next »

[Perrin]

I've made games with code using C++ with DirectX, XNA and Flixel

I've made games with engines Game Maker, Unity and Wintermute.

Personally I'm a big fan of engines as they allow me to make games and get them finished. Myself I find no joy in programming as a thing in itself, having a clean code base or and an efficient engine are not something I feel any satisfaction from. I know I'm not the same as many others in this regard.

For me the joy of all this is in making games. So I'm happy to take whatever shortcuts I can to get my games finished. I find with stuff like Game Maker it might be a bit more restrictive but any designer with even a modicum of skill can work around those limitations and make what they want.

The main thing that draws me to working with stuff like Flixel and Unity when they take a lot more work is the extra platforms you can reach. Basically I want to make games and them reach an audience. Personally in my experience working in C++ just draws me away from that as I spend all my times making engine code and not games.

[Loren Schmidt]

I'm all for using game creation tools. They occupy a really great niche. I see some really talented people turn out some really great things using these tools, and I'm all for their continued existence.

I'm very interested in the continued development of this kind of tool- specifically I feel like there's an unfilled niche for low learning curve creation tools. I feel like there should be more intuitive, visually oriented tools out there, because some people just aren't comfortable with computers, or are daunted by learning to use Game Maker or Construct. I feel like there are still people out there who are waiting for the right tools to come along.

Personally I lean toward AS3 / Java / C ++, but I think it's more personal preference than a functionally driven decision. One thing I enjoy about it is saying, "this pixel should be right there" and then having the pixel go exactly where I told it to go. One thing I hate about it is that (especially within AS3) I'm often frustrated by the way the system is engineered and its lack of flexibility or reliability. For instance, Flash's laggy sound bothers me to no end... sometimes I'd rather have more low level control.

[BadgerManufactureInc]

when I was in college I did the majority of my painting in oils, I don't think I ever had someone come to me and say, "Why don't you use acrylics?"

There's infinite ways of coding, whereas only a few recognised art mediums.  Clearly it's not the same scenario on a number of levels.  In fact it's difficult to compare gamedev to any artform as it's so new.

For instance, Flash's laggy sound bothers me to no end... sometimes I'd rather have more low level control.

I'm still getting used to AS3's method of playing sounds. I think most of the parameters are optional but it seems param 1 is 'start' the starting millisecond to play the sound.

play(startTime:Number = 0, loops:int = 0, sndTransform:SoundTransform = null)

So instead of snd.play() you could try snd.play(6) which I think makes it start playing from the 6th millisecond of the sample.

I do that it may just be wishful thinking but it seems to make the sounds play quicker.

Gamemaker is a brilliant way to learn gamedev.  I was lucky enough to use amos on the amiga so I didn't need to start with it.  Francois Lionet created a SUPERB framework there.

[iggie]

I try to check out lots of game dev tools, and I seriously try to persuade myself to use middleware rather than write the engine... but each time I decide I would be restricted by the license, graphics tools and would spend too long learning the middleware instead of writing my game.

In the end my games are about 80% art, gameplay and testing and the bit that is all the technical junk that makes an engine/middleware is only 20% so I just go for the easiest + fastest option, which for me is self-code.

[Dim_Yimma_H]

Personally I feel I get more knowledge out of programming than of editing, and honestly do spend more time on learning things than on producing things. I often want to shift over more to production though, but I still crave for a bit more knowledge.

[alspal]

I feel like there should be more intuitive, visually oriented tools out there, because some people just aren't comfortable with computers, or are daunted by learning to use Game Maker or Construct. I feel like there are still people out there who are waiting for the right tools to come along.

I don't know. I think someone who really wants to make games, won't be so daunted. They'll be passionate enough to at least learn something like Construct or Gammaker.

[Kicks]

I learned a lot having to design my own editors, but now I'm definitely looking for middleware in the future. Everything I did, I know they are doing better. Perhaps it was required for me to realize that certain programs really do a lot for you. I'm also happy that I learned myself and can use it for tools I may need to create down the line.

[SHilbert]

I think it's either hubris or some form of programming masochism.

Actually, I think it comes down to knowing I'm capable of working without one and being enough of a control freak to want to be able to change anything that bothers me (rather than be at the mercy of the tool.)

There's also the platform thing -- I'm currently working on an XBLIG game but that's really not the primary deciding factor.

[Toeofdoom]

I tend to use C++ open source engines if there is a decent advantage to doing so, like being able to mess with the physics to a greater extent. It often doesn't take much more work if you're developing a game that needs no constructed content (levels etc.) and you're fighting with the scripting less.

On the other hand, my AGBIC thingo is an RPG in 3d, which requires nearly no physics and quite a bit of world building so creating it in unity is worth the horrible javascripting. I'm sure javascript can look nice when done right, but I'm using as if it's C++ and it gets kinda silly. Should set up proper C# coding for it, sometime.

[TheLastBanana]

Since I'm still learning C++, I have to say I always feel like I've accomplished more when I complete an engine feature that I programmed from scratch than when I'm using Game Maker. That said, it'll probably wear off once I know what I'm doing a little more. Game Maker is definitely better for making smaller games since you don't have to focus so much on the engine, but on the other hand, if you've got a really solid engine in C++, that gives you a bit more flexibility.

[ZOMGBananas]

To some extent for me, using programs like Construct or Game Maker feels cheap (I know, it's not) - not in a poor quality sense, but in a "place player, baddie, goal; there, working game" sense. It feels like cheating to me. My mind tends to just get bored if there is no challenge - I always have grown up with the idea that to make games, you need to learn how to do all this crazy difficult programming.

I have, however, been learning AS3 as part of class, and as an extension, I'm teaching myself to use FlashPunk, which I am finding to be very rewarding. Hopefully I'll know enough soon enough to have a game up.

[Theotherguy]

I don't use them because quite frankly using them feels like having my arms and legs chopped off and told to win a race. Too much abstraction. Not enough fine control. Little control over structures and frameworks. Little control over distribution and integration with the underlying computer system. Difficult to optimize.

I do use some frameworks like processing and game-maker when I want to make a quick prototype, but for serious games I shy away from such contrivances.

[voidSkipper]

Making the engine is the fun part for me... skipping all the enjoyment of low-level coding and going to the boring game design phase would be terrible D:

[s0]

I used to think working with GM and similar tools wasn't "real game development".  I screwed around with C++ for some time, never really getting anything done apart from some crappy, buggy text-based games.

I've been working with GM for 2 years now and it allows me mostly reduce game development to the things I actually enjoy about it.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

To some extent for me, using programs like Construct or Game Maker feels cheap (I know, it's not) - not in a poor quality sense, but in a "place player, baddie, goal; there, working game" sense. It feels like cheating to me. My mind tends to just get bored if there is no challenge - I always have grown up with the idea that to make games, you need to learn how to do all this crazy difficult programming.

first of all, using GM will is quite challenging -- there are all kind of optimizations that are necessary to get a game running at decent speed in GM. i've even used loop unwinding and such, there are plenty of programming challenges even if you use GML.

but more importantly, the real 'challenge' of making a game should not be the programming, it should be the game design: making a game is challenging enough. level design is challenging, balancing is challenging, polishing is challenging, making the art is challenging, making the music is challenging. all using a pre-made engine means is that the hard part shifts from programming to the actual challenges of making a game.

[ZOMGBananas]

first of all, using GM will is quite challenging -- there are all kind of optimizations that are necessary to get a game running at decent speed in GM. i've even used loop unwinding and such, there are plenty of programming challenges even if you use GML.

but more importantly, the real 'challenge' of making a game should not be the programming, it should be the game design: making a game is challenging enough. level design is challenging, balancing is challenging, polishing is challenging, making the art is challenging, making the music is challenging. all using a pre-made engine means is that the hard part shifts from programming to the actual challenges of making a game.

You're right, and I didn't want to sound like I was saying programs like GM or Construct are bad or tacky, as I know that's quite far from the truth. It's more a personal barrier of mine that kicks in when it seems like what I'm doing is too easy for the quality I'm getting, if that makes any sense.

The facts you mentioned though are the reason we have so many great games. I was actually talking with a couple of people the other day about how programs like GM have taken game creation from the realms of people who learn to code, to the average user who just wants to make a game. When I was 16 and starting to realise that I really wanted to make games, there was no such thing (or at least, none accessible) as Game Maker. I had a teacher at school give me a floppy disc with Allegro on it, but I had no idea how or what to do with it. I wonder how things would have been if it was Game Maker on that disc?

[RCIX]

I don't use them because quite frankly using them feels like having my arms and legs chopped off and told to win a race. Too much abstraction. Not enough fine control. Little control over structures and frameworks. Little control over distribution and integration with the underlying computer system. Difficult to optimize.

I do use some frameworks like processing and game-maker when I want to make a quick prototype, but for serious games I shy away from such contrivances.

This.

Well, and that i always felt that you couldn't make games as well with those tools.

[Nix]

I often find when using things like GameMaker that I have to do things in terribly round-about ways that would be much simpler if I had total control over the source, though this isn't as huge of an issue in higher-end, more powerful visual game editors. But those I can't afford. So... it comes down to a) I feel like I spend more time and effort trying to get things to work in "game dev editors" and editors that actually would save me time generally have fairly hefty price tags attached (I'm looking at you Torque Game Builder). Besides, it's not nearly as fun to drag and drop as it is to hack away in source.

[Gagege]

When I use a framework (even at work with ASP.NET) I find that most of my programming time is spent Googling obscure error messages (or lack of error messages + strange behavior). As someone else said earlier editors/frameworks can make some things very simple but they can also make some things unnecessarily difficult.

[Average Software]

Cross-platform issues are enough to drive me away from any sort of GameMaker-like product.  Add the fact that I primarily develop for Linux and it enhances the problem.

Even before that consideration is the fact that I just love programming.  For me, coding engines is the most interesting part of development and anything that eliminates that doesn't interest me.

I also love dealing with platform specific issues, things like window management and input.  I'm shocked that so many people hide behind libraries like SDL, and never even learn how to make a simple window on their OS of choice.  For me, this is the fun part, and the knowledge I've gained by learning it has helped me immensely, both in my personal projects and in my professional projects.  I can't get that from game making tools.