next »

[TeeGee]

GameMaker is relatively viable as a serious game development tool, and there are some successful games done with it, some even on Steam (already listed in this thread). However, it does have some annoying issues and one can question if its developer has their priorities straight.

I recently wrote a longer article about GM from professional development viewpoint, where I list various good an bad things I discovered through my 7 years of using the software. Here's the link, if anyone's interested: http://moacube.com/blog/professional-developers-look-at-gamemaker/

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i didn't mean to say that preferences come from the limited amount of time, just that, because one can't do everything at once, one has to focus on particular things at any given time -- this would be true even for immortals. and you were saying earlier that if someone doesn't want to completely master something or be the best at it and know everything about it, then they shouldn't do it at all, which doesn't make sense because even within any given subject, you can't master every aspect of it. in game development for instance, you can't simultaneously learn 3d art, 2d art, programming, level design, music, sound engineering, balance, dialogue, plot, characterization, and so on, without focusing more on some and less on others. so i still find your insistence that one must master programming first to be a bit strange

[mirosurabu]

What if someone wants to learn how to design games, but doesn't want to learn how to program professionally?

[Soulliard]

Jasmine, you don't address people who already know other programming languages, but still choose to use Game Maker. I could make all of my games in C++/OpenGL if I wanted, but many times I'll still use GM, since I can make the game in half the time. If I can get the game to a playable state earlier, then that gives me more time to iterate and improve the game. There's also a much better chance of releasing the game at all.

I won't use GM for every game I make, because I recognize the its weaknesses. But I can also recognize when its weaknesses aren't relevant. For certain games, GM is the ideal creation tool.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

yeah, same with me. i can code in qbasic, c, and as3 (to an extent), but i still prefer GM because it takes care of the parts of the game that work the same with 95% of games, so that i don't have to re-invent the wheel. this comes at a cost though, as teegee mentioned

so i think the idea that gm is just training wheels is pretty ridiculous, it's definitely more 'user-friendly', but that's like saying that buying a computer is just 'training wheels' for building your own computer. it's fine to just stay at the 'buying a computer' level and never proceed to the 'build your own computer' level, and the majority of people do

[Hima]

I have a feeling that people who look down at game maker's games are game developers themselves and not the players. I've seen the same thing happen to RPGMaker.

If your game is fun, most players wouldn't really care what it's made in.

But if you're talking about choosing the right tool for the right job, the reason to choose programming language over Game Maker would be that script editor in Game Maker is so horrible. And once you make game mostly in script, you'll feel like many things in GM are just tedious and force you to jump through many hoops. There are many things in GM that you can do easily in C/C++ or other programming language with a much better IDE (refactoring, searching for specific code, etc ). This is given that you have basic engine of entity management and rendering engine built already.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

you can use third-party IDE's with GM

[Hima]

you can use third-party IDE's with GM

Yes, that's true. But there's also the nature of GML itself. Many things tied to the object in the game. So with refactoring, you can't really do it from code, since you have to go inside the editor and rename the object, etc. There's also lack of many OOP technique in the language that can turn off many people. Of course, this is a matter of preference.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

probably a matter of preference, yeah. i actually like that GM isn't fully OOP -- i learned programming back before OOP was popular (i learned with qbasic and c -- c++ didn't exist yet) so i'm more familiar with procedural programming, so that's one of the things i like about GM. it's languages like c++ and as3 that seem strange to me with all their namespaces and inheritance and so on

[nayon]

Jasmine, you don't address people who already know other programming languages, but still choose to use Game Maker. I could make all of my games in C++/OpenGL if I wanted, but many times I'll still use GM, since I can make the game in half the time. If I can get the game to a playable state earlier, then that gives me more time to iterate and improve the game. There's also a much better chance of releasing the game at all.

I won't use GM for every game I make, because I recognize the its weaknesses. But I can also recognize when its weaknesses aren't relevant. For certain games, GM is the ideal creation tool.

Exactly my case. I am very busy with my daily life as a CompSci researcher, and I really don't want to bother with dealing with all the nuances of engines and pipelines. GM automates a lot of the stuff, and its community is very large, so I can find existing code very easily. Not the case with most engines. If I look at the forums for most free/cheap engines, there isn't even a proper tutorial for robust, realistic collision detection and movement. And I am not going to spend time on dealing with that stuff.

[Muz]

With RPGMaker, every game looks the same, so arguably RPGMaker isn't the best tool. GM is fine. There are a lot of bad games made in GM, but that doesn't make GM bad, as there are lot of good games as well. I don't see why it's any less legitimate than a game made in C++.

I get that C++ is one of the harder languages to learn, but it's not really a great tool for making games with. The advantage in C++, like lower level control is not really that helpful. Whereas things like Game Maker just get to the point.

[hopwep]

With RPGMaker, every game looks the same, so arguably RPGMaker isn't the best tool. GM is fine. There are a lot of bad games made in GM, but that doesn't make GM bad, as there are lot of good games as well. I don't see why it's any less legitimate than a game made in C++.

I get that C++ is one of the harder languages to learn, but it's not really a great tool for making games with. The advantage in C++, like lower level control is not really that helpful. Whereas things like Game Maker just get to the point.

Thats not true. Even in old rpgmakers a lot of games uses full custom systems and graphics, if the game look the same is the creators fault. In Xp and lter with RGSS scripting you can achive like anything in the RPG genre, of course.

[Hangedman]

Thats not true. Even in old rpgmakers a lot of games uses full custom systems and graphics, if the game look the same is the creators fault. In Xp and lter with RGSS scripting you can achive like anything in the RPG genre, of course.

Nevertheless, the 4-way movement, the fixed tile size, the limited main menu, and etc, just have an RPGMaker-ness about them that is subtle but recognizable.

I would say GM has no such thing besides the loading bar and the tendency to rarely cause explorer.exe to crash repeatedly

[nayon]

Thats not true. Even in old rpgmakers a lot of games uses full custom systems and graphics, if the game look the same is the creators fault. In Xp and lter with RGSS scripting you can achive like anything in the RPG genre, of course.

Nevertheless, the 4-way movement, the fixed tile size, the limited main menu, and etc, just have an RPGMaker-ness about them that is subtle but recognizable.

I would say GM has no such thing besides the loading bar and the tendency to rarely cause explorer.exe to crash repeatedly

I believe you can bypass the loading bar

[hopwep]

Thats not true. Even in old rpgmakers a lot of games uses full custom systems and graphics, if the game look the same is the creators fault. In Xp and lter with RGSS scripting you can achive like anything in the RPG genre, of course.

Nevertheless, the 4-way movement, the fixed tile size, the limited main menu, and etc, just have an RPGMaker-ness about them that is subtle but recognizable.

I would say GM has no such thing besides the loading bar and the tendency to rarely cause explorer.exe to crash repeatedly

I think the movement issue can be created with events in 2k, and for XP, exist a complex custom action battle systems, and also, pixel movements scripts, etc, and that arleady exist.

About the tilemap or map class, you can rewrite it at all for sure, and also how it works at at all in XP.

In the old ones these problems exist and they are limited, but dont think the fixed main menu is a problem, you can create your own meus ising events and images, exist games with full custom systems that dont remotyly look RPG Maker defualt. They have also some hacks that adds new interesting features to customize more the game, like the initial menu or the save menu.

Obviusly, with the XP, thats not a problem all the menus are scripts you can cchange.

pd: for most cases, i dont think that limitations are trully important.

[Hima]

Thats not true. Even in old rpgmakers a lot of games uses full custom systems and graphics, if the game look the same is the creators fault. In Xp and lter with RGSS scripting you can achive like anything in the RPG genre, of course.

Nevertheless, the 4-way movement, the fixed tile size, the limited main menu, and etc, just have an RPGMaker-ness about them that is subtle but recognizable.

I would say GM has no such thing besides the loading bar and the tendency to rarely cause explorer.exe to crash repeatedly

I made these in Rpgmaker XP
-


-


- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRbEKagy5-E
If you know scripting, the limit is the rgss.dll and ruby itself. Rpgmaker XP was slow as heck, but the new one that's called Rpgmaker VX Ace improves a lot.

Still, you don't have to go that far and customize everything. Aveyond and Aveyond2 were made in RPGMaker XP and are pretty well-received by the players, regardless of all the RPGMaker-ness that you've said. It was look down by many RPGMaker developers because of how it looks just like other RPGMaker games, but the games still sold many copies regardless.

[Hangedman]

I'm not saying that it's bad, it's where I got my start.
I actually have a soft spot for it, especially the old ones where hacking the engine was the only way to get any attention

But it's usually recognizable.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

you were saying earlier that if someone doesn't want to completely master something or be the best at it and know everything about it, then they shouldn't do it at all

I've said nothing of the sort.

100% you did

Imagine if a person made a life long habit of riding their bike, but used stabilizers all the time... people would start to wonder why, and rightfully so.

You may say to yourself that you don't have any real need to learn to ride without stabilizers, but do you not feel it would be nice to learn how? For the sake of personal achievement? As a rite of passage? For curiosity? For sake of trying out new things?

you are saying there that if someone doesn't fully master something, and just does something part-way (to a training wheels stage), people would wonder about a person, rightfully, and that they are just fooling themselves (just saying to themselves, lying to themselves) if they felt they don't have a need to fully master it

[nayon]

Guys, can we stop arguing about personal values regarding self-challenge? That's not the issue here.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

You are wrong.

I've already explained the "wondering why" bit. I'm not going over it again.

yes, but you didn't explain the part where you said that someone would be lying to themselves if they felt they only need to learn some of something and not all of something