next »

[Erinock]

Over the past few months I have been subtly thinking, is game maker worth it? I mean I have been using it since I was twelve. I feel there is this vibe of incompetentence when it comes to discussing game maker. I do not doubt it as a worthy tool, but is it worth the time when I could have much more unlocked by going and learning XNA or UDK? My faith in it was restored a bit when they brought out Studio and HTML5, but I still have my doubts.

Thoughts?

[rdein]

in the long run it's better if you learn something like C++ or whatever

but for prototyping quick things, sure

[1982]

Don't listen the carpenters saying you ought to make your own ax and hammer. Even coming up with perfect ax and hammer, you just lose all your time making them.

I think Game Maker is very nice tool, and if you already have long experience with it then it is even better. Of course it depends also on the type of game you want to make. Not all projects are suitable with GM.

[Glyph]

There is definitely a vibe of incompetence when it comes to GM and the community around it. That's because it's easily accessible, so a lot of inexperienced/completely new programmers will use it. That doesn't mean that GM itself is bad, though it gets a bad rep all the same. There's hardly anything wrong with Game Maker fundamentally, so there's really no reason to question its 'worth'. What you do need to question, however, is how much portability means to you. Game Maker has no support for cross-platform games (I've heard about that HTML5 Game Maker, actually, but I've also heard it sucks).

[Richard Kain]

The environment that Game Maker finds itself in is far different from when it first started gaining a following. It is a much more competitive market for game engines. This is especially true when major developers like Epic are offering indie-friendly licenses for their engines.

I personally favor Unity at the moment. With engines like Unity available free for commercial use, its hard to see an editor like Game Maker maintaining relevance.

[rdein]

well the main problem is that while GM works for most indie things (like making a 2D platformer or whatever), if you find yourself trying to make Aquaria in it, things wont go so well.

it's not fast/optimized enough for a lot of things, specially in a big project where it will take ages to load assets, etc.

of course this is based on my experience using GM7 and its equivalents (8/8.1). i have no idea about what GM Studio is capable of but judging by Yoyogames' achievements in the past, i wouldn't expect much from it.

[Muz]

Construct seems better, in that it's easier to learn and smoother to write programs with. But I haven't really used GM much. The issue with game making software is that you end up hitting an upper limit when you create epic games, at places where the software isn't meant to go.

And it doesn't really scale up well.. I mean like with things like Java/C++ or other object-oriented programming, it's just really easy to abstract out things, so your code isn't a tangled mess after half a year.

[SodiumEyes]

I used GameMaker for many years before I started coding in C++. It can be daunting when you realize just how much GameMaker does for you (like providing a level editor), but if you're not doing yourself a favor getting comfortable with its limitations.

The best way to go would be learning a new language by creating things that aren't games. A game is easily one of the most complicated things you can possibly make, so approaching a language with the sole intention of making a game is far too intimidating to encourage learning.

[C.D Buckmaster]

A good game is a good game, regardless of the tools used to make it.

However, if you feel limited by game maker's approach to development, then I would recommend experimenting with other options.

[Erinock]

C.D Buckmaster, my point can be made right in your signature  

Luckily GML is basically made for retards, so it shouldn\'t be too hard for you to pick up.

[John Sandoval]

were you making a point or asking a question

[Cheezmeister]

A good game is a good game, regardless of the tools used to make it.

However, if you feel limited by game maker's approach to development, then I would recommend experimenting with other options.

This. When it's time to switch, you'll know, because you yourself will have just decided "I'm going to use <tool X> for <game Y> because then I'll be able to <awesome feature Z>!" You won't need us to tell you that.

Until then? Use the GM you've always known and loved. Haters gon' hate.

[Morroque]

I've been a part of a few project teams where I would've been the closest thing to a "non coder" in the room, in as much that coding was not my single asset. In cases like those, the programmer's pride in coding *absolutely everything* from scratch led to some pretty bland, boring, and insubstantial games, if only because by the time we got around to actually being able to test our product, so much time had passed we didn't even know what we were making anymore. It started things off as a technical project, not a creative one.

I'd wager that any tool like GM is essential for making a quick prototype, so you at least understand the type of game you're supposed to be making, and also to know if it will be any fun to develop further. If the prototype is worth it, there will always be time to get it into a more "proper" system, and it will be more refined due to it. ... Sadly, this position of mine was not too popular with the guild senior. I'm in the mind to leave if the slow rate of progress continues.

You know, I wonder if the so-called major developers chastise rival studios for using the Unreal Engine in the same way we're talking here?

[1982]

the programmer's pride

It is fear.

Various tools like GM, Unity, UDK, Construct, and much more have shown that it is possible for an artist to make a game without a coder. Making him useless asset.

And now shit storm from coders follows:

 |
\/

[moi]

but at the end , the artist have become a coder