• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Grafalgar

Python vs LUA for a scripted game logic?

8 posts in this topic

Hi all! In the very near future I'm going to start integrating script support into my game engine, and I'm trying to decide between LUA and Python. I've tinkered around with LUA in the past. It looks pretty comprehensive for what I want to do (hooks into compiled C/C++ code very easily, and can pass datastructures back and forth relatively easily). Only recently have I poked around in Python, and it looks like it has greater support than LUA in the general programming world (LUA seems mostly isolated in game programming?) So my question is .. which would you guys recommend as a scripting language in a game engine? Strengths / weaknesses in both languages, and so on? Given a choice, would you rather do the scripted work in LUA or in Python?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lua is generally easier to use with C++ code. Although, Boost::Python probably simplifies integrating Python with C++ significantly so if using Boost isn't an issue this may not be a problem. Also, I believe Lua has a smaller runtime but Python has a larger standard library. As for you last question, I haven't used Lua enough to make that choice. I'd recommend you look at both before you decide.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the integration layer for both languages.

Can you find a source-level debugger you like, and that can run inside your game?

Can you find a language binding you like, that works with your compiled language?

Which one seems easier to work with for you?

Then pick that language. It doesn't matter which one you pick; they're both good, and they both will work within games. In fact, both are used within high-quality shipped games.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My (somewhat biased) opinion is to use Python. There are more resources for it than you can shake a large branch at, and it's batteries-included library will do pretty much anything, with little effort, leading you to repeatidly ask the question "Why the hell am I using C++??!". It may also be easier to write and debug your Python code outside of your game by writing the appropriate scaffolding.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Zanthos
My (somewhat biased) opinion is to use Python. There are more resources for it than you can shake a large branch at, and it's batteries-included library will do pretty much anything, with little effort, leading you to repeatidly ask the question

"Why the hell am I using C++??!".

It may also be easier to write and debug your Python code outside of your game by writing the appropriate scaffolding.



Maybe because C++ runs 20+(?) times faster ??? And games will be adding more
complex behavior in the future and not less. Try doing A* in a script language and you would understand. AND as the games get more dependant on better AI the behavior budget increases by magnitudes....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I prefer Python with boost::python over Lua. I find it easier to debug and interoperate with C++. That, and Lua's stack interface really annoys me. Of course, with the right wrappers, that's not as much an issue.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
Maybe because C++ runs 20+(?) times faster ??? And games will be adding more
complex behavior in the future and not less. Try doing A* in a script language and you would understand. AND as the games get more dependant on better AI the behavior budget increases by magnitudes....

You should probably take a look at Psyco and LuaJIT. As well as the profiling results of _any_ commercial game out there.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Sneftel
Quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
Maybe because C++ runs 20+(?) times faster ??? And games will be adding more
complex behavior in the future and not less. Try doing A* in a script language and you would understand. AND as the games get more dependant on better AI the behavior budget increases by magnitudes....

You should probably take a look at Psyco and LuaJIT. As well as the profiling results of _any_ commercial game out there.


I've profiled python on a console, and it was a horrendously slow bottleneck. Lua was better. I didn't try to figure out raw numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised by that figure of 20x. For code that runs at most a few times per frame, that's not that big a deal. Path-finding is usually a bit more CPU intensive.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Troll
I've profiled python on a console, and it was a horrendously slow bottleneck. Lua was better. I didn't try to figure out raw numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised by that figure of 20x. For code that runs at most a few times per frame, that's not that big a deal. Path-finding is usually a bit more CPU intensive.

Exactly. Hence, (a)Psyco, (b)LuaJIT, and (c)profiling. Games may spend most of their time pathfinding, but they don't spend most of their code pathfinding.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0