Can I still make games?

Started by
10 comments, last by Thr33d 18 years, 7 months ago
Quote:Original post by ciroknight
Worst. Advice. Ever.

Not to rag on you struct, but not taking the time to learn how something works and copying and pasting code is one of the most terrible ways to over engineer something. A lot of the engineers that I work with will end up duplicating something almost verbatum from the STL and I'll ask them about it and they almost invariably answer "Oh, I just took out my STL Handbook from HP and drummed something up". At this point, I usually feel like backhanding them and telling my boss to fire them and hire more college graduates to replace their lazy arses. (Not that I work with the STL a lot in my line of work; I mostly code for embedded platforms which means a lot of C and assembly, and a lot of trickery.)



I understand your stance and to clarify my point a bit: My background is software engineering and so far mostly user application, and having worked on projects with hard deadlines and often too little time to complete everything, I have come back from the idea that I should know everything as I did in the past. I have adapted my manner of working to find usefull resources, and use those to complete my goal, rather than make everything myself. For example, in my current project we had to use USB communication. Instead of making an USB driver ourselves we picked a free (ofcourse, well supported and tested) one from the internet and used that. Instead of missing the deadline, we just made it. And still no one in the project knows the ins and outs of USB, just how to call the driver.

Very muchly so to the original question, you can make games without knowing much about maths. There are numerous resources out there that do the "hard stuff" for you.
If you actually want to learn the maths, don't listen to me (and I can very muchly say that knowing the maths is indeed very helpfull). The advise of the other posters in this thread is much more usefull in that case. But don't be put off because you don't have the knowledge at this stage. The internet is huge, and information like this floats around freely.

STOP THE PLANET!! I WANT TO GET OFF!!
Advertisement
Oh wow... he spelled Fhqwhgads correctly. Whenever people write me, they always say stuff like "hey how's that Fhqwgrass"... etc, etc.
Nice username (don't know if anyone else noticed + checks out strongbad's e-mails)

Welcome. Games
Games are made to be fun. You don't need a lot of math to have fun. If you focus on that (fun-factor) you'll be fine. Text games, or not-very-complex 2d or 3d games, written with something which has a lot of helper functions isn't too hard.
That's if you're writing games, and you have the (IMHO) "healthy" point of view (games are supposed to be fun).

Graphics/prototypes/eyecandy/"tech demo"
Now, this is a completely different animal. In this case, the graphics *are* what is fun. Not necessarly even for the end user, mind you, but for the programmer. In this case, you'll get a kick out of the latest technology/applied mathematics. For this (ie. "Help, I-want-to-write-up-my-own-collision-detection-and-response-physics-engine-and-I-don't-want-to-use-any-previously-made-engine-'cause-I'll-be-able-to-write-one-which-performs-much-better-for-my-specific-use-but-it-still-must-be-fully-functional.") (I'm exaggerating here)
Really though, for advanced gfx topics, AI, multi-order continuously smooth animation, etc. You'll need math. You'll just find you need it. That's not a problem. But don't get discouraged if you want to code Quake4 and find you aren't quite getting time-based animation/modelling, much less inexpensive frame-rate independant gravity calculations.

So (end of rant) if you love technology, write prototype apps. Love it. If you love games, write fun stuff, and love it.

-Michael g.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement