1) i'm partial to DirectX, the most common arguements for openGL are that it's cross platform(not many people ever port their games to linux or mac anyways though) and that it's easier(I don't agree, directX has alot more resources online and in print, and has really a helpful library built in)

directX also includes sound, input, networking(although these components are being deprecated(basicly thrown away) one by one , whereas openGL can only draw to the screen, and even in that regard it needs help.

2)for the record, playability and fun makes a game good, not so much looks or speed(look at the wii or DS, or in my case, watching my girlfriend play bookworm online for 2 hours yesterday)


that being said, the looks of a game really depends on artistic ability in a program like photoshop/3DS Max(a modelling program), not really programming skill(there are exceptions, but in general good art/textures/models make a game look good)

speed is a VERY tricky thing, and it's just a matter of experience and knowledge, generally game programming is about finding a balance between looks and speed(unless oyu're Crysis, in which case you just make people buy $3000 computers to play your game)

Ni hao! :)

Quote:Original post by strongpan
1)Nowadays, openGL and DirectX can be used for game development,
which will be your first choice and what you will recommend for
a fresh man?

Personally I don't use either. I use Ogre 3D, a rendering engine that provides a lot more functionality all for free. Ogre 3D uses OpenGL and/or DirectX under the hood so I don't need to worry about them. If you want to use OpenGL or DirectX directly, you still need to write a lot of functionality on top of them, because they are essentially just ways to 'talk' to your 3D card.

Quote:2)In order to write perfect game,I think two aspects should be in concern.

There are no perfect games. :)

Quote:first is, picture quality; and second I think, is speed,maybe measured in FPS.

Depends on the game. Some games really don't need very advanced graphics, some do. If you're writing your first game, this should not be something to worry about. Start simple and small.

Quote:but for an pc with integrated display card,this two aspects is opposite.
So I have to decide which one is much more important, it will be hard for me.
I wonder if you got other ways to balance these two aspect? e.g. you can choose a better texture solution(But i don't know which texture will be better)

You can go for very simple, but stylish graphics, and get the best of both worlds. As I said, it depends on the game, on the artistic style you want to go for.

Quote:OK, If you are expert on game programming, or you got talent doing this job,
or you know much about the theory, pls. follow your comments guiding me...

What sort of games do you want to create? And how experienced are you?

Quote:!!Thanks!!

Buyao xiexie. :)

Sometimes graphical detail is also opposite to playability.


I have been playing CoD5 lately and all these light shafts here are there are pretty annoying because you offer your opponent an advantage if he stand at the right side of the hallway. (e.g.: RoundHouse)
Also the more detail you add the harder it will be to notice other players, this is especially important for older customers who don t play 8 hours the day.

I wouldn t build in all graphical details just because they are possible,
they must make sense in the context of the game, but shouldn t give unfair advantages to some players, except that the level designer did indent to do so, to control the gameflow somehow ...