineer and to over-think some of these things.

 

If your goal is to have the sexiest, cutting edgiest engine around, you'll have to accept that this is a moving target.

 

The main thing to realise is that the engine you haven't written yet will also be flawed and irritating, as is the case with all software that actually exists as opposed to imaginary software in your head. You don't imagine the areas that your architecture makes more difficult, you don't imagine the performance problems, you certain don't imagine all the bugs. If you can accept this, you'll find the willpower to resist this temptation comes easier.


PARTNERS