My favorite language is C++. If I could build a game in any language, that would be it. But, I have far too many years of programming experience, and have programmed Assembler on many platforms, and this deeper knowledge makes C++ particularly good for me: I understand what the compiler generates, how to improve it where necessary (via rewriting C++ code, or using inline assembly). I have been programming with classes as long as there have been classes, and pointers since, well, since C.

The language I am most familiar and fluent with is C#. Why? Because much of the work I have done since 2002 has been well suited to a somewhat more RAD environment, and I liked C#'s syntax. I can write a business app in C# fully 10 times faster than I can in C++.

But now here I am, writing a game (and engine), and I am doing it in Java. I programmed java in it's early years but grew disgusted with it because it changed too quickly. I dropped it, and picked it back up when Android released in '08.

So why am I using Java?

I want portability. My code will run without revision on Mac, Linux and Windows, and with only minor revision (because of how I have structured my program), on Android. This is a huge win.

Further, if the choice of language (real language, not scripting language) matters where performance is concerned (given they are perhaps 10% different on average, or 2x worst case), I believe an architecture bug is to blame. In other words, I could make the code much faster in C++, but if the switch to java significantly injures the game's playability, there is a bug in my design.
So, from this you should be able to discern my suggestion. To elaborate on that, I would recommend staying away from all scripting languages and lesser known languages. Why? You want to not only make an awesome game, but gain valuable and reusable skills, using tools that are widely excepted and used by as many people as possible (in case you strike it rich and need to hire people for the next release :-)

Not to put a damper on things, but HScottH did not say he thought you would strike it rich. You seem to be reading a lot into certain posts where you feel there is some positivity.

That's not to say that's a bad thing, but you should keep in mind that just because you agree with something, or someone says something you like - it doesn't make their every word The Truth™.

In my opinion, and this might come off as being negative in your eyes, you will not be able to create a game that surpasses Watch_Dogs on a technical level on your own in a relevant timescale. You will not be able to create an engine which looks and runs better than Watch_Dogs, while also creating art assets and other content that equals or surpasses Watch_Dogs on your own - both in terms of content and quality, unless you spend so much time that whatever you do is already outdated before it's done.

I.e. if you dedicate 20 years to it, you might be getting some extreme results (by today's standards), but you would still be left in the dust compared to AAA games in that time frame.

My logic for saying that has really been said already, but to recap it:

Imagine a studio with e.g. 5 programmers and 5 artists (in addition to other designers, audio, writers, etc.) spending 2 years making a single game. This will not be a AAA game on the scale you're wanting to make (as is easily proved by looking at some credits lists for the games you're wanting to compare yourself to).

Now, this hypothetical studio most likely hires people who are more experienced than you, but for sake of argument, let's say they are completely inexperienced. Let's even say 2 of them are complete dead-weights, adding nothing to the product.
Even in this completely contrived scenario, if you wanted to replicate their work exactly, you would have to spend more than 15 years on your own.

Or, put another way: if you were able to make a AAA looking game on your own, in 6 - 9 months, why are the studios with enough money and expertise to blow you away at every turn spending years, with insane amount of people working for them? Why aren't they hiring people like you?

Because you cannot do what you think.

You do not realize your limits.

Now, that's not to say you should just abandon all game development dreams. If you want to be successful, you need to scope your projects better. Reaching outside your comfort zone is excellent stuff, as it allows you to grow and increase your abilities, and potentially create something new and fascinating.

You cannot compete with Watch_Dogs on an engine level, create an open world game as they do.

What you can do, is create something else. You can potentially even create a game that's subjectively speaking better than Watch_Dogs ever will be, but it won't be based on the quality of the shaders and engine work.

Not to put a damper on things, but HScottH did not say he thought you would strike it rich. You seem to be reading a lot into certain posts where you feel there is some positivity.
That's not to say that's a bad thing, but you should keep in mind that just because you agree with something, or someone says something you like - it doesn't make their every word The Truth™.

In my opinion, and this might come off as being negative in your eyes, you will not be able to create a game that surpasses Watch_Dogs on a technical level on your own in a relevant timescale. You will not be able to create an engine which looks and runs better than Watch_Dogs, while also creating art assets and other content that equals or surpasses Watch_Dogs on your own - both in terms of content and quality, unless you spend so much time that whatever you do is already outdated before it's done.
I.e. if you dedicate 20 years to it, you might be getting some extreme results (by today's standards), but you would still be left in the dust compared to AAA games in that time frame.

My logic for saying that has really been said already, but to recap it:
Imagine a studio with e.g. 5 programmers and 5 artists (in addition to other designers, audio, writers, etc.) spending 2 years making a single game. This will not be a AAA game on the scale you're wanting to make (as is easily proved by looking at some credits lists for the games you're wanting to compare yourself to).
Now, this hypothetical studio most likely hires people who are more experienced than you, but for sake of argument, let's say they are completely inexperienced. Let's even say 2 of them are complete dead-weights, adding nothing to the product.
Even in this completely contrived scenario, if you wanted to replicate their work exactly, you would have to spend more than 15 years on your own.

Or, put another way: if you were able to make a AAA looking game on your own, in 6 - 9 months, why are the studios with enough money and expertise to blow you away at every turn spending years, with insane amount of people working for them? Why aren't they hiring people like you?
Because you cannot do what you think.
You do not realize your limits.

Now, that's not to say you should just abandon all game development dreams. If you want to be successful, you need to scope your projects better. Reaching outside your comfort zone is excellent stuff, as it allows you to grow and increase your abilities, and potentially create something new and fascinating.

You cannot compete with Watch_Dogs on an engine level, create an open world game as they do.
What you can do, is create something else. You can potentially even create a game that's subjectively speaking better than Watch_Dogs ever will be, but it won't be based on the quality of the shaders and engine work.

You said HscottH didn't say i will strike it rich and that i like reading a lot into posts that i think there is positivity. I won't even spend time replying that as it makes no sense. I've asked and am still asking questions that make the bits and pieces of my goal. I've already seen a guy creating a gta style game with unity and that's all i need.

Why quote the entire post if you only read the first 2 sentences and ignore the rest?

I don't see what part of my post makes no sense - if you explain why it makes no sense to you I could try rephrasing things.

---

EDIT: Ah, I see in your reply that you admit to just ignoring everything.

Well, there's no point in replying to someone who doesn't care, and I don't want to bump the thread, so that's it for me.

Why quote the entire post if you only read the first 2 sentences and ignore the rest?
I don't see what part of my post makes no sense - if you explain why it makes no sense to you I could try rephrasing things.

ENOUGH.

This is WAY off topic, and almost certainly not useful to the original poster. This is the For Beginners forum guys; you should be thinking about whether or not a post will actually be helpful and informative and only replying if the answer is yes, not posting pages of replies arguing with each other.

julius013:

Sorry your question probably hasn't been answered amongst all this mess. I'm closing this topic to stifle further pointless argument, and I would suggest you post a new topic if you want actual answers to your question. I'll send you a private message with the same advice in case you've already been driven away from this topic.

Nathan2222:

Please don't quote entire large posts if you're not even responding to them, or use the "selective quote" option to only quote a sentence or two if that's all you're replying to. Also try to read and properly understand what you're replying to before engaging in a heated argument; there have been multiple instances in this topic where you've latched onto some single line from a post out of context and replied to disagree with it, ignoring the fact that when placed in context you're actually disagreeing with something that wasn't really being said. Context matters, and you need to take the surrounding text into account when responding to a quote.

Try not to take things personally; it's ok to be wrong or for others to add more or different information. You're still a beginner, and it's a good thing when more experienced users provide more, additional, or corrected information.

Also, it was nit-picky, but "LUA" (rather than the correct form "Lua") bugs a lot of programmers and will probably be nit-picked again in future if repeated. If you want to emphasise use bold or italic text rather than incorrectly capitalising.

BHXSpecter:

If someone isn't listening to reason it probably won't be helpful to continue replying to them; you may be better in future to simply stop replying rather than dragging out a lengthy argument, or if you think something is over-stepping the mark you can report posts to get a moderator involved.

Topic closed.