Thanks for the advice. I was planning on probably using game maker, i know it aint perfect but it's more of a personal thing anyway.
Yeah, I for one I don't care about language programming as long as you can make the game work. Of course, there are 'better' programming languages with more resources, but if you can do just fine with game maker, why not? It's notlike you're going to sell it, as you've said (personal thing). Maybe making this first timer project with simpler tools will also help you get the hang of programming games, and possibly give you experience regarding it.
Certainly. I started with Flash games, and worked up. Just don't get it into your head that Game Maker is the be all and end all of game making. Somehow, some people seem to believe that.
(11-04-2012, 01:54 PM)Woppet* Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the advice. I was planning on probably using game maker, i know it aint perfect but it's more of a personal thing anyway.
If it's just a personal thing, I doubt anyone will really care so long as it works (though the thought of it does seem iffy, there are even commercial projects relying on tools like Game Maker on Steam iirc).
(11-03-2012, 10:40 PM)Woppet* Wrote: [ -> ]I've been writing down my ideas for a game for years.
Planning on making it one day, how difficult would it be to program a game that is about as complete as 2D zelda games ie Minish Cap?
Game Maker: Studio. It's perfect for something like this, and it'd make a great Android/iOS game.
(11-08-2012, 07:42 PM)coty-crg Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2012, 10:40 PM)Woppet* Wrote: [ -> ]I've been writing down my ideas for a game for years.
Planning on making it one day, how difficult would it be to program a game that is about as complete as 2D zelda games ie Minish Cap?
Game Maker: Studio. It's perfect for something like this, and it'd make a great Android/iOS game.
Not for something of that scale, I fear. Something of that size is best not undertaken alone. To create something the size of the Minish Cap, you would be best using a programming language, rather than a game making tool. The reason for this is that with a larger number of resources, and a larger amount of data being processed, it is much in your favour to have greater control over how those resources are being used. For example, you don't want every graphic in the entire game loaded at once - it will use up all your memory space, so you want to find an efficient way of deciding when to load it. To do this, and reduce load times, is difficult. It is possible to do without load times with great care and multi-threading techniques, but I do not believe this is possible in most game creation tools.
That is just one example. The larger your project gets, the more likely it is to fail, and so the more control you have over the system, the better.
(11-09-2012, 03:29 AM)Hoeloe Wrote: [ -> ]That is just one example. The larger your project gets, the more likely it is to fail, and so the more control you have over the system, the better.
While I agree with you, more control will likely mean more work too (considering you'll prob'ly need to work through what was previously abstracted for you and/or make a new abstraction, yourself), which can further add to your project's size. On the other hand, one may be more inclined to not let all the effort put in so far go to waste
Oh, of course it will mean more work, but it will reduce the possibility of the project failing if you remove some levels of abstraction.
Finally took another look at Project Mask after like 3 weeks of not working on it. It actually seems further along than I initially remembered! Rudimentary battle system, all the underlying stuff in place... just need to work out the hardcoded/clunky pieces, add a lobby system and then I can possibly start working on the netcode/making an alpha (text-only) client! Hopefully after that my friend/associate can help me out with making a GUI design that doesn't blow chunks and I can put it into closed beta before 2024
(11-09-2012, 08:33 AM)Hoeloe Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, of course it will mean more work, but it will reduce the possibility of the project failing if you remove some levels of abstraction.
What I meant is that it would increase complexity/project size, which
could cause undue frustration and early abandonment of a project. Depends on how low you go, I guess.
I know I've had my fair share of friends who thought they could handle more than they actually can - in a way I've experienced this, myself
(11-09-2012, 09:50 AM)Phaze Wrote: [ -> ]What I meant is that it would increase complexity/project size, which could cause undue frustration and early abandonment of a project. Depends on how low you go, I guess.
I know I've had my fair share of friends who thought they could handle more than they actually can - in a way I've experienced this, myself
Well, yes. What I meant was that, with a project large enough (and one the size of a 2D Zelda game does fit into the category), the increase in size and complexity will be negligible compared to the existing size and complexity of the project, especially if using pre-existing libraries, such that it would increase productivity and control, and make the project less likely to flop due to constraints on the abstracted software.
(11-09-2012, 03:29 AM)Hoeloe Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2012, 07:42 PM)coty-crg Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2012, 10:40 PM)Woppet* Wrote: [ -> ]I've been writing down my ideas for a game for years.
Planning on making it one day, how difficult would it be to program a game that is about as complete as 2D zelda games ie Minish Cap?
Game Maker: Studio. It's perfect for something like this, and it'd make a great Android/iOS game.
Not for something of that scale, I fear. Something of that size is best not undertaken alone. To create something the size of the Minish Cap, you would be best using a programming language, rather than a game making tool. The reason for this is that with a larger number of resources, and a larger amount of data being processed, it is much in your favour to have greater control over how those resources are being used. For example, you don't want every graphic in the entire game loaded at once - it will use up all your memory space, so you want to find an efficient way of deciding when to load it. To do this, and reduce load times, is difficult. It is possible to do without load times with great care and multi-threading techniques, but I do not believe this is possible in most game creation tools.
That is just one example. The larger your project gets, the more likely it is to fail, and so the more control you have over the system, the better.
You're 100% wrong. Go check out Game Maker Studio, get to know it; realize it's NOT the same product as GM8.1 and below, and come back.
(11-09-2012, 06:38 PM)coty-crg Wrote: [ -> ]You're 100% wrong. Go check out Game Maker Studio, get to know it; realize it's NOT the same product as GM8.1 and below, and come back.
I never said it was.
I was referring to the difference between GUI-based and code-based game making, and making the point that, since, due to the extra level of abstraction, GUI-based systems will ALWAYS have lower power and control than a decent programming language. This is why tools that are easier to use, like Game Maker Studio, etc. are not used for large commercial projects.
I'm a game developer, and I'm studying computers and how they work for my degree. I have at least some understanding of what I'm talking about.
(11-09-2012, 06:49 PM)Hoeloe Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2012, 06:38 PM)coty-crg Wrote: [ -> ]You're 100% wrong. Go check out Game Maker Studio, get to know it; realize it's NOT the same product as GM8.1 and below, and come back.
I never said it was.
I was referring to the difference between GUI-based and code-based game making, and making the point that, since, due to the extra level of abstraction, GUI-based systems will ALWAYS have lower power and control than a decent programming language. This is why tools that are easier to use, like Game Maker Studio, etc. are not used for large commercial projects.
I'm a game developer, and I'm studying computers and how they work for my degree. I have at least some understanding of what I'm talking about.
For larger projects such as these; and especially for a smaller game dev like most here; it is much more efficient to use a pre-built engine like GM
, rather than creating your own. Sure, you could write your own engine and bare-bone everything; but that would not only be reinventing the wheel; but do you REALLY need those 5-10-whatever extra frames?
Yeah, making your own would be more 'efficient' end-user wise; but it's not a smart move for development.
That's still no "100% wrong" and the whole post there sounds quite aggressive and almost offending. Given your backstory, you may want to consider being a bit more careful on how you word things, alright? No need to provoke squabbling.
(11-10-2012, 03:53 AM)Previous Wrote: [ -> ]That's still no "100% wrong" and the whole post there sounds quite aggressive and almost offending. Given your backstory, you may want to consider being a bit more careful on how you word things, alright? No need to provoke squabbling.
Not trying to come off as provoking; I'm simply stating the facts. Yeah, you can get some "oomf" to the power of your own custom engine. But it's extremely tedious to pull library from library and make everything work together. Why not use something hundreds if not thousands of other developers can confirm already works and save yourself hours of headache?