All this for 2d?
Author
Hi all,
I bought Game Programming for Windows not that long ago. I wanted to create a simple 2d game. After reading a large portion, I''m amazed at how much work it is to create a simple 2d game. You should be able to create something along the same level of complexity as tic-tac-toe in about an hour, with all these calls to Windows and event handling and such it seems like even the simplest application would be very tough.
By the way for all you super-game programmers is DX 5 much more difficult that DX7 or DX8.
Thanks
Was there a question?
Anyway, once you have the shell of a windows app, you should be able to use that for any project from then on. That should save you a lot of time from the start. Books like Game Programming for Dummies & Tricks of the Windows Game Programming Gurus include such a shell.
DirectX is a powerful tool, so the first time you use it you should expect to spend some time building libraries to make setup fairly easy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wait, wait, wait....who''s Nambla Fett?
Anyway, once you have the shell of a windows app, you should be able to use that for any project from then on. That should save you a lot of time from the start. Books like Game Programming for Dummies & Tricks of the Windows Game Programming Gurus include such a shell.
DirectX is a powerful tool, so the first time you use it you should expect to spend some time building libraries to make setup fairly easy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wait, wait, wait....who''s Nambla Fett?
If you find there is too much work involved in 2d dx5 programming, don''t touch dx8, because there is no directdraw in it. I find dx7 very good to use for 2d games, though. I don''t know a whole lot about the differences in dx between version 5 and 7, but I would say it would be worth switching.
Also, for a tic-tac-toe game, you don''t need a whole lot. The hardest part would be AI and that is optional if you want to make a strictly 2 human player version of the game.
Also, for a tic-tac-toe game, you don''t need a whole lot. The hardest part would be AI and that is optional if you want to make a strictly 2 human player version of the game.
Author
Well that''s interesting. What I was trying to get across in my first email is that there is such a huge learning curve when starting to game program. Programming seems, so much (programming) for so little (game.)
I''m not interesting in using one of those game making programs. But I certainly think MS should have made peoples lives a little easier with DX.
Any hope for easy 2d in DX9?
I''m not interesting in using one of those game making programs. But I certainly think MS should have made peoples lives a little easier with DX.
Any hope for easy 2d in DX9?
Yeah 2d in DX8 is a bit daunting, but once you get started and have done your first game + a made some simple helper funcitons, you should be able to whip out a fairly flash looking TicTacToe in no time at all.
You could always use QuickBASIC to learn programming. I wrote Gravity Kills in 100 lines of code in QB. It took 3000 in DX 7. It''s available in the showcase and at The Rabbit Hole.
DirectX 7 is much better than previous versions. One reason is that DX7 won''t lock your computer up if you accidently blit something off the edge of the screen.
As you get better it''ll take less and less code to do what you want. If you want to learn you might as well start learning now. It''s only going to get harder.
Ben
DirectX 7 is much better than previous versions. One reason is that DX7 won''t lock your computer up if you accidently blit something off the edge of the screen.
As you get better it''ll take less and less code to do what you want. If you want to learn you might as well start learning now. It''s only going to get harder.
Ben
2d in dx8 is actually pretty simple - I got something nice up and running a lot faster than I ever did with dx7. Maybe I''m just an oddball, and just like 3d stuff more better. 
But ysotuff touches on something that bugs me to no end - the misconception that game development is easy, and how little effort should go into a game.
I''m a professional game developer. I''ve been programming games in a professional environment for the past 6 years. I''ve worked on (and shipped) professional products for PCs, Macs, PS1 and PS2. Where does the misconception that any of the process is easy come in? Is it because games are a fun pasttime?
I''m so sick of "but why don''t you have a real job?" when I tell people what I do.
-scott
But ysotuff touches on something that bugs me to no end - the misconception that game development is easy, and how little effort should go into a game.
I''m a professional game developer. I''ve been programming games in a professional environment for the past 6 years. I''ve worked on (and shipped) professional products for PCs, Macs, PS1 and PS2. Where does the misconception that any of the process is easy come in? Is it because games are a fun pasttime?
I''m so sick of "but why don''t you have a real job?" when I tell people what I do.
-scott
quote:Original post by ysotuff
Well that''s interesting. What I was trying to get across in my first email is that there is such a huge learning curve when starting to game program. Programming seems, so much (programming) for so little (game.)
I''m not interesting in using one of those game making programs. But I certainly think MS should have made peoples lives a little easier with DX.
Any hope for easy 2d in DX9?
Well, MS DID make your life easier. Instead of having to write different versions for each proprietary hardware interface, you only have to worry about writing to the DirectX interface.
IMHO, the actual game code should be much harder than getting DX up & running. Just follow the examples from a book/site/documentation.
And I doubt you will see 2D get any easier in DX9 because the focus has shifted to 3D.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wait, wait, wait....who''s Nambla Fett?
Author
scaught, I agree with you people who''ve never tried to program games usually think it''s way easier than it actually is.
I do think that 2D game programming should be a lot easier than it is. Correct me if I''m wrong but 2d programming should essentially come down to.
1. Display picture
2. Have events happen with user input.
3. Change picture
The is obviously ridiculously simple. But I firmly believe that if MS made if a priority they could have made 2d a lot easier to implement. For instance although my DX knowledge is minimal to say the least I know you need to create some device and do things with that device (I think) why can''t you do all the stuff you need to with in built ''options'' that would be created specifically for 2D games. When will MS learn less is more!
I do think that 2D game programming should be a lot easier than it is. Correct me if I''m wrong but 2d programming should essentially come down to.
1. Display picture
2. Have events happen with user input.
3. Change picture
The is obviously ridiculously simple. But I firmly believe that if MS made if a priority they could have made 2d a lot easier to implement. For instance although my DX knowledge is minimal to say the least I know you need to create some device and do things with that device (I think) why can''t you do all the stuff you need to with in built ''options'' that would be created specifically for 2D games. When will MS learn less is more!
People do do what you''re talking about all the time, its called an engine more or less. There are a lot of engines out that that you can use, though most of them are 3D engines. I''d recommend starting with a library like Allegro, then moving on to SDL. With Allegro you get to making games a lot faster than you would otherwise, and you learn the basics before having to deal with the intricacies.
------------
- outRider -
------------
- outRider -
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
