>> Shouldn't there be tools (like authoring tools but maybe a bit more portable) for those people out there who have a hard time reading code but REALLY want to design or work on game projects <<
You must realise that working on a game != game programming. If I want to design a game, I design I game. I don't have to implement it. If I want to do artwork, I draw. You _can_ work on a game without knowing how to read code.
If I really want to work on a game project, I find something about game development I'm interested in (drawing for example) and start practicing. It's that simple.
- Muzzafarath
Mad House Software
The Field Marshals
Edited by - Muzzafarath on July 12, 2000 6:32:41 AM
Should gamedev be so hard?
I think most of the people here are grouping programming, engine making and game developing into one basket. If you want to make a game then work with a 3d engine/editor or mod maker and create games. If you want to become a good programmer than you study assembly, c++, code designs, data structures, win32 & mfc framework, unified modeling language, com, etc. Then if you want to become good 3d designer than you need to know programming and 3d math (linear algebra, calculus) and physics and other disciplines not totally related to programming but instead to natural science like light and color, etc.
So as you can see the hardest part is that of the 3d designer. He must be a good programmer and good at maths. Sometimes a company can hire a separate person that is specialist in math and physics who works closely with the programmer, but for most of us here we have to do all the work ourselves or are lucky and can find friends with math skills.
So, decide beforehand what you would like to spend your life on. If you don''t know (like I used to) then experiment with everything and then choose. For example, you could learn about compiler construction and write your own assembler and compiler. If you don''t like to do that then try to make apps in c++ or other high level lang. using already created code (mfc) and write an app that does something you want it to do. It doesn''t have to be game related. Or try 2d/3d coding. Experiment and choose something even if it''s none programming related like creating storylines for games. Just realize that you can''t know everything ever and that is a sad fact.
For example, don''t try to get proof for every math theory because sometimes obtaining the proof will take a long time like years
I think Hamilton spent like 15 years trying to figure out the 3d vector space and its rules. I recommend getting a good math book and a programming book that deals with the math and then read and read and read. From my experience, I found out that it''s not necessary to reinvent the wheel i.e. making a software engine when we have hardware now, but it''s necessary to understand how a software engine works. You can get this understanding from the many online tutorials, books, genesis3d, and other open source engines, and from other people on the forums.
So, once more: Decide what you want to do in life and go do it! Sure it will be hell for a while but everyone here went through hoops to get where they are now comfortable with the programming and no longer think of the syntax but instead of the program flow and how their program fits all together.
Cheer
my homepage
E-Mail: BlueOrbSoftware@mailcity.com
So as you can see the hardest part is that of the 3d designer. He must be a good programmer and good at maths. Sometimes a company can hire a separate person that is specialist in math and physics who works closely with the programmer, but for most of us here we have to do all the work ourselves or are lucky and can find friends with math skills.
So, decide beforehand what you would like to spend your life on. If you don''t know (like I used to) then experiment with everything and then choose. For example, you could learn about compiler construction and write your own assembler and compiler. If you don''t like to do that then try to make apps in c++ or other high level lang. using already created code (mfc) and write an app that does something you want it to do. It doesn''t have to be game related. Or try 2d/3d coding. Experiment and choose something even if it''s none programming related like creating storylines for games. Just realize that you can''t know everything ever and that is a sad fact.
For example, don''t try to get proof for every math theory because sometimes obtaining the proof will take a long time like years
I think Hamilton spent like 15 years trying to figure out the 3d vector space and its rules. I recommend getting a good math book and a programming book that deals with the math and then read and read and read. From my experience, I found out that it''s not necessary to reinvent the wheel i.e. making a software engine when we have hardware now, but it''s necessary to understand how a software engine works. You can get this understanding from the many online tutorials, books, genesis3d, and other open source engines, and from other people on the forums. So, once more: Decide what you want to do in life and go do it! Sure it will be hell for a while but everyone here went through hoops to get where they are now comfortable with the programming and no longer think of the syntax but instead of the program flow and how their program fits all together.
Cheer
my homepage
E-Mail: BlueOrbSoftware@mailcity.com
RWarden, don''t take this as a personal attack, I''m just using your post to illustrate something
I see two ways of looking at it: either that time is already here, or it will never come.
The reason? You just called the Infinity Engine out of date. I looked at the IceWind Dale screenshots and thought "WOW! That really looks like they got their act together.". For me, the Infinity Engine seems to provide all the functionality you need for a game like that, I don''t see how you could make it significantly better.
Yet you disagree, and thereby postulate that there will NEVER be a time when an engine doesn''t outdate in just a few years. Technology will not stop advancing any time soon, so there will always be something "bigger" or "better" or "faster" to come along.
What needs to change, is that we, as developers and game-players, are happy with a game that doesn''t tout the latest technology, but IS fun to play.
Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
quote:Original post by RWarden
( first part )
But, this simplicity[ in the Infinity Engine] comes at a cost: the technology in Icewind dale is really out of date. That''s the basic paradox here: in order for an engine to become popular it has to be used to create a really popular game. But two years after that popular game is released, when all the games using that engine are released, the engine is already obsolete.
( second part )
In the not-too-terribly distant future I''m sure we''ll reach a threshold in both hardware (speed and power) and software (realism) where a single engine can be used for many games across a large span of time.
I see two ways of looking at it: either that time is already here, or it will never come.
The reason? You just called the Infinity Engine out of date. I looked at the IceWind Dale screenshots and thought "WOW! That really looks like they got their act together.". For me, the Infinity Engine seems to provide all the functionality you need for a game like that, I don''t see how you could make it significantly better.
Yet you disagree, and thereby postulate that there will NEVER be a time when an engine doesn''t outdate in just a few years. Technology will not stop advancing any time soon, so there will always be something "bigger" or "better" or "faster" to come along.
What needs to change, is that we, as developers and game-players, are happy with a game that doesn''t tout the latest technology, but IS fun to play.
Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
Hey MadKeith, those are really good points. I''d have to agree with you that even though an engine may be technically out of date that doesn''t limit how fun a game made with it can be. In calling the infinity engine obsolete I was speaking on a purely technical level, especially in regard to the game''s resolution and animation.
Yet the game does look amazing and I wouldn''t be one to complain, because it''s fun. Unfortunately very few game studios are content to make a game that might be obsolete technically but still fun, and I would imagine that part of this would be the reluctance of publishers to fund a game without the ''latest super-3d hypergraphics'' as a selling point. And of course part of the reason is the developers themselves. Generally speaking we don''t look at Quake 3 and say "Wow, that looks nice. But I think I''ll make my game look like Quake I, because that can still look good enough with good level design" =). There''s always a drive to improve and make something look as cool as possible. In commercial game development, this drive is limited by a budget and timeframe, of course
.
I still think that only when we reach a threshold of extreme power and realism in graphics will we be able to have engines that last for ten or more years. And when that happens people will be working much harder on the other, currently often-neglected areas of development, including AI, scripting, and just plain making it fun.
-RWarden (roberte@maui.net)
Yet the game does look amazing and I wouldn''t be one to complain, because it''s fun. Unfortunately very few game studios are content to make a game that might be obsolete technically but still fun, and I would imagine that part of this would be the reluctance of publishers to fund a game without the ''latest super-3d hypergraphics'' as a selling point. And of course part of the reason is the developers themselves. Generally speaking we don''t look at Quake 3 and say "Wow, that looks nice. But I think I''ll make my game look like Quake I, because that can still look good enough with good level design" =). There''s always a drive to improve and make something look as cool as possible. In commercial game development, this drive is limited by a budget and timeframe, of course
.I still think that only when we reach a threshold of extreme power and realism in graphics will we be able to have engines that last for ten or more years. And when that happens people will be working much harder on the other, currently often-neglected areas of development, including AI, scripting, and just plain making it fun.
-RWarden (roberte@maui.net)
GreG_K, what I''d suggest is to get one of LaMothe''s books (Tricks of the Windows Game Programming Gurus).
The graphics library he makes for you does quite a bit. It may be a bit slow but it gets you on a good start.
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." --William Blake
The graphics library he makes for you does quite a bit. It may be a bit slow but it gets you on a good start.
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." --William Blake
- I guess though that the reason writing games is as hard as it is, is due to the amount of control given over the games & computer system. In other words, you could write games in Qbasic, but there''s lots of things that aren''t practical (or currently possible) to do in that language. In order to make Qbasic easy to learn, many of the ugly details of "computer-ese" have been filled in for you by the language creators, but those are capabilities that you can no longer access yourself if you want to or not. - With something like C++ or asm, you have the ability to control darn near everything, but then you HAVE to, because the computer has no way of filling in all the details for you and most of those details don''t have default values to rely on.
- Related, Somewhat: I tend think that if hardware was standardized, that would lead to much less reliance on an operating system, and also to direct hardware calls. Known architectures and no operating system is about all that''s possible to do to simplify programming without losing capabilities. - Lubb
- Related, Somewhat: I tend think that if hardware was standardized, that would lead to much less reliance on an operating system, and also to direct hardware calls. Known architectures and no operating system is about all that''s possible to do to simplify programming without losing capabilities. - Lubb
Yes, it should be hard. If it wasn''t, then everyone and their brother would make a game and most (if not all) would be lame. The market would get flooded with awful games and no one would play games because they are too busy making their own lousy game. Then Hasbro would make a lousy game and we''d all get sued. Nobody wants that now, do they?
Of course that''s just my opinion, I''m probably wrong.
Of course that''s just my opinion, I''m probably wrong.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
