next »

[s0]

also gaming "boycotts" have never worked and will never work.

[J-Snake]

do you criticize somebody for using scriptwriting software instead of writing everything in notepad?

I personally have nothing against middleware by principle, if it is in good hands. But your argument has a weak point. When you use scriptwriting software you still understand writing, so you fully understand the result your scriptwriting software is producing, the intended text in the file. But most people don't understand the exact result when they use a physics engine. And all caring developers know that games are instable systems, slight mechanical changes can fix or ruin a game.

i had a long post typed here but then i realized i was wasting my time responding to somebody so clueless and dense so instead i will say that you are pretentious as fuck and your counter-argument makes absolutely no goddamn sense

In other words you don't understand what I am saying because you are not much invested into the technical nature of games.

[Torchkas]

He's saying that you don't need to know how a system works in order to be able to use it.

[eyeliner]

Hey, y'all. I'm coding a game from scratch, can't make it and someone makes games faster than me in Unity, GameMaker, RPGMaker, whatever and I'm pissed.

That's what I get from this thread.

Amirite?

[ProgramGamer]

Well, I pretty much already admitted to being wrong, but yeah we're pissed because we're jealous of others. -_-

[J-Snake]

He's saying that you don't need to know how a system works in order to be able to use it.

That's correct, you don't need to understand how the underlying system produces the result (except you want to optimize for performance, but it is not relevant for the argument).

You only need to understand the result, and here is the difference. The analogy to scriptwriting software is only appropriate in an ideal and very simple world. You exactly understand the result of a scriptwriting software. But how many understand the result after a collision interaction? In order to understand this result the engine has to provide a description of its functionality in a level of detail so that it can be exactly reproduced. But the concrete implementation is still hidden and not relevant for the user here. So in other words you still have to be invested into mechanical aspects of game creation. And if you ignore it, you may suffer from the problems related to collision interactions like many games out there already do.

[Torchkas]

Yes and unlike a script, the system isn't the only merit a game has. It is an important aspect, but to judge them solely on this aspect is ignorant to what games are able to offer.

[J-Snake]

The main problem is that games are instable mechanical systems. So a tiny change in mechanics can break them, even when they have more to offer like story, artistic beauty, etc. For example the game "Woolfe - The Red Hood Diaries" heavily suffered from mechanical issues, despite of its strong artistic value. This does not necessarily apply to every game.

Creating properly working games will always be hard, regardless of the engine you are using. And if some companies, commercials etc. make it look easy then it is an illusion.

Everyone can do what he likes with public engines. I am only pointing out the reality that goes along with it. On a related note, feel free to read up the experience of a former game developer:

"Game engines help, but every game is essentially made from scratch"
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/3cg2hc/repost_as_a_former_developer_theres_a_lot_of/

[gimymblert]

SOME Game, not all game rely on collision physics, there is many game system that are entirely contain in the gameplay of even a thing like unity.

And the existence of writing seminar show that being able to write (even successfully) does not mean that the understanding of all the writing is known, one can still acquire concept and have insight on his own writing.

There is intuitive understanding and deep understanding, most people only need the intuitive to start doing stuff that can be of very high quality, Tolkien is arguably a better storyteller than a technical fiction writer.

So there is always a gradation from intuitive to deep understanding. New engine just lower the bar to entry and build confidence.

[Cobralad]

[gimymblert]

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/3cg2hc/repost_as_a_former_developer_theres_a_lot_of/

No game has ever finished early

WRONG
Five night at freddy series - Scott Cawton

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/3cg2hc/repost_as_a_former_developer_theres_a_lot_of/

No game has ever finished early

WRONG
Five night at freddy series - Scott Cawton

+1 , and the way he uses clickteam  is almost flawless.

[J-Snake]

And the existence of writing seminar show that being able to write (even successfully) does not mean that the understanding of all the writing is known, one can still acquire concept and have insight on his own writing.

That is wrong analogy. The result is the intended text and its layout, not its meaning.

Games don't have to function on top of predetermined ways provided by a foreign engine. This is why you should evaluate whether the engine is suited for your game needs or not. The more you want to express yourself individually in the game, the less productivity features of a foreign engine you will tend to use since they unlikely match your intention. It is like with a painter who is only allowed to use the red color for his paintings. Sure, a talented painter can still put out beautiful and diverse paintings, and that in a relatively short time since he only has to take the red color into account. But all of these paintings have something striking in common, they are red. The more colors you add to the mix, the more variety in paintings you can produce. So the more you replace predefined engine functionality with your own "colors", the more you can make your game function in a different way.

I agree that not everyone has to use all colors to paint. I also enjoy red paintings if they are well made.

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

your obsession with technical quality is unhealthy...

[ProgramGamer]

What are you talking about? Obsessing with technical quality is what advances us technologically. Imagine a world where Thomas Edison (Nicolas Tesla?) Just says fuck it when trying to invent the light bulb and ends up making a shitty thing that explodes half the time and flickers the other 50%. Wouldn't that be a fun world to live in?

Edit: Conversely, i recognize that you were talking about J-Snake's obsession specifically and not technical quality in general, so your point might be valid.

[Dragonmaw]

In other words you don't understand what I am saying because you are not much invested into the technical nature of games.

Or I understand you perfectly and think you're full of shit for the reasons Torchkas and Gimmy have said, among many (many) others.

[gimymblert]

And the existence of writing seminar show that being able to write (even successfully) does not mean that the understanding of all the writing is known, one can still acquire concept and have insight on his own writing.

That is wrong analogy. The result is the intended text and its layout, not its meaning.

Games don't have to function on top of predetermined ways provided by a foreign engine. This is why you should evaluate whether the engine is suited for your game needs or not. The more you want to express yourself individually in the game, the less productivity features of a foreign engine you will tend to use since they unlikely match your intention. It is like with a painter who is only allowed to use the red color for his paintings. Sure, a talented painter can still put out beautiful and diverse paintings, and that in a relatively short time since he only has to take the red color into account. But all of these paintings have something striking in common, they are red. The more colors you add to the mix, the more variety in paintings you can produce. So the more you replace predefined engine functionality with your own "colors", the more you can make your game function in a different way.

I agree that not everyone has to use all colors to paint. I also enjoy red paintings if they are well made.

Your analogy is still flawed, most writer DON'T understand page layout, there are oblivious to what makes a fonts and good pagination, they don't know about interlining or kerning, they don't know how the margin follow the tschichold canon.

Similarly many game don't need deep knowledge of the underlining stuff as long as the overall meaning and experience is preserved, much like Tolkien defied, without knowing it, elements of good writing (such as concise exposition).

Most painter don't make the painting either, they wouldn't even know where to start, they buy pallet already made for them to use on a prepaid canvas. But the way pigment, binder and solvent interact to make a specific type of painting (acrylic, gouache or oil for the most common) is oblivious to most.

What you said make sense, but you are pushing it too far, which is good for some stuff and broke everything else.

[Dragonmaw]

Also, most writers don't know the many intricate rules relating to their language, instead relying on an intuitive understanding which often makes their prose more poetic. Writers rarely have a detailed, meticulous, academic knowledge of linguistics and etymology, and if they do it often makes their books worse (Tolkien, for example)

[Mittens]

lol @ it being nothing, but that's beside the point
which is that a submission fee could (should) cover the costs of the curating process

the greenlight submission fee is curation

if a developer doesn't believe in their game enough to back it with 100 dollars then you can be sure valve do not want to try selling it on their store.

[J-Snake]

Also, most writers don't know the many intricate rules relating to their language, instead relying on an intuitive understanding which often makes their prose more poetic. Writers rarely have a detailed, meticulous, academic knowledge of linguistics and etymology, and if they do it often makes their books worse (Tolkien, for example)

Poetry is not an instable technical system.