• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

Unity What's your opinion on Game Makers?

This topic is 1654 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I have very strong feelings for "Game Makers", some of which include "GameMaker", "Scratch", "Construct 2" and "GameSalad". I'm not against all Game Creators, the only 2 I'm not against are "UDK" and "Unreal Engine", because the amount of code involved to make graphics that HD would be phenomenal, so I understand why companies use them.

 

I am against, however, every other game maker in existence. Yes, I know they are not 100% game makers, but there is little code involved, and that get's on my nerves a lot. What I don't understand is: If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game? Is it due to people being lazy? I know some schools teach Scratch, which I thing is WRONG. It's not good to teach people how to use makers. You should be teaching code. If people want to use game makers, then they shouldn't be making games(again, not including stuff like UDK). I don't see the point in making a game if you're not going to code it. Instead of teaching Scratch, why not teach Python? Instead of teaching GameSalad, teach a better language.

 

Now, what really get's on my nerves is that people thing they're coding when they are using D&D stuff. There is a place I used to go to called "CoderDojo". They taught GameMaker and AppInventer. Now, how in the WORLD is that coding? You aren't sitting at an IDE and typing code, you're dragging and dropping. They taught Python, but you had to ask and they said "Coding? Why would you want to do that? Are you sure you want to do it?". That made me want to punch someone in the face. The people there that taught Python were planning on teaching C++, and agreed with me that GameMaker is wrong.

 

I'm going to state my opinion. It might not be right, but I want to express it:

 

GameMaker, Scratch, and every other game maker(once again, other then UDK and Unreal Engine) should be shut down, along with the companies that develop them. People should not be using little code. They should be using FULL code. The fun part about coding is sitting at an IDE and typing for hours and hours on end. That's what makes programming fun. You should be forced to code. Yes, you can argue you are still "cheating" by letting the language get compiled into Assembly or Binary. You can argue that, but I'm not the one dragging and dropping boxes into a window and clicking on sprites to make a game. In my opinion, the companies should be shut down, along with their engines. I'm not against the people that use them, I'm against the companies that develop them.

 

I am aware that GameMaker has GME, but who's going to use that when you can D&D?

 

I also have a few questions. I've seen a lot of people say that coding is dying. It will only be around for a few more years, then everyone will be using D&D programs to make programs. So, is coding dying? Is it pointless to code now? I don't believe it is, but I want to know what's going on here.

 

My other question is: Is Unity a Game Maker? I believe it uses C# 100%, and you can use Blender to make assets and such. Is Unity 100% code, or is it just another one of those makers?

 

If someone else has the same opinion(maybe even a stronger one), I'd love to hear it. I hope it's not just me that is against these programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

Not everyone is a programmer. These kinds of tools can by very useful for non-programmers. They can also be useful for quick prototyping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against, however, every other game maker in existence. Yes, I know they are not 100% game makers, but there is little code involved, and that get's on my nerves a lot. What I don't understand is: If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game? Is it due to people being lazy?

Feel free to code a game without a game engine or APIs of any sort. I mean, that would make you lazy. Let me know when you've succeeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game? Is it due to people being lazy?

 

Would you really want to rewrite all of your boilerplate code over and over again for each game you make when the code you wrote for your previous game will still do the job perfectly for your new project? Most of these game creation tools are designed to let people actually focus on designing an actual game instead of having to worry about all the technical details, with each tool giving varying degrees of freedom. Not everyone who makes games or who wants to make games is a programmer you know.

 

 

I know some schools teach Scratch, which I thing is WRONG. It's not good to teach people how to use makers. You should be teaching code.

 

Tools like Scratch are meant to teach students the very basic concepts of programming without having to go into syntactical details of a language. Just throwing code at a student to teach the absolute basics of programming is not the best solution.

I have personally designed and implemented a scratch-like programming environment for programming robot simulations targeted at a teenage audience as an academic project at my university, and I can honestly say that the basic concepts of programming stick with new students much better if they can use them in an easy to learn environment with immediate results for even a short period of time. You wouldn't be able to accomplish something like this with regular programming languages in the same amount of time.

 

 

 

GameMaker, Scratch, and every other game maker(once again, other then UDK and Unreal Engine) should be shut down, along with the companies that develop them. People should not be using little code. They should be using FULL code. The fun part about coding is sitting at an IDE and typing for hours and hours on end. That's what makes programming fun. You should be forced to code. Yes, you can argue you are still "cheating" by letting the language get compiled into Assembly or Binary. You can argue that, but I'm not the one dragging and dropping boxes into a window and clicking on sprites to make a game. In my opinion, the companies should be shut down, along with their engines. I'm not against the people that use them, I'm against the companies that develop them.

 

This really sounds like you're just trolling.

 

Not everyone is a programmer nor does everyone experience or enjoy programming like you apparently do. Nobody should be forced to learn how to program just because they have the ambition to make a game.

 

If all of those companies providing middleware solutions for game development would be shut down as you suggested the gaming scene would be pretty bleak and a lot of some of your favorite game experiences would probably not exist. You can't honestly expect every huge game title to develop every piece of functionality in-house while there are so many high quality and vastly tested tools are out there to make the development process easier and cheaper.

 

 

 

I also have a few questions. I've seen a lot of people say that coding is dying. It will only be around for a few more years, then everyone will be using D&D programs to make programs. So, is coding dying? Is it pointless to code now? I don't believe it is, but I want to know what's going on here.

 

This is just silly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone is a programmer.  I am one, yet I have used Construct 2 and Game Maker to produce games.

 

I could have picked up SFML and coded my games the longer way, but I have little desire to write a game engine.  I'm 100% certain if I had to write an engine in order to produce a game that I would have never completed my game.  Writing a rendering pipeline sounds like a nightmare to me, and I'm happy for anyone who thinks they would enjoy it.

 

Tools like Construct 2 and Game Maker are limited in many ways.  I grew out of them and moved on.  I don't see why a non-programmer couldn't learn to program if they wanted to, and move on the same.  Meaning, I do not think having programming ability and using a game creation suite are mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have very strong feelings for "Game Makers", some of which include "GameMaker", "Scratch", "Construct 2" and "GameSalad". I'm not against all Game Creators, the only 2 I'm not against are "UDK" and "Unreal Engine", because the amount of code involved to make graphics that HD would be phenomenal, so I understand why companies use them.

 

I am against, however, every other game maker in existence. Yes, I know they are not 100% game makers, but there is little code involved, and that get's on my nerves a lot. What I don't understand is: If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game? Is it due to people being lazy? I know some schools teach Scratch, which I thing is WRONG. It's not good to teach people how to use makers. You should be teaching code. If people want to use game makers, then they shouldn't be making games(again, not including stuff like UDK). I don't see the point in making a game if you're not going to code it. Instead of teaching Scratch, why not teach Python? Instead of teaching GameSalad, teach a better language.

 

Now, what really get's on my nerves is that people thing they're coding when they are using D&D stuff. There is a place I used to go to called "CoderDojo". They taught GameMaker and AppInventer. Now, how in the WORLD is that coding? You aren't sitting at an IDE and typing code, you're dragging and dropping. They taught Python, but you had to ask and they said "Coding? Why would you want to do that? Are you sure you want to do it?". That made me want to punch someone in the face. The people there that taught Python were planning on teaching C++, and agreed with me that GameMaker is wrong.

 

I'm going to state my opinion. It might not be right, but I want to express it:

 

GameMaker, Scratch, and every other game maker(once again, other then UDK and Unreal Engine) should be shut down, along with the companies that develop them. People should not be using little code. They should be using FULL code. The fun part about coding is sitting at an IDE and typing for hours and hours on end. That's what makes programming fun. You should be forced to code. Yes, you can argue you are still "cheating" by letting the language get compiled into Assembly or Binary. You can argue that, but I'm not the one dragging and dropping boxes into a window and clicking on sprites to make a game. In my opinion, the companies should be shut down, along with their engines. I'm not against the people that use them, I'm against the companies that develop them.

 

I am aware that GameMaker has GME, but who's going to use that when you can D&D?

 

I also have a few questions. I've seen a lot of people say that coding is dying. It will only be around for a few more years, then everyone will be using D&D programs to make programs. So, is coding dying? Is it pointless to code now? I don't believe it is, but I want to know what's going on here.

 

My other question is: Is Unity a Game Maker? I believe it uses C# 100%, and you can use Blender to make assets and such. Is Unity 100% code, or is it just another one of those makers?

 

If someone else has the same opinion(maybe even a stronger one), I'd love to hear it. I hope it's not just me that is against these programs.

 

As for your first "question" (more of an opinion really) i'd disagree, the real problem with "game makers (or specialized/inflexible game engines really)" is that they tend to restrict what you can do with them, (RPG Maker  for example is restricted to a specific style of JRPGs), if it fits the game you're making they're great, if they don't fit they're almost useless. If there is a tool out there that allows you to produce the game you want to make at a lower cost it would be stupid not to take advantage of it. (a good game is a good game, regardless of how it was made)

 

As for the second one, no Unity is a fairly general purpose game engine (just like UDK, idTechX, CryEngine, Source, etc), it ships with some pre-written components and a integrated level/scene editor though so you can make basic prototypes without writing much code (and ofcourse, you can download components other people have written and use those rather than writing your own).

 

As for coding and drag and drop programs, neither will go away, RAD tools are great timesavers but to create custom behaviour from any software you will need some form of code. (if that code is formed using a visual language like kismet(used by UDK) or by a text based language like C++ or C# is irrelevant, code is still code regardless of how its presented to the programmer.

 

From an educational point of view however i'd agree that for programmers its better to learn a general purpose programming language than to learn how to use <insert RAD tool here>, for designers on the other hand those RAD tools are an excellent place to start(as they let you focus on the design rather than the technical details) and for programmers those same RAD tools can be a great way to cut costs and save time on real projects.

Edited by SimonForsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the posters before me have said.
Not everyone is a programmer...

 

But id like to put some focus on the whole drag and drop issue here...

Do not under estimate the work people put in with tools that is "simple" utilizing drag and drop functionality.

Taking Unreal Engine for example.

On one of the previous projects i worked on we had one person mostly dedicated to working in their Kismet.

Kismet is a tool used to setup logical chains of events in the game world. It basically functions by drag and drop.

As a spectator it may look easy.

But trust me, it takes dedication, skill and true cleverness to pull of some of the things you can do with these tools.

 

My opinion on game makers is that they are great.

If Game Maker for example can get someone curios about game development thats superb. 

Some people are perfectly happy to make smaller games and dont want to devote their time with programming. Perhaps they are more interested in the art side of game development, then Game Maker is a great choice.

And im sure that it have and continues to serve as a starting platform for people who wants to learn more on how to make games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im not going to quote, but ill mention a few thing.

All the games I've played I know have.been coded. Minecraft was coded.

If you're a programmer, why would you use those tools?

If your a designer then work with someone on a game.

Does no one else think these tools are discouraging programming? This is why I dont like them. They make it seem like it's discouraged to fully code games.

I wrote a game in pure Java once: no API's, just everything in Java. I have to say, I had a LOT of fun making it.

I love coding. I spend at least 6 hours a day doing it.

At least someone else agrees that these tools limit you. You get more control if you code a game.

I usually use LibGDX and LÖVE for making games.

So really: if these tools exist, what's the point of coding one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're a programmer, why would you use those tools?

If your a designer then work with someone on a game.

Does no one else think these tools are discouraging programming? This is why I dont like them. They make it seem like it's discouraged to fully code games.

I wrote a game in pure Java once: no API's, just everything in Java. I have to say, I had a LOT of fun making it.

I love coding. I spend at least 6 hours a day doing it.

At least someone else agrees that these tools limit you. You get more control if you code a game.

 

- These tools can help get a prototype out rather fast, and then when you have your idea down, you can code it up.

 

- Not everyone knows programmers that have time to spare, or that has time to work with programmers.

 

- These don't discourage programming, they offer an alternative. Particularly if programming is not your cup of tea but you still want to make a game. Not everyone is into spending several hours a day programming, and some may not have that much time to spend on it, going back to the fast prototyping. These can let you get your game out faster, and the end result, the desired result, is the game.

 

- These tools do limit you to the functionality they offer as well as how much you can expand the tools (I do believe some let you add some form of code).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not going to quote, but ill mention a few thing.

All the games I've played I know have.been coded. Minecraft was coded.

If you're a programmer, why would you use those tools?

If your a designer then work with someone on a game.

Does no one else think these tools are discouraging programming? This is why I dont like them. They make it seem like it's discouraged to fully code games.

I wrote a game in pure Java once: no API's, just everything in Java. I have to say, I had a LOT of fun making it.

I love coding. I spend at least 6 hours a day doing it.

At least someone else agrees that these tools limit you. You get more control if you code a game.

I usually use LibGDX and LÖVE for making games.

So really: if these tools exist, what's the point of coding one?

 

Please read over the replies people posted again, pretty much everything you ask has been answered.

 

If you take joy and pride in doing everything from the ground up all by yourself, then by all means go ahead and do so. If however you are working in a setting where lots of people of multiple disciplines have to work together and where you have to think of budget and time constraints it's often not a viable option to build everything from the ground up.

 

You mention using LibGDX, how is this any different from using any other tool? Why would it be ok in your eyes to use a library like LibGDX to program your games, but not OK to use a scripting language or "visual" language with the Unreal Engine, Unity or any other engine or framework? Why is it not OK to use some tool which has proven itself over and over again over the years? Why is it not OK to use a tool which is probably more performant and more bug-free than anything you could come up with on your own?

 

Aren't games meant to be all about the user experience? People playing your game don't care about how great of a programmer you are or how you wrote everything from scratch, all they care about is how fun your game is. Don't let the idea of "I'm too l33t of a programmer to use these tools" hinder your user's experiences.

Edited by Radikalizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a game in pure Java once: no API's, just everything in Java. I have to say, I had a LOT of fun making it.
 

I usually use LibGDX and LÖVE for making games.
 

 

You have to be trolling or you need to get your facts right, you're not using any APIs ?

You use LibGDX which is a framework doing the "lower level" API calls for you,

and even worse for your argumentation LÖVE is a game engine.

 

Not using an API would mean you're actually programming against the hardware itself.

 

So what now?

 

I dont want to offend you in any way but you seem to be not very experienced.

When doing larger projects you'll need tools anyway, so people tend to skip this part if a ready to use solution fits their needs.

And in my opinion thats totally legit, since it saves months if not years of development time and costs.

 

EDIT:

I too dont like Unity3D or GameMaker but thats because of the low price point everybody thinks he can be a "game developer" putting some stuff together resulting in rather bad games. Game development is much more than just putting something interactive to the screen.

Edited by LJ_1102

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game?

 

because the point is to build a game, not necessarily write code.

 

sounds like you feel that coding is the point. its not. coding is just a means to the end, which is to build a game.

 


So, is coding dying? Is it pointless to code now?

 

no. the things one can do without coding is limited.

 


Is Unity a Game Maker?

 

yes and no.

 

its a collection of libraries and tools that provide all the capabilities of a game maker, with the flexibility of libraries. so you can use just the bits you need to build a wider variety of games, as opposed to one basic type of game with different content. although i don't use it myself, i'd imagine it has the capability to drag and drop together a basic shooter level and run it, by simply using the tools and with no coding. 

 


I hope it's not just me that is against these programs.

 

probably what it is, is that you tend to enjoy coding, perhaps more than making games per se, and so the lack of "real game development" (IE coding) involved using a "game maker" or "engine" is distasteful to you. if such is the case, you may have a bright future as a coder, but may not enjoy other aspects of game development as much. 

 

i suffer from this myself. right now i should be making weapon models in TrueSpace, instead i'm thinking about component-entity systems and L2 cache friendly data organization. why? 'cause its more fun! <g>.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense OP, but I think you need to research a bit about what you're talking about. For example, what is considered an API, what is considered an engine, what is considered a framework, and so on.

 

By using "pure Java" you're sitting on the soulders of a 800 pound gorilla already, around 6 million lines of C, C++ and assembly that you didn't code (the JVM). Not even mentioning the 15 million lines of C and assembly that work under that (Linux kernel, as reference because who knows how many lines has a Windows kernel). What about the drivers? The firmware? The electrical engineers that designed a circuit that implements a LRU algorithm for a 10Mb cache in some piece of storage hardware?

 

Just have a little perspective OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got my entrance into programming through GameMaker.  Using drag 'n drop to build some simple games made me want to learn GML to make more complex games.  I eventually started exploring making 3d games with GameMaker, and my desire to make bigger and better things led me to learn C++ and Java (actually, it was in that order, believe it or not) as well as a little Python (I've never needed it a whole lot, so I never did a whole lot with it).  In other words, GameMaker got me into programming.  GameMaker is the reason I'm majoring in computer science.

 

My brother and I started working on a game a little while back, and we chose Unity to do it.  Why?  Because he doesn't know coding and I didn't feel like writing an engine that only I would be able to use.  I can do all the C# scripting and let him throw the actual game together using the assets and some ready-made components rather than make him draw stuff on graph paper for me to manually input myself.

 

Game making tools are just that: tools.  They don't replace the whole process, they just make it easier.  Throwing something together in pure code is a satisfying feeling, but would you rather reinvent the wheel every time you make a game just to get a spinning cube casting a shadow on a plane, or would you rather actually make the game?

 

I understand the DIY attitude.  I'd love to sit down and program a complete game engine with advanced resource management, clever optimizations, an awesome graphics renderer packed with every goodie you could want, a handcoded physics engine designed to offload computations onto the GPU through compute shaders, and an audio system that interacts with the physics engine to simulate how sound actually behaves.  Then again, I'd also like to spend my free time making games instead of worrying whether or not my scene graph is efficiently batching my drawing calls or if I can cut down on my CPU overhead by writing my own math library in assembly.

 

In other words, game makers are just time savers.  It's the same thing as using a belt sander instead of a piece of sand paper.  It's faster and often does a better job than you could have done alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most points being made by everybody except the OP.

 

I also want to say that in the case of GameMaker at least, the people on the forums tend to use the GML scripting code way much more than the D&D way, especially when you consider that there are simply some things the D&D can't do, and other things that would get very tedious to do with D&D.

 

What I don't understand is why not use the tool for the job??  I understand if YOU like coding, and have the time to do it, and you are perfectly fine doing so.  But don't down tools just because YOU don't want to use them.  I'm sure some older programmers could give you some words to learn from, as in why are you using LibGDX and LÖVE?  Couldn't you just replace those with your own code???  Just take that one level above, and you'll see why.

 

I don't have much time, or any games on sale.  But I can guarantee that in the time it takes you to "hardcore code" a game, someone else will have made 3, and likely 3 better games than your one, simply because they are using better tools for the job.

 

Now don't get me wrong here.  Coding has a place in gamedev.  There are indeed things that you won't find a tool to do for you, or there will be price constraints, or other barriers.  As assume as the UDK is, it doesn't have destructible terrain.  So if you need that, you'll have to code your own, or use another engine.  But then that other engine may not have as good of shadow/lighting as the UDK can do, and in the end, if you REALLY need all of the above, you'll either have to pay for an even better engine(which does exist I'm sure) or create your own, paying time instead of money.  Or, you will have to scale down your project, if you ever hope to finish it.  This assumes you don't have a massive budget and lots of people to help you.  Most of us are indies or indie wannabes, and even some simple hobbyists, and we don't have big budgets or big teams for the most part, so we make do with what we can, which includes using tools to get things done faster.  After all, we no longer have to walk from city to city right???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that creating anything with events count as "programming." Because in that regard being in game development or software development doesn't make you a programmer either, to be a programmer you actually have to program. Of course I wouldn't take that as being scientific in every case, people working on boats consider themselves sailors even if they're cooks in the kitchen.

 

That said, I can point out one thing I don't really understand when people criticize "game maker" software.

 

If that software is really better, more efficient, produces a better product than straight programming, then why aren't we all using it? People wouldn't pay, often rather decent amounts of money to program if it was worse than a significantly simplified version.

 

Because it isn't, because for a lot of projects that software does not compare to a programmer or a team of skilled programmers. If someone makes a game with it and enjoy it, why does that hurt anything? If anything I've noticed a pattern of people that criticise them being the ones that don't actually trust their own abilities.

Edited by Satharis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legend of Fae and Serious Sam: The Random Encounter were created with Game Maker.

Hotline: Miami and Barkley, Shut Up And Jam: Gaiden are two more Game Maker games, and there are doubtless more.

I am aware that GameMaker has GME, but who's going to use that when you can D&D?

Spoken like someone who has no clue what he's talking about.

The simple fact is that pure Drag & Drop in Game Maker is severely limited - to do anything interesting basically requires using GML. (Similarly, in the more recent versions of RPG Maker, to do anything beyond the default engine you have to rewrite large chunks of it in Lua.) At that point, Game Maker is not much different than something like Unity or UE - it frees you to focus on things like AI and game mechanics rather that having to write what is essentially boilerplate code to deal with things like interacting with the OS or putting an image on the screen.

In other words, programs like Game Maker let the user focus more on the actual "game" part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game?

 

because the point is to build a game, not necessarily write code.

 

sounds like you feel that coding is the point. its not. coding is just a means to the end, which is to build a game.

 

 

 


So, is coding dying? Is it pointless to code now?

 

no. the things one can do without coding is limited.

 

 

 


Is Unity a Game Maker?

 

yes and no.

 

its a collection of libraries and tools that provide all the capabilities of a game maker, with the flexibility of libraries. so you can use just the bits you need to build a wider variety of games, as opposed to one basic type of game with different content. although i don't use it myself, i'd imagine it has the capability to drag and drop together a basic shooter level and run it, by simply using the tools and with no coding. 

 

 

 


I hope it's not just me that is against these programs.

 

probably what it is, is that you tend to enjoy coding, perhaps more than making games per se, and so the lack of "real game development" (IE coding) involved using a "game maker" or "engine" is distasteful to you. if such is the case, you may have a bright future as a coder, but may not enjoy other aspects of game development as much. 

 

i suffer from this myself. right now i should be making weapon models in TrueSpace, instead i'm thinking about component-entity systems and L2 cache friendly data organization. why? 'cause its more fun! <g>.

 

 

Thank you for an actual answer. You know, that might be what it is. I've been looking into making general programs and not just games, and that seems to be a lot of fun(I found 1 maker(PyQT) and that kind of got on my nerves, but PyGTK, Tkinter, etc are all awesome).

 

I tend to only stick with something for about 6 months, then get bored of it and leave it, but with coding I still get the same thrill doing it as I did when I started 3 years ago.

 

So thank you for a serious answer. smile.png

 

Just FYI: The only game's I've played are Mr. BallGuy, my own game. Minecraft, PE & Xbox, and CubeWorld. These I know were coded. CubeWorld was C++ I believe. There were a few for the GameCube I think I've played, but I can't remember what they were.

 

Some people got interested in coding from GameMaker??? I've shown it to 10 people, and they give up coding because it's boring and GameMaker is fun. They haven't wrote a single line of code since. That's maybe part of the reason I'm against it. One of the people I was working on a game with, and he didn't want to code anymore and left. If it get's someone interested,  that's good. If it makes them give up code, then it's not so good. If they use it to get started then that's, as someone said, superb.

 

And all the people going on about UnrealEngine and UDK, I said not counting those. They are used to make High Quality games, and I understand why companies use them.

 

I had another friend who I was telling about code, and she was learning Python. Then she discovered Scratch and didn't want to code. I guess I must just take a big interest in code.

 

Yes, the fun part about coding. I don't just make games, as I said earlier, I'm experimenting with other types of apps and having a ton of fun with it.

 

I'd also like to say that from the sounds of it some people are saying that engines are these "tools". What about jMonkeyEngine? It's an engine, and it's code. You can use it to make really good 3D games.

 

I understand these tools are timesavers, but that's what I don't like. It sounds strange, but it's a good way to describe how I feel.

 

I have used these tools. I've even used UDK, and I must say it was the most boring thing I've ever done. I didn't find it fun at all. Some were even hard to use(UDK, I'm looking at you).

 

Maybe for some people the end goal is to make a game, but for me that's just a bonus. While coding, I've learned more about code, and therefore I can use that to make a better game the next time I make one. The end goal for me isn't to make a game, it's to have fun. That's what coding for me is all about: fun.

 

I make a player animated in Scratch, and it took about 30 minutes. It took me about 10 lines of code to do it in LÖVE, which took about 10 minutes. Maybe this is because I was familiar with LÖVE and not Scratch, but before I got into programming I used Scratch and couldn't use it at all. It was difficult for me to use. I find it easier to code. So for me these tools aren't really time savers.

 

I want to some day be an indie developer, but I don't want to use one of these "tools" to do it. No one will care, that's correct, as long as it's a fun game, but I'll care. I'll be able to say I did it myself and didn't use an engine to do it. It matters to me if a game is coded or not, because it will impact how much I enjoy the game. I saw my friend play Hotline: Miami, looked it up online and saw it wasn't coded and didn't play it, no matter how many times I was offered to, because it wasn't coded. So it matter's to at least 1 person in the world if a game is coded. You can't please all the people all the time, but I just wan't to say that it matters to some people if a game is coded, as it will impact their experience. I enjoyed Minecraft a lot more because I could play it and think "Mojang have put so much effort into coding all of this, and it's a really awesome game.", but if they had have used a maker(the game may have been better, but...), would there be the ability for mod support? It would have costed more to cover the costs of the engine that they used.

 

And who says if a game is coded it's not good quality?? CubeWorld was coded, and it's incredible. And it's not even FINISHED yet.

 

Basically: A game maker is good if it saves time and money, and if it get's someone interested in code it's great. If someone looks into these tools, and finds them better then code and doesn't have a desire to code because these tools exist, then it angers me a lot. For me: Time isn't an issue, I plan on making a game with LibGDX and it wont cost me a thing.

 

1 note: None of the people that have started to use GameMaker have not(and have told me they will not) use into GML. They are using these tools to avoid code. This is why I am against these tools. I have a friend that I talk to a lot, and he is interested in code because of GameMaker's GML(he never took an interest in the D&D). I have nothing against him for using GameMaker, I'm just happy he got into code biggrin.png

 

In a job setting, these tools might be(and most likely are) very useful. If you're just an indie/hobbyist, then they really only save time(not so much money, if you're a hobbyist or indie developer). Like I said before, coding is faster for me, it easier for me and it's fun.

 

Linus Torvalds: Most good programmers do programming not because they expect to get paid or get adulation by the public, but because it is fun to program. This gives me the inspiration to keep programming. Anyone agree with the quote?

 

EDIT: I tend to not focus on the actual "game" part, and more the programming part. Like I said, making the game is just the outcome of my learning.

Edited by Eamonn Rea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a distinctive difference between game developer and programmer, and you don't have to be a programmer to be a game developer(although rudimentary knowledge of it is an extremely important asset, IMHO.) You seem to have completely confused game development with programming.

These tools are targeted at game developers who just want to make a game, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them.

There's also many advantages to using these "game makers", the most obvious ones being they're great time savers and they allow game designers to easily drag and drop a game together which is fantastic because I no longer have to get yelled at for hours to change minor things while I'm in the middle of fixing engine bugs.

 

However, you seem to think there's a special award you can win for programming your own "game maker"... and you're right! The award you win is knowledge(A winner is you.) But a lot of people don't care how their car was made, and a lot of people don't care how their "game maker" was made. They just want to use the tool to get where they're going, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But you seem convinced that everything has to be done by you, or it's completely moot and doesn't matter... so I guess I'll just end with a quote.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. "

Edited by orangecat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Developing software is a journey, from the conception of the idea, to the finished product. One main goal, is to get the project from point A to point B as soon as they can. If the developer has no need for code, what is the point in wasting your time, and risking bugs? For most hobbyists, code is fun, and that is the reason they use code. For Indies trying to get a product to market, the most important things are speed, and money.

Many successful projects have been made using game maker, one example is the very popular Hotline Miami

 

If you felt so strongly against these programs, than you should feel equally against high-level languages such as VB, C++, Python, Java, and (your favorite)Lua.

These languages were all invented to make programming easier, the alternative being assembly, or even *gasp* machine code.

There is nothing wrong with making something easier and more accessible to the public.

Games are fun, and most "gamer kiddies" have a dream of making their own game.

These programs just let more people have the same fun that computer nerds have been having for the past few decades.

Edited by minibutmany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have very strong feelings for "Game Makers", some of which include "GameMaker", "Scratch", "Construct 2" and "GameSalad". I'm not against all Game Creators, the only 2 I'm not against are "UDK" and "Unreal Engine", because the amount of code involved to make graphics that HD would be phenomenal, so I understand why companies use them.

 

I am against, however, every other game maker in existence. Yes, I know they are not 100% game makers, but there is little code involved, and that get's on my nerves a lot. What I don't understand is: If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game? Is it due to people being lazy? I know some schools teach Scratch, which I thing is WRONG. It's not good to teach people how to use makers. You should be teaching code. If people want to use game makers, then they shouldn't be making games(again, not including stuff like UDK). I don't see the point in making a game if you're not going to code it. Instead of teaching Scratch, why not teach Python? Instead of teaching GameSalad, teach a better language.

 

Now, what really get's on my nerves is that people thing they're coding when they are using D&D stuff. There is a place I used to go to called "CoderDojo". They taught GameMaker and AppInventer. Now, how in the WORLD is that coding? You aren't sitting at an IDE and typing code, you're dragging and dropping. They taught Python, but you had to ask and they said "Coding? Why would you want to do that? Are you sure you want to do it?". That made me want to punch someone in the face. The people there that taught Python were planning on teaching C++, and agreed with me that GameMaker is wrong.

 

I'm going to state my opinion. It might not be right, but I want to express it:

 

GameMaker, Scratch, and every other game maker(once again, other then UDK and Unreal Engine) should be shut down, along with the companies that develop them. People should not be using little code. They should be using FULL code. The fun part about coding is sitting at an IDE and typing for hours and hours on end. That's what makes programming fun. You should be forced to code. Yes, you can argue you are still "cheating" by letting the language get compiled into Assembly or Binary. You can argue that, but I'm not the one dragging and dropping boxes into a window and clicking on sprites to make a game. In my opinion, the companies should be shut down, along with their engines. I'm not against the people that use them, I'm against the companies that develop them.

 

I am aware that GameMaker has GME, but who's going to use that when you can D&D?

 

I also have a few questions. I've seen a lot of people say that coding is dying. It will only be around for a few more years, then everyone will be using D&D programs to make programs. So, is coding dying? Is it pointless to code now? I don't believe it is, but I want to know what's going on here.

 

My other question is: Is Unity a Game Maker? I believe it uses C# 100%, and you can use Blender to make assets and such. Is Unity 100% code, or is it just another one of those makers?

 

If someone else has the same opinion(maybe even a stronger one), I'd love to hear it. I hope it's not just me that is against these programs.

 

I think the more salient question is: why do you care what other people are doing on their own time? Personally I don't like sour cream, but I don't get angry if a stranger orders a burrito with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I also have a few questions. I've seen a lot of people say that coding is dying. It will only be around for a few more years, then everyone will be using D&D programs to make programs. So, is coding dying? Is it pointless to code now? I don't believe it is, but I want to know what's going on here.

 

I think D&D programming will definitely become more popular, but probably just for 2d and simple 3d games.

We are far away from being able to drag-and-drop an operating system....not that it isn't possible, but it isn't practical.

Most games are very similar in the way that they work, which makes them ideal for D&D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Similar Content

    • By bryandalo
      Good day,

      I just wanted to share our casual game that is available for android.

      Description: Fight your way from the ravenous plant monster for survival through flips. The rules are simple, drag and release your phone screen. Improve your skills and show it to your friends with the games quirky ranks. Select an array of characters using the orb you acquire throughout the game.

      Download: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.HellmodeGames.FlipEscape&hl=en
       
      Trailer: 
       
    • By Manuel Berger
      Hello fellow devs!
      Once again I started working on an 2D adventure game and right now I'm doing the character-movement/animation. I'm not a big math guy and I was happy about my solution, but soon I realized that it's flawed.
      My player has 5 walking-animations, mirrored for the left side: up, upright, right, downright, down. With the atan2 function I get the angle between player and destination. To get an index from 0 to 4, I divide PI by 5 and see how many times it goes into the player-destination angle.

      In Pseudo-Code:
      angle = atan2(destination.x - player.x, destination.y - player.y) //swapped y and x to get mirrored angle around the y axis
      index = (int) (angle / (PI / 5));
      PlayAnimation(index); //0 = up, 1 = up_right, 2 = right, 3 = down_right, 4 = down

      Besides the fact that when angle is equal to PI it produces an index of 5, this works like a charm. Or at least I thought so at first. When I tested it, I realized that the up and down animation is playing more often than the others, which is pretty logical, since they have double the angle.

      What I'm trying to achieve is something like this, but with equal angles, so that up and down has the same range as all other directions.

      I can't get my head around it. Any suggestions? Is the whole approach doomed?

      Thank you in advance for any input!
       
    • By khawk
      Watch the latest from Unity.
       
    • By GytisDev
      Hello,
      without going into any details I am looking for any articles or blogs or advice about city building and RTS games in general. I tried to search for these on my own, but would like to see your input also. I want to make a very simple version of a game like Banished or Kingdoms and Castles,  where I would be able to place like two types of buildings, make farms and cut trees for resources while controlling a single worker. I have some problem understanding how these games works in the back-end: how various data can be stored about the map and objects, how grids works, implementing work system (like a little cube (human) walks to a tree and cuts it) and so on. I am also pretty confident in my programming capabilities for such a game. Sorry if I make any mistakes, English is not my native language.
      Thank you in advance.
    • By Ovicior
      Hey,
      So I'm currently working on a rogue-like top-down game that features melee combat. Getting basic weapon stats like power, weight, and range is not a problem. I am, however, having a problem with coming up with a flexible and dynamic system to allow me to quickly create unique effects for the weapons. I want to essentially create a sort of API that is called when appropriate and gives whatever information is necessary (For example, I could opt to use methods called OnPlayerHit() or IfPlayerBleeding() to implement behavior for each weapon). The issue is, I've never actually made a system as flexible as this.
      My current idea is to make a base abstract weapon class, and then have calls to all the methods when appropriate in there (OnPlayerHit() would be called whenever the player's health is subtracted from, for example). This would involve creating a sub-class for every weapon type and overriding each method to make sure the behavior works appropriately. This does not feel very efficient or clean at all. I was thinking of using interfaces to allow for the implementation of whatever "event" is needed (such as having an interface for OnPlayerAttack(), which would force the creation of a method that is called whenever the player attacks something).
       
      Here's a couple unique weapon ideas I have:
      Explosion sword: Create explosion in attack direction.
      Cold sword: Chance to freeze enemies when they are hit.
      Electric sword: On attack, electricity chains damage to nearby enemies.
       
      I'm basically trying to create a sort of API that'll allow me to easily inherit from a base weapon class and add additional behaviors somehow. One thing to know is that I'm on Unity, and swapping the weapon object's weapon component whenever the weapon changes is not at all a good idea. I need some way to contain all this varying data in one Unity component that can contain a Weapon field to hold all this data. Any ideas?
       
      I'm currently considering having a WeaponController class that can contain a Weapon class, which calls all the methods I use to create unique effects in the weapon (Such as OnPlayerAttack()) when appropriate.
  • Advertisement