Are there any alternatives to Torque Game Builder for 2D games?

[sofakng]

I've purchased Torque Game Builder but for different reasons I'm not very happy with it. (perhaps the main reason is lack of real-time networking support and very hard to understand C++ code)

So, I'm looking for alternative game engines/frameworks.

I'd like to create a Scorched Earth clone and perhaps a Nethack clone (using text-emulation but with a nice GUI, etc), but believe it or not it's quite difficult to create deformable 2D terrain!

Any suggestions are greatly appriciated :)

[Diragor]

BlitzMax (http://blitzmax.com/)

PyGame and SDL (+ a binding for a language of your choice) might be worth checking out.

[lennard]

Have you looked at the PopCap framework?

[Backov]

If you can program C++, the Popcap game framework is nice.

If you're not concerned about compatibility with cards older than the GF4, then I highly recommend XNA Game Studio Express. It's pretty damn awesome. For 2d games, it's killer.

It's not a drag and drop thing like TGB though. You won't find many of those, and of that type, TGB is just about the most capable.

[Jesse Hopkins]

If you can program C++, the Popcap game framework is nice.

If you're not concerned about compatibility with cards older than the GF4, then I highly recommend XNA Game Studio Express. It's pretty damn awesome. For 2d games, it's killer.

It's not a drag and drop thing like TGB though. You won't find many of those, and of that type, TGB is just about the most capable.

One drawback to XNA Studio Express is music and sound. Only takes wav files. HUGE files! I think they'll someday allow compressed loops, though.

[Dyno Kid]

There's also Gamemaker 7 (vista compatable) Click and drag and its own GML code for more advanced users.

Several games have been distributed using it.

Saves games to an exe so there ready to go.

Darren.

[Emmanuel]

For C++, there is also ptk (http://www.phelios.com/ptk/) ($200) which we are still using for our upcoming title, and playground (http://developer.playfirst.com) (free, read the license though).

TGB is a completely different beast though, closer to Gamemaker. Both products above plus the popcap framework require programming everything from the bottom up, instead of top-down like TGB does.

Best regards,
Emmanuel

[mot]

All C++ code is hard to read. Why don't you just find a networking library?
Raknet for instance... since it's a library and not a framework, it should
co-exist with Torque without problems.

[Backov]

One drawback to XNA Studio Express is music and sound. Only takes wav files. HUGE files! I think they'll someday allow compressed loops, though.

That's somewhat inaccurate. It is only true if you want to deploy to XBox, then you have to use XACT. Otherwise you are free to use any library you can interface to .Net on windows.

[Jesse Hopkins]

That's somewhat inaccurate. It is only true if you want to deploy to XBox, then you have to use XACT. Otherwise you are free to use any library you can interface to .Net on windows.

Ah, the game I worked on is for XBOX Arcade, so that was a concern. Thanks for the information though. Its XACT, NOT xma studio that's the problem. XACT is not bad but for that compression limitation problem.

[sofakng]

Thanks for all of the suggestions!

What would you say is the MOST feature complete but yet easiest to use and expand?

Torque (and it's related products) and very, very feature complete but I find it extremely difficult to expand or do anything outside of what they want you to do. Trying to add RakNet to Torque Game Builder is an excercise in pain.

Really all I want is a library that has built-in GUI support, bitmap font support, and is still being updated (eg. ClanLib seems neat but it hasn't been updated in years I don't think).

Keep the suggestions coming! :)

[Backov]

Thanks for all of the suggestions!

What would you say is the MOST feature complete but yet easiest to use and expand?

Torque (and it's related products) and very, very feature complete but I find it extremely difficult to expand or do anything outside of what they want you to do. Trying to add RakNet to Torque Game Builder is an excercise in pain.

Really all I want is a library that has built-in GUI support, bitmap font support, and is still being updated (eg. ClanLib seems neat but it hasn't been updated in years I don't think).

Keep the suggestions coming! :)

That's the Popcap game framework. It's 2d only and you have to program in C++.

[woo]

Why use rak-net when, with a license for TGE, you've got a great real time networking code base for torque? Sure it takes some work, but real time networking in any game engine is going to take a lot of work. Might as well reap the benefits of a good 2d engine like TGB so you have more time to futz with the networking layer. That being said, TorqueX or straight up XNA are probably going to be the easiest to code your real time networking from scratch. Good luck!
-Andrew Douglas
http://theoreticalgames.com

[datxcod]

sofakng

Clanlib has been updated, and it hasn't been abandoned, you can get the SVN version with the latest fixes.

As an example of a product using clanlib check:

http://www.rtsoft.com/novashell/

It's basically what it says, a Game Creation System, sort of like game maker but pumped up with physics, AI system, with hardware acceleration using OGL.

It's being developed by Seth (aka mrfun everywhere).

The only problem with clanlib (otherwise I think it's the best lib out there, it is stupidly easy to get a project started with clanlib) is that it uses OpenGL (no alternative DirectX renderer).

[spellcaster]

Is the PopCap framework windows only, or does it support the mac as well?

[barrygamer]

Is the PopCap framework windows only, or does it support the mac as well?

Unless something changed lately, its windows only. Thats why I switched to PTK. Both are nice to work with, Popcap has a bit more funcionality (UI widgets, plus a few more graphics fns, IIRC). PTK is great though. There were a few rumours of a mac port of Popcap (see their dev forums), but nothing official I think. Seems a little odd, you would think Popcap would want easy mac ports asap themselves (?). Perhaps popcap framework is too tied to directx.

For completeness, Kyra is also nice cross-platform open-source C++ games lib (windows/mac/linux), built on SDL. I had a good play with it, pretty neat actually. Not sure its been used for many commerical games.
[Edit: just remembered, GBgames on this forum is using Kyra]

[amaranth]

If you use Torque 2D, I guarantee that you will need to do some engine development if you want to get your game listed on some of the big portals. There are lots of video issues to worry about. If you ask me, it's not really ready for casual game development. I'm trying to get a casual game dev guide out for Torque 2D, but my time is really crunched right now. It should show you how to fix a number of engine problems.

[roussec]

If you use Torque 2D, I guarantee that you will need to do some engine development if you want to get your game listed on some of the big portals. There are lots of video issues to worry about.

Can you elaborate on this? I have not heard of any video specific problems or seen any.

[Greg Squire]

If you use Torque 2D, I guarantee that you will need to do some engine development if you want to get your game listed on some of the big portals. There are lots of video issues to worry about. If you ask me, it's not really ready for casual game development. I'm trying to get a casual game dev guide out for Torque 2D, but my time is really crunched right now. It should show you how to fix a number of engine problems.

I wasn't aware you had to go and modify the engine source code for Grimm's Hatchery. They are always touting that you don't have to do that. ;) I too (like many) have a love hate relationship with Torque. It has a lot power, but there some little things that can drive you nuts. Do you know if they are going to be addressing any of these video problems in the TGB 1.5 Beta?

I'd be interested in that casual game dev guide for TGB when you finally get around to it. (Though I really dread messing around in that engine code).

[Greg Squire]

Back on the topic; Here's the main options for 2D engines that I'm aware of (Most already mentioned):

Torque Game Builder (http://www.garagegames.com/products/torque/tgb/) (You already know the good and bad of this one)
BlitzMax (http://www.blitzmax.com) (Stable - Lots of commercial games made with Blitz stuff)
The Games Factory (http://www.clickteam.com/eng/tgf2.php) (Catcus Bruce made with it, I believe)
Games Maker (http://www.yoyogames.com/make) (Not sure how many big games have been made with it)
PTK (http://www.phelios.com/ptk/) (many commercial games made with it, but it is C++)
Popcap Framework (http://developer.popcap.com/) (many commercial games made with it obviously, but it is C++)
XNA (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/xna/default.aspx) (Microsoft's new platform - C# based, and there's also Flat Red Ball (http://www.flatredball.com) which is built on top of XNA)

Of course there's a zillion 2D engines out there, but these are the one's that I hear the most about.

[Polycount Productions]

Greg mentioned several, and I'd like to continue that yes there (http://www.gameproducer.net/2007/05/23/how-to-create-your-first-game-recommended-resources/) are, such as multimedia fusion (http://www.clickteam.com/eng/mmf2.php).

[amaranth]

I wasn't aware you had to go and modify the engine source code for Grimm's Hatchery. They are always touting that you don't have to do that. ;) I too (like many) have a love hate relationship with Torque. It has a lot power, but there some little things that can drive you nuts. Do you know if they are going to be addressing any of these video problems in the TGB 1.5 Beta?

I'd be interested in that casual game dev guide for TGB when you finally get around to it. (Though I really dread messing around in that engine code).

Yes, it was pretty frustrating at times. We're still trying to figure out a Vista alt+tab crash, but we've almost got things wrapped up. Bryce has spent a couple of months with it now. He's learned quite a bit and has made some changes that make the engine run dramatically faster. We're still trying to decide how to release the information. I wouldn't dis Garage Games though. TGB is a version 1 product, and anyone using it now is an early adopter. So, if you don't have a lot of programming experience, I would steer clear for a little while longer. I'm going to release the bug list that I received from various portals to them in the near future. Hopefully they'll take a good look at it and make some fixes so devs in the future won't have to delve into the engine code.

Here's another engine called Wintermute to add to the list: http://dead-code.org/home/index.php/about/

[Techdojo]

I'd like to add another voice for GameMaker (www.gamemaker.nl) it's just partnered up with YoYo Games in an attempt to make a gamers social network kinda thing.

The GameMaker system is VERY feature rich and very expandable via DLL's. It has a very active dev scene /forum and by and large there very helpful.

I don't know how many gamemaker games have been released (although in a few weeks there'll be one more!) - but with enough effort it IS possible to produce something of commericial quality, although you will have to delve into the very C like GML scripting languages.

It's not without it's faults but in the main you can work round them and for the price (about $20 for a full registered version) you can't go wrong!

Oh AND the new version 7 is Vista compatible, and it does a lovely job of wrapping up all the resources into the app so you only have to distribute a single file. The games can be quite small as well - the new v7 runner add's just over 2meg to the app size.

On the other side there's another system called Game Editor (www.game-editor.com) which again uses a very visual IDE but has a full C based scripting language. The main plus for me on this IDE is the ability to cross compile code and produce exe's for Windows (not sure about Vista), Pocket PC, Windows Smartphone and GP2X - again this has a fairly active forum and an attractive price (starts at $25)

Hope this helps.

Jon...

www.whitetreegames.com

[zoombapup]

As a long time Torque developer, I have to say that TGB is actually pretty nice if you can get your head around the C++ code.

I've been using Torque for many years now, so it really doesnt hold much fear for me, but I really do look forward to Amanda's info too (Amanda, if you need any help actually getting and docs in a useful state, let me know).

While I agree that Torque isnt "casual" friendly right now, I dont think its irrecoverable and for the most part, the problems can be easily solved if you have a bit of experience. From Amanda's point of view, I can definitely understand that she didnt want to deal with that and wasnt really interested in it, but from an experienced programmers point of view, the issues are likely quite easily fixed.

I dunno, I guess I'm kind of defending it here, which is not what I intended, but I think if I were making the choice, I'd either be going for TGB (rapid prototyping) or PTK (total control, but a bunch of stuff to write).

My experience with torque game engines basically makes it an easy choice for me, but I recognise that others might have a different view.

[stanchat]

Yes, it was pretty frustrating at times. We're still trying to figure out a Vista alt+tab crash, but we've almost got things wrapped up. Bryce has spent a couple of months with it now. He's learned quite a bit and has made some changes that make the engine run dramatically faster. We're still trying to decide how to release the information. I wouldn't dis Garage Games though. TGB is a version 1 product, and anyone using it now is an early adopter. So, if you don't have a lot of programming experience, I would steer clear for a little while longer. I'm going to release the bug list that I received from various portals to them in the near future. Hopefully they'll take a good look at it and make some fixes so devs in the future won't have to delve into the engine code.

Actually Amanda, you should "Dis Garage Games". You have the most leverage and clout at the moment and yours would make a more compelling case. However I would caution you against releasing your source code changes to the community at large. You should document the time and money you have wasted tweaking their engine and how much it has cost your company. Think about it, you stated you and your team have spent close to 30 days fixing/tweaking their engine code just to get it accepted by the major portals. This time could have been spent on marketing or adding last minute game design/gameplay features. Keep in mind TGB is billed as production ready and comes in two versions (with source and without source). I beleived the hype and purchased version (without source) and regret it. It costs you more to upgrade to source version then it does buying the source outright, which makes no sense since after owning the non-source for only a week it becomes abundantly clear engine mods will be neccessary to do anything.

Do not perform Garage Games job for them and release the mod changes to the user community!! This would only be a short-term solution and would let Garage Games off the hook once again. The better approach is to force them to make the internal changes to their TGB engine and force them to divert some resources to fixing some of their defenices and less time promoting "The Great Games Experiment" ( what a freaking joke).

[TomSpilman]

Do not perform Garage Games job for them and release the mod changes to the user community!! This would only be a short-term solution and would let Garage Games off the hook once again. The better approach is to force them to make the internal changes to their TGB engine and force them to divert some resources to fixing some of their defenices and less time promoting "The Great Games Experiment" ( what a freaking joke).

Your right.

I should stop working on Torsion (http://www.garagegames.com/products/106/) and all the fixes i've introduced into the Torque platform, because it's GG's engine and their job to fix it.

Why should i contribute the bug fixes i've spent minutes working on for the benefit of the rest of the community? Screw them... i should only look out for myself. It's not like the thousands of others working with the Torque engine have ever done anything for me.

Every indie for themselves... don't contribute to a greater cause.... in fact why am i spending time posting on this forum? You all owe me $$ for my valuable time and expert opinions! I mean... this is Indiegamers' forums... why should i help answer any questions?

Yea... that's the ticket.

[stanchat]

Your right.

I should stop working on Torsion (http://www.garagegames.com/products/106/) and all the fixes i've introduced into the Torque platform, because it's GG's engine and their job to fix it.

Why should i contribute the bug fixes i've spent minutes working on for the benefit of the rest of the community? Screw them... i should only look out for myself. It's not like the thousands of others working with the Torque engine have ever done anything for me.

Every indie for themselves... don't contribute to a greater cause.... in fact why am i spending time posting on this forum? You all owe me $$ for my valuable time and expert opinions! I mean... this is Indiegamers' forums... why should i help answer any questions?

Yea... that's the ticket.

The point I am trying to make is this. We as developers/tekkies fall into this malaise of letting everyone push us around. Just because we have the knowledge and ability to fix and create workarounds doesn't mean it is smart or effiecient. Would a car mechanic let you sell him a car that is only 98% working just because he knows how to fix it and make it work. When it is all said and done and at the end of the day TGB is just a glorified Open Source project and should be treated as such. It should be one version with source same as the 3D version TGE. The problem I have with GG and TGB is trying to sell me a version that is casual/production ready and it is not. Keep up the good work with your Torsion editor. It is the best $39.95 I have ever spent.

[roussec]

On the one hand I see your point - is it like when we were young and completely set up the computer at the dentist's office. It took three hours but it was fun and the guy also gave us 10 bucks and lots of potato chips. The only strange things was that he charged our parents 150$ for the 45 minutes work he had with that aching tooth of ours four month later.

On the other hand I do not really feel the same way towards GG. TGB is an awesome product for 100$ (paying more for TGB and TGB + Source than TGB + Source only makes not much sense though), you receive updates for free and the comunity is active. For me what TGB offers for the price is absolutely adequate although the product itself may have flaws.

[Greg Squire]

Here a list of some "Genre Specific" game engines (that I'm aware of). They might save you even more time if that's the type of game you're making, but if not, then you're left with the general 2D engines mentioned. I don't have any experience using any of them, but I've heard good things about AGS and RPG Maker.

Adventure Game Engines
Adventure Game Studio (AGS) (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/)
Visionaire (http://www.visionaire2d.net/)
Wintermute (http://dead-code.org/)
Adventure Maker (http://www.adventuremaker.com/)
SLUDGE (http://www.hungrysoftware.com/tools/sludge/)

RPG Engines
RPG Maker XP (http://www.enterbrain.co.jp/tkool/RPG_XP/eng/)
RPG Toolkit (http://www.toolkitzone.com/)

Platformer Engine
Scrolling Game Development Kit (http://gamedev.sourceforge.net/) (This seems to be more suited for platformers, but it might be more general than that)

Fighter Engines
Fighter Maker 95 (http://rm95-database.4t.com/fmsection.html)
M.U.G.E.N. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.U.G.E.N) (appears abandoned, but still has community around it http://mugenguild.com/forumx/index.php)

[Matt Langley]

The point I am trying to make is this. We as developers/tekkies fall into this malaise of letting everyone push us around.

You do realize that the classification you put yourself in is exactly the same classification we at GG are in.

Lets reverse this a little... How many hours of work do you think you've gotten with TGB for $100 (or $250 for the Pro)? Think about it. Sure we could make this engine fully rounded and prevent the developers from having to touch the source code to get it into any portal with any type of restriction... then again if we had done that in the time we spent developing the engine (note everyone has their own issues, fixes, updates, and features they want so it adds up to far more than 30 days of work on our end) we would've had to put more developers on it. Thats means we would need a bigger return on the engine to afford to put said developers on it, which means we would have to charge more.

Sure we could've upped the price to $500-1000 for a game engine that's fully portal compliant and ready to be dropped into just about any situation. You may look at that tag and gawk, but then again if that saved each developer 30 more days the serious ones would probably pay for it hands down. In fact we could probably sell hand fulls of Commercial licenses to companies willing to invest some moderate chunks of change into rapid casual gaming development.

In fact if we went down that road we should just up the price to $1000-3000 and completely shaft the Indies. I mean like you say we all have to look out for just our own interest. If we sell the engine for $3000 we limit our customer base but increased our profit massively... that way we could spend time responding to Commercial needs and not the Indie requests for the engine. The increased profit would justify more time spent and we could make it the perfect Commercial Casual engine.

While we're at it we can include royalty programs for any support. I mean we respond to forum posts and e-mails all the time. Why give our time out free, especially our nights and weekends... why not tag that with a price. Consulting, at least $50 an hour.

Or we can try and do what we've always done, which is sell our engines to Indies for low prices (such as $100), and we could continually contribute long nights and weekends to adding to the engine and trying to help and respond on the forums. We can continue to do that since thats what we've always done, since in the end we are no different than our users and they've all contributed so much as well.



Moving past that, if anyone did compile a group of serious and well coded fixes we would be interesting in paying for them. We don't ask for hand outs (though we'll obviously take any contributions) and we are fully willing to pay for any code fixes to issues that are professionally done :)

[spellcaster]

Would it ok for me to submit a cople of bugs first (free of charge) and the sell you the bug fixes? ;)

[Dock]

I bought TGB and I've been playing around with it for a couple of weeks, but I'm about to give up on it in frustration.

My early experiences were fairly good, but as I proceeded I just ran into more and more problems, many of which to do with the strangely unintuitive nature of the UI. Also, I found the documentation to be lacking. Not the documentation directly itself, but the fact that the IDE doesn't allow command highlighting, and there was no easy way to solve simple problems. Worst of all, the community is very quiet and not helpful for beginners to the language, so it wasn't possible to post my problem and work my way through to a solution.

(specifically, I couldn't find out how to make a platform only perform physics on one surface. I wanted a trampoline that you could either hit or miss, not partially hit and bounce off sideways)

I'm now faced with making the decision whether to return to Blitz3D (a dead language), or whether to learn something newer, or even give up on the idea of developing my game ideas and prototypes.

[Anlino]

Another suggestion which have been mentioned earlier in the thread is Gamemaker, and I would like to further recommend it. It's easy to use and has a large community, but as some might know, the maturity of the community is generally rather low. There are some there who can spell and provide good advices when needed Something else that speaks aginst it is that it is Windows-only, but I would still like to point out that some developers on this forum has developed successful titles with it.

[Matt Langley]

@Dock: Sorry to hear that. Glad you had a good first impression, sorry to hear that changed.

but the fact that the IDE doesn't allow command highlighting, and there was no easy way to solve simple problems. Worst of all, the community is very quiet and not helpful for beginners to the language, so it wasn't possible to post my problem and work my way through to a solution.

I am a bit unsure about what you mean with the first sentence of that quote. There is Torsion which is a fairly full featured TorqueScript IDE and I'm not sure what you mean about no way to solve simple problems.

If you could give me more detailed feedback I might be able to take that and improve certain aspects in the future.

I am a bit surprised about the community part. The community has quieted down a bit, though I still see plenty of new posts every day. I also have seen most of those posts get answered by other community members and sometimes us. In fact recently I am allotting some of my official time to be able to answer community posts to hopefully help get our community a bit more active again (and show that we do indeed enjoy interacting with our community). Though I still by no means have seen that are community isn't active.

Were you posting on the private forums (or just the public forums). We have a public forum for people to post questions before they purchase the engine. That forum isn't very active (mainly people just posting questions). Though we have a TGB Private forums that encompasses multiple sub-forums and is still fairly active. We've had an issue in which TGB purchasers weren't "subscribed" to these private forums, so unless you added a subscription to it you might now have seen them (if you own a copy of the engine that is). We are currently trying to remedy that.

In any case if you were to give me more details about the issues you ran into I'd be very curious. Feel free to drop me an e-mail:

mattl@garagegames.com

[spellcaster]

To be honest, I had more or less the same problems as Dock, just from a different direction. If you're a coder used to a normal 2D lib, getting into Torque GameBuilder is pretty hard.
Since it evolved from the normal Torque engine or sits on top of it, it's a very powerful, very complex beast.

You can create some pretty amazing stuff easily - if you want a demo with dozens of rotating, scaling sprites spawning dozens of particle effects while they collide in a stunning manner due to the underlying physics engine - you can create that easily.

On the other hand, doing stuff that you consider extremely easy can be frustratingly difficult.

I'm checking the website / board every other month to see how the documentation side develops but so far it still seems to be a a very nice toolset sitting above a very complex and powerful engine.

I'm sure that somebody knowing the torque engine well and having lots of experience with T:GB can create amazing stuff in a short time. But getting so far will be no easy job.

[Matt Langley]

@spellcaster: Thanks for the good feedback. Could you elaborate, specifically if you could let me know what sort of things you found very difficult that you expected to be very easy. We are always more than open to taking feedback :)

[spellcaster]

Well, I guess the main problem I had is getting from a "coding" view into a "modding" view of things.

Your "IDE" is actually your game with editing enabled. This might not be a bad thing, but it's something you need to get used to. I also remember that this caused some problems with data not refreshing until I closed and restarted TGB.

If you're a coder, you just want to get your window, know how to code your main loop and get stuff on the screen.

In TGB, once you start it up, you are in your main loop. That's not that easy getting used to. I'm not sure if this has changed, but creating a project involved basically copying part of a directory structure (thus creating a new "mod") and telling the engine to use that mod. This created a lot of clutter in almost no time.

Most of my questions back then were answered with links to the T3d part of the site which I couldn't visit (since I only had the t2d:EA version).

Basically, I loved playing around with your tools (map editor, particle editor) but hated actually coding something because little things like switching GUI screens or level handling made me feel completely helpless. There was idiot-proof detail on the "how to place a widget and change its properties" part, but I was missing some info on the bigger picture.

I'll give T:GB a new try over the weekend, to see how things have evolved. I wanted to try it on my macbook anyway - so far I have only be using it on windows.

I'll try to document the experience - maybe this helps you a bit.

[Joe Rossi]

I just want to thank Amanda for sharing what she finds and helping to improve TGB. She is one of the few who actually are selling games made with TGB. There are bigger companies around (like Large Animal Games) that have games on portals and didn't share much with the community. I assume they solved these issues if their games are on portals. I respect that decision, but when I find something I think will help other users I personally don't mind sharing it.

Back to the OT:
I've been with TGB for a while, and while it's not perfect I still think it's the most powerful 2D engine around. I've tried SDL, PTK, HGE before coming to TGB. The editors make it easy to throw things together quickly. As far as documentation I have no trouble finding anything I need. I do think I'd be hurting if I could only use Torque Script. Having the source is a must. There are a few patches or "resources" I wouldn't do without. Before I came to TGB I had C/C++ experience, so it's easy for me to dig into the engine code. Honestly I don't think someone new to programming can pick up TGB and make a game just yet.. but the new version adds a feature called "behaviors" that work like plugins and let you add all sorts of effects without coding (as long as they were written correctly..). For example I made a health bar behavior, and now I can give any game object a bar that reflects it's health, and using the editor I can change the graphics for each one if I want. So no, it's not GameMaker yet, but it's getting closer to being a "game builder". If you don't like it you don't have to use it, but I'd keep my eye on it because it's always improving.

[Matt Langley]

@Spellcaster: You bring up some very good points... In fact most of those we've changed since you've last used them :)

We have a beta 1.5 release available to owners of the engine that has now separated the tool and the engine... This has helped many of the issues that you are talking about, of the tool being the game player and switching between the two.

We've also updated documentation quite a bit since then as well as updated the interface quite a bit. I'd love to hear any new feedback you'd have for us based on our latest beta release.

[stanchat]

@Matt

I have made several posts about this issue and was wondering if anyone had resolved it. All I am trying to do is have the cursor change when it moves over a GuiButton. I would like to do this using script only no engine mods. I am attaching the screens for the post. I think you were part of one of the posts.

http://www.tccons.com/TGB_1.gif
http://www.tccons.com/TGB_2.gif

[Matt Langley]

@stanchat: After seeing the pics I remember your posts and your issue. You were trying to get the cursor to change over a guiBitmapButtonCtrl... problem being a guiBitmapButtonCtrl doesn't have callbacks for mouse over (it does the mouse over image states internally).

I had suggested a guiMouseEventCtrl, though that steels the events from the button... What I'd suggest now is to take out the guiBitmapButtonCtrl... make it a guiBitmapCtrl... put a guiMouseEventCtrl over it and manage all mouse interaction with the mouse even control. Change the bitmap button's images based on the onMouseEnter and onMouseLeave and manage the clicking through the guiMouseEventCtrl.

[TomSpilman]

If you're a coder, you just want to get your window, know how to code your main loop and get stuff on the screen.

That's actually the exact issue i had the first time i looked into Torque in 2000. I came from using NDL and other engine "libraries", so i was looking for how to get to the core and build things up from there. This is the wrong approach to take with Torque which is a working game engine. Do you think when you get an UnrealEngine3 license you start by coding your main loop or replacing UnrealScript with Lua?

This is also true in how you approach TGB.

Anyway... once i got my mind right, Torque became very easy to use.

[spellcaster]

This is the wrong approach to take with Torque which is a working game engine.
Yep, it is.
But back then, all you got was a bunch of files, a small tutorial and that was it. If you didn't know T3D, you were lost. Most links directed you to T3D docs. Which you didn't have access to. I was missing simple information, "glue" information that would have helped me using the engine.

I have written some add-ons for Quake3, so I was a bit used to modding stuff and changing bits to get what you want.
But if you use the u3d engine, normally you're going to code a 1st / 3rd person shooter. All you want to do is "creating something like unreal + ingredient X." Adding specific features will be a big task and require lots of coding - but that will be just "adding to the game that it couldn't do before."

If you want to code a 2d game, you don't "add something." You start at 0 building up from there. Ok, there is a powerful engine in the back, but you're working on top of the engine, you're not modding a game.

2d games can be everything from a board game conversion, a puzzle fighter, a scrolling shooter, rpg, rts, tbs, action adventure, etc. So the axiom that should be used is "game creation" not "game modding." I don't know if this has changed since I tried it, but I'll give it a try over the weekend and we'll if I find my way around it.

I hope that I'll like it, because in theory it would be the perfect tool for my current game ;)

[tau]

I've been with TGB since its birth, and tried to make some demo games just to get the feeling of it and learn it.

Well, after several years, I can tell you that I can code a game faster in Java or C++ from the ground then searching for the TGB documentation, fixing bugs and adding new features (in most cases it's faster to code your own engine then to find a workaround for an existing awkward solution in the engine.)

GG made some nice technology available, but the usability (user friendly interface, etc) of their products is not very usable without good documentation, because not all of the people have the mindset (or think the same ways) as GG geeks (geeks in a good way). That's the major problem for me.

I also noticed that the most of the games in GG shop were developed or released with help of GG employees, only few made through without their help. And the main reason was the lack of good documentations, "readiness" for the market and feedback from GG and its employees. I may not recall any of the technical questions being answered or helped with in the forums by GG staff.

What's really annoys me is that the outdated TGE engine is still marketed as the edge technology, but delivers even worse performance on the contemporary video cards then on GForce2-like cards. Time to change the marketing or update the engine? TSE is a good attempt, but it's becoming a real bummer in terms of a good product (has nice features though) due to the slow development and lack of tools.

2 cents from a frustrated customer. :cool:

[electronicStar]

I'm now faced with making the decision whether to return to Blitz3D (a dead language),
B3D might not receive a lot of improvement but it's still maintained and receives bugfixes when necessary (and the author do make improvements, like support for DDS surfaces added a few months ago).
But if you take a look in the forum you'll see that thanks to a great user base and thanks to the language moddability ,there are dozens of free or commercial third party libraries that increase the potential of this language.
Right now there's probably nothing that you can find in other languages that you could't implerment in blitz3D, some teams are even hinting at the devellopment of a DX9 extension (although result is not certain).
Right now I'd say that B3D is one of the best choices available on the market.

[Greg Squire]

Is there a combination of BlitzMax and 3rd party add-ons that would make this into a "Game Builder System" or "RAD Game Tool" of sorts? Such as BlitzMax + GreyAlienGames Framework + a 2D generic level editor (if one exists).

Also a number of people have talked up GameMaker. Can a commercial quality game be made with it? What the best known game made for it? I have a hard time gauging it's limits.

[JoKa]

Also a number of people have talked up GameMaker. Can a commercial quality game be made with it?
If you're considering a tool for 2D games like Gamemaker, you may also look at Multimedia Fusion 2. I don't know much about GM, but it seems to have better support for special effects, MMF isn't too fast with excessive use of Alpha Channels or transparency. But the MMF developers have plans to support hardware acceleration in future builds, so it could become even more powerful.

[Anlino]

Magi is made with Gamemaker, as is papillons games. Mini golf Pro (http://www.reflexive.com/MiniGolfPro.html) is made with GM as well. I suggest you to check it out, as Gamemaker has some really nice potential when used correctly, in the right hands... And prototyping in it is a blast ;)

[Dock]

B3D might not receive a lot of improvement but it's still maintained and receives bugfixes when necessary (and the author do make improvements, like support for DDS surfaces added a few months ago).
But if you take a look in the forum you'll see that thanks to a great user base and thanks to the language moddability ,there are dozens of free or commercial third party libraries that increase the potential of this language.
Right now there's probably nothing that you can find in other languages that you could't implerment in blitz3D, some teams are even hinting at the devellopment of a DX9 extension (although result is not certain).
Right now I'd say that B3D is one of the best choices available on the market.
I think you could be right. I fired up Blitz3D last night and was met with delightful IDE (visual blitz), gloriously clean code (well, my own at least...), and a friendly community. I think I'll return to working with Blitz3D. It may not be updated much anymore, but its EXEs are small and work on just about any PC, even Vista (zomg). It's really a case of 'better the devil you know', and with Blitz3D there's a ton of people who know it inside out, so every trick and process has already been figured out.

[Dock]

Magi is made with Gamemaker, as is papillons games. Mini golf Pro (http://www.reflexive.com/MiniGolfPro.html) is made with GM as well. I suggest you to check it out, as Gamemaker has some really nice potential when used correctly, in the right hands... And prototyping in it is a blast ;)
Quite a few people seem to like Gamemaker, and Papillon is testament as to how quickly you can produce high quality products with it. I did download it once, but I haven't really given it much of a try.

[Anlino]

You should give it a fair chance, i recently saw that Immortal Defense (Recently up in the News and Announcements) was made with it as well. I managed to prototype the game mechanics for an idea i had in about ten minutes, and I haven't really been using it for that long either.

While you're at it, check out the book "The Game Maker's Apprentice", as it's a great guide that gets you started early on. I have used Multimedia Fusion 1 and 2 before, and I can strongly recommend Game Maker over it. It's easier to use, it has a larger and partially more grown-up community, and the fact that Mark Overmars has built up a partnership with Yoyo games hopefully means that they are planning on serious expansions for it.

[Dyno Kid]

They have a brilliant forum and theres always someone to help you out if you get stuck (normally within minutes)

I have the book and yes its great but you can also download editable examples so you can see how its been done.

Dyno Kid was made with game maker and Ghosts and my new game "Bumps" is also being made with gamemaker.

I think most developers could use it to quickly have a working prototype or demo.

Regards,

Darren.

[spellcaster]

Could you explain the workflow of Gamemaker? I had a look at the tutorials, and while I see how the "game" part of the game works, how does the user interface stuff work?

[Anlino]

Click on a object, go to the room the object points to. There is also support for the standard Windows Dialogs. Everything in in Gamemaker is made up by objects and rooms where the objects are located. Finish a level, go to next room (level). Click on Help in the main menu, go to the help room. Creating a menu kinda feels like using powerpoint to create a presentation.

I hope that answers your question, otherwise, let me know ;)

[tau]

I think you could be right. I fired up Blitz3D last night and was met with delightful IDE (visual blitz), gloriously clean code (well, my own at least...), and a friendly community.

What's keeping me from Blitz3D is that it's only available for Windows. Is it still true?

[spellcaster]

Here's my summary of the TGB test:

16:09
Start with the simple things first - downloading TGB. But which version? The download page shows me "TGB Pro Indie - SourceIncluded" and "Torque Game Builder Pro 1.5.0 Beta." No idea what version the other TGB download is. No information what the difference is or even what the target audience for these download is.

So I guessed and took 1.5.0 beta - mainly because it should take 26min to download and the other version 19 minutes. If it takes longer, I should get more, right? (They show the estimated download time, but not the actual size of the download)


Here's the plan for today:
The idea is to create some typical screens for a game, title, options, etc. Also, the player should be able to create and load different profiles. Right now, the profiles will just store the current options settings for that player.

Title Screen:
- "Start" button -> does nothing but playing a sound
- "Options" button -> shows Options screen
- "End" button -> Stores options for current profile; leads to "Buy me" screen
And a text link for the usual "Hello Player. If you are not Player click here." (leading to "Player Selection" screen)

Options Screen
- Fullscreen/ Windowed Switch
- Background Music Volume
- Sound effects Volume
- OK / Cancel Button to close the options screen

Player Selection Screen
- Displays a list of player profiles
- "Select Player" -> Allows to choose a player profile -> "Profile Loaded" screen
- "New Player" -> "New Player Screen"

New Player Screen
- Textfield to enter name (16 characters max length)
- "Use default settings" checkbox
- Ok Button -> "Profile created screen"
- Cancel Button -> "Player Selection" screen

For all screens:
A mp3 or ogg file should loop and shoudldn't be interrupted when changing screens.
All buttons need mouse over and mouse down images. A sound effect will be played when the mouse enters a button.

Player profile:
The player profile will contain:
- Player name
- windowed / fullscreen flag
- music volume
- sound effect volume
- timestamp of first game
- timestamp of last game

16:30
TGB is installed. I created a new project, and started the documentation. The "Online Resources" list a "Basic GUI Builder Information" - the only other useful starting information seems to be the TGB reference, which doesn't seem to contain more then just an attribute List of the individual gui widgets,

The "Basic GUI Builder Information" seems to have the right headlines,but the big "Preview Documentation" watermark is kind of irrititation - let's see how far I'll get.

16:45
Ok, the documentation seems to be outdated. The GUI editor doesn't really seem to work like explained in that tutorial. The editor has a help menu iwth a "GUI Editor help" item - but this doesn't do anything.

I manage to create a bg image and buttons. The bitmap buttons don't seem to have fields to enter images of the different button states, though.

Strange: I can't use the cursor keys inside the property text fields.

I want to get back to the "normal" TGB view, but this doesn't work. If I toggle the editor, I get back to a blank screen. Funny - seems like all gui elements of the editor are also listed... why? I'd expect to see only those elements that belong to my game. Strange.
I am unable to get into TGB again - it's either blank screen or gui editor.
So I decieded to restart TGB.
Current level of frustration: High enough to not bother any longer.

What I had expected:
Gui editor with visual palette of widgets. Á list of "screens" or other top level items allowing me to create a new item appearing in that list. Maybe an option to create a typical instance of screens (title, menu, highscores.. see Apple products for good examples of this).

It's 17:16 right now.
Giving up now would be cheap, so I'll post something in the TGB board. Let's see if they can help me.
Finding the correct forum took some time, the website didn't show me the TGB Forum at first (which is strange, since TGB is the only product I own) - but after some clicking I got a "show all forums" link which allowed me to find the "GUI Building" forum and asked there for links to Gui Builder tutorials / documentation. It's 17:30 right now.

Sunday, 22:51
It's been more than 1.4 days - no reply in the TGB forums.
---

Main problems for me:
- What version should I download?
- What sizes are the downloads?
- Missing GUI documentation in distribution
- Online GUI documentation out of date
- GUI Editor listing editing GUIs (and not only user created GUIs)
- Not limiting GUI base widgets to useful objects
- No online information on the widgets
- Property editor is wonky (textfields don't allow cursor movement, apply button needed for some reason, apply button positioned in a non standard way)
- GUI editor is strange. Create a new TGB project. Press f10 (which will toggle the gui editor). Press F10 again - no change. Choose "Toggle GUI editor" from the menu -> no change. Seems like you can't leave the editor.
- Image buttons with normal / mouse-over / pressed and disabled state are the norm. I would have expected an obvious way to specify all the needed bitmaps.

I thought creating the GUIs would take a couple of hours, adding the code to load/store properties another couple of hours and then I wanted to add sound and music.
I would have expected an interface similar to editors for normal GUIs or web-editors/ presentation programs.

I would have also expected up to date information on how to use the GUI editor either using inline help or a chapter dedicated on this subject in the documentation.

I would have expected to be able to create the basic screen flow (without actually storing data, or giving the data widgets an actual effect) without having to code a single line. Just by creating the screens and defining a flow.

Maybe my scenario wasn't well suited for TGB.

[Joe Rossi]

The GUI editor (AFAIK) hasn't been updated since it was first written for TGE. I don't remember the editors that ship with GameMaker or Blitz3D being much to brag about either. Do those come with any sort of GUI editor?

[spellcaster]

The GUI editor (AFAIK) hasn't been updated since it was first written for TGE. I don't remember the editors that ship with GameMaker or Blitz3D being much to brag about either. Do those come with any sort of GUI editor?

Well, it must have been updated - at least the current tutorials don't seem to have been written with the current GUI editor in mind.

Edit: The TGB forums seem to be pretty dead. The last time somebody got a reply in the gui forum was "May 13, 2007 16:54." In the mean time several new threads have been started, none got even a single reply.

[tau]

spellcaster, that's why my TGB subscription is collecting dust, even after 2 years I just cannot use the product on the productive level - I just dont know how...

[mmakrzem]

Have a look through http://www.devmaster.net/engines/ . The list of engines there mainly focuses on 3D ones, but you may find something helpful.

[zoombapup]

spellcaster, thanks for that response. It is actually pretty useful in that you tried using the product and highlighted a bunch of things that need improvement AND did it in a sane way.

If it were me in charge of the project, I'd have noted all of those concerns and setup tasks to correct them. If there's one thing that is "low tech" enough to fix quickly, its usability stuff.

I hope Matt sees this, as he's a good guy who cares about the product. I will watch how it goes with interest.

From my own point of view, I know torque well enough to fix any of my own issues, which feels kind of wrong in that then they wont get propagated back to other users, but frankly, I have a hard enough time actually getting time to fix the issues, without worrying about user support for the fixes.

Feels kind of strange really. But I do believe that TGB is the most useful solution (at least for me), so I hope it improves, otherwise, I'll improve it myself.

[Joe Rossi]

The fact remains that making games does take effort and patience no matter what tool you decide to use. Torque is complex. You can't expect to jump into it and be a pro overnight, even if you did buy the "pro" license lol. Everyone whines about the lack of documentation, and nitpicks with the tools.. but I think they really just don't know where to look or how to use the .dump command. I've been making progress using TGB, but not everyone will. Not everyone has patience or even programming experience. Not everyone will buy (and read) the books they put out. I'd say right now those people are doomed...don't get TGB unless you are willing to make a real commitment to learn it.

[spellcaster]

It's about picking the right tool for the right job. The good things about TGB are the integrated physics and the network code.
The network code is non trivial and right now the realtime code isn't exposed to TGB.

Torque script gets the job done, but compared with languages like lua, ECMAScript or python it feels a bit dated and limited.

Creating simple GUIs should be a simple task. If they don't offer a usable GUI editor, that would have been no problem if they had given a short tutorial on how to create a gui by code or if the forum were alive.

From the GUI point of view, all that's needed to implement it is a way to draw sprites and a way to handle mouse positions. Even starting from scratch in C this would take just a couple of hours.

In programs like Director or Flash this can be done in minutes.

And these are the programs TGB is competing with.

[Jack Norton]

From the GUI point of view, all that's needed to implement it is a way to draw sprites and a way to handle mouse positions. Even starting from scratch in C this would take just a couple of hours.


Yeah I really don't see all this "hype" for a GUI system - my games are 99% GUI, but I did my own one in C+PTK in about 3h. If you (generic you, not referred to spellcaster) don't even know how to do a GUI probably is better you don't even try to make a game...:rolleyes:
Same thing for particle effect. It is just a for() cycle. Takes even less than writing a GUI...!

[Techdojo]

Could you explain the workflow of Gamemaker? I had a look at the tutorials, and while I see how the "game" part of the game works, how does the user interface stuff work?

GameMaker does take a little getting into - if you look on the official GM site (www.gamemaker.nl) there are plenty of examples written by Mark Overmars on how to create simple games. I knocked up several "demos" in about 15 minutes and was amazed by how easy it was. Also there are many many pages devoted to examples etc (I've got a directory with about a gig's worth waiting to go through), one of the better one's is Simon Donkers website http://gamemaker.simondonkers.com/find-examples

(I'm sure Simon won't mind a bit of free publicity :) )

Anyway (back to the original question), GameMaker is what I would call a psuedo object orientated system, the core concept is of a room into which the user places individual objects.

Each object is defined in advance and an objects individual behaviour is "defined" through a series of event callbacks. For instance attach a "create" event to an object and you can define what happens when the object is created, likewise with the "step" and "draw" events. Keyboard and mouse events can also be attached, a complex collision detection system is included although you have to define what happens for collisions with each particular object type seperately (there is a sort of inheritence system that can be used to make this a lot easier).

Some events (like the draw event) have default behaviour so it's not necessary to override that unless you need to. The biggest difference is in the use of Drag and Drop - There is a massive library of default "actions" that can be used singulary or in sequence to "code" an objects behaviour, although personally I prefer to just add an "execute script" action and take it from there.

As I said before GM is not without it's limits, organising code and resources can become difficult without a lot of self disclipline, true object oriented functionality would be nice (or at the very least being able to pass parameters to a constructor) as would extra reporting and error checking facilities - although nothing that a competant programmer cant work round.

For me the best things about GM are the price (£10 GBP for a registered version - BARGAIN!), the built in effects (it's got a very powerful particle system), support for different image formats, true alpha blending, it produces a single packed exe containing all the resources, Vista compatibility (Mark's just released a tool FOR FREE! to make old GM6 exe's Vista compatible), it uses DX9 as the underlying renderer so hardware accleration is available - likewise you can also hook into DX9 via callbacks etc if you want to do special lighting effects etc, it's infinately expandable through the use of DLL's and plugins and lastly the speed - not only of the development, but also of the final code.

I'm currently using GM6 to produce my first two games, PipeDreams is almost finished and will be out by the end of the month (hopefully) and CrossBlox will follow towards the end of the summer. Given quality resources I think you'd be hard pressed to tell a GM game from a natively written one - but as someone mentioned earlier - it's more down to the skill of the coder rather than the tools they use.

If you need any more help or info on GM then feel free to PM me or email me direct at jon@whitetreegames.com

Regards

Jon... :)

www.whitetreegames.com

[Techdojo]

Oh - I also forgot to mention.

I'd just like to say a big thankyou to not only the GG staff but all indies everywhere that have opened their minds to all the dev communities at large, it's because of sites like this and the help and advice of our peers that we can all (me especially) stand on the shoulders of giants and see that little bit further.

Cheers guys - I just hope I can drop in my $0.02 to help one day!

Jon...

www.whitetreegames.com

[Reactor]

I have my 2D power in Blitz3D and Sprite Candy.

I am wondering about GameMaker though. Does it still suck down all of a computer's resources? I was always amazed at how much it'd 'take over' when running a game.

[Anlino]

The GUI editor (AFAIK) hasn't been updated since it was first written for TGE. I don't remember the editors that ship with GameMaker or Blitz3D being much to brag about either. Do those come with any sort of GUI editor?

For Blitz3D i can't tell, since I have never used it. But I do know that Gamemaker doesn't, but that doesn't mean that it isn't really easy to create menus with it. And yeah, I am a Gamemaker fanboy ;) as someone who is a rather lousy programmer, it became my salvation, so I have a good reason to recommend it. But naturally, Gamemaker isn't for everyone.

[Techdojo]

But naturally, Gamemaker isn't for everyone.

Well said Anlino, in fact I don't suppose it really matters which tool you use, I looked through several different systems before settling on GameMaker, it's just at this point in time it's the most useful tool for me. In the future that's likely to change...

So to get back OT to the original question, pick a simple idea (Conway's game of life would be a good example, or Space Invaders), do a google search, find as many different systems as possible (god knows there's enough of them), download the trial versions and see how you get on with them and how easy it is to implement your simple idea.

Remember one man's meat is another man's poison... ;)

Jon...

www.whitetreegames.com

[Matt Langley]

@spellcaster:

But back then, all you got was a bunch of files, a small tutorial and that was it. If you didn't know T3D, you were lost. Most links directed you to T3D docs. Which you didn't have access to. I was missing simple information, "glue" information that would have helped me using the engine.

Agreed... I started with T2D on day one, that's why I ended up coming to GG to work in that area. TGB now has multiple full game tutorials, 15+ feature tutorials, and multiple reference docs.

Sure, there are some minor errors and parts of the documentation that didn't get fully updated from version to version, though we try our best to keep on that and always are open to answering questions on the forum (or e-mail).


RE: your gui post

What I had expected:
Gui editor with visual palette of widgets. Á list of "screens" or other top level items allowing me to create a new item appearing in that list. Maybe an option to create a typical instance of screens (title, menu, highscores.. see Apple products for good examples of this).

Thats great feedback. Many valid points... though there is also a line between evaluating something and trying to use something. Your evaluating is very good and piont out some very real issues that have been in the Gui Editor for a while and we definitely want to fix. Though if you plan to use a tool you have to push pass the evaluation level and try and use it, many others have used it, even new TGB users... so though it is very very (very) far from perfect, it is still usable.

Though if you deliver the feedback (such as an e-mail to me, or posted on the suggestions forum) we can then log it and use it the next time we get a chance to work on the GUI Editor.

I thought creating the GUIs would take a couple of hours, adding the code to load/store properties another couple of hours and then I wanted to add sound and music.
I would have expected an interface similar to editors for normal GUIs or web-editors/ presentation programs.


Now I can relate with you to a point, though it does sound like your putting a little effort to disprove the GUI Editor. I've used many design tools and many of them are very different from eachother. So though I would never say the GUI editor doesn't have it's weaknesses (it has more than it's fair share) I would say that your final comment is a bit forced to alienate the Gui Editor in TGB.

With those comments stated here are some links to GUI Editor documentation... yes some of it is a bit dated and some it is referring to TGE, though most of it will still be very useful considering the Gui Editor has changed very little in it's long history.

here's one on making GUI buttons and utilizing the over and down states you wanted
http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/Torque_2D/Getting_Started/GUIButtonTutorial

a pop up (aka drop down) tutorial
http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/Torque_2D/Getting_Started/GuiControlListPopUp

high scores including text file writing
http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TGB/ScriptTutorials/ScoreTutorial

pause screen
http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/Torque_2D/StandardTutorials/Basics/PauseScreen

splash screen
http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/Torque_2D/StandardTutorials/Basics/SplashScreen

you can find more on TDN here:
http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TGB/ScriptTutorials


here's the old TGE GUI docs that still are very useful
http://www.garagegames.com/docs/tge/general/ch03.php

Thanks for your feedback on the GUI Editor, if you would post that in suggestions that really could help in the future when we get to work on it more.

Now I've respected your arguments up until this point, though this sounds too much like you are abandoning reason trying to deliver a shot against TGB:

The TGB forums seem to be pretty dead. The last time somebody got a reply in the gui forum was "May 13, 2007 16:54." In the mean time several new threads have been started, none got even a single reply.

So you are looking at just one forum? To me that might mean that maybe most people don't have issues with GUI forums, considering we do get posts in our other TGB forums daily, I just took a screen capture of the TGB Public and Private forums

http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/Image:TGBForums.JPG

Sure a couple forums haven't had posts in them for a while, but a few have posts in today, June 6th, and this is still the morning. So it's not that people don't post, it's that most people don't post in the GUI forum, which to me is a good sign.


From the GUI point of view, all that's needed to implement it is a way to draw sprites and a way to handle mouse positions. Even starting from scratch in C this would take just a couple of hours.

One thing that you've bypassed is the usefulness of using TGB objects as GUI objects. Using the Level Builder and static/animated sprites you can script GUI responses very easily, you can then add particles and other "shiny" effects.


In programs like Director or Flash this can be done in minutes.

And these are the programs TGB is competing with.

Keep in mind Director and Flash are programs meant for interactive media... they are completely "GUI Editors" so to say... sure they can be forced into game dev, though we have many former Director and Flash users than are happily using TGB.

Not saying we can't learn something from their strong points, though just pointing out that they have many weak points that TGB has as strengths as well. Any program will always have weak points and strong points.

@tau:


GG made some nice technology available, but the usability (user friendly interface, etc) of their products is not very usable without good documentation, because not all of the people have the mindset (or think the same ways) as GG geeks (geeks in a good way). That's the major problem for me.

We understand this, that's why I've spent the past year on TGB docs... Though then again at the price we sell our tech we have limited resources. We try to do the best with what we have and beleive me, we haven't forgotten about documentation in TGE, far from it... the downside of living our dream of giving indies an engine is we have to dance around limited resources.


I also noticed that the most of the games in GG shop were developed or released with help of GG employees, only few made through without their help.

Very untrue... sure when we get a game submission and we think they should work on certain areas we give them feedback, but most of the games in our game store are not developed by GG employees. Of course if you want to get literal though, anyone who has asked a question on a forum and has had an answer from a GG Employee, or gotten an e-mail answer, or read any documentation from us might qualify, if that is the case then 100% have gotten help.

To me that is not something to be ashamed of, I would be very proud of that, we try to help our users out and your just proving that *shrug*. What it sounds like you are saying (and what I hear every once in a while) is that those who publish games with our tech get "special" attention and benefits. The honest answer is no, they get the same benefits anyone could have if they ask for help... and very rarely are they actually dev'd on by GG employees as you are suggesting.

[Matt Langley]

Also, keep in mind that 1.5 currently is a beta... it is meant to get feedback like what you have given and hopefully utilize it to improve it. Feel free to post any and all feedback in our beta forums, we really do gain a huge value from feedback.

[spellcaster]

With those comments stated here are some links to GUI Editor documentation.
Nice info! May I suggest that you add a link to those documents in the "documentation overview" link in the start menu? A good documentation looses value if it can't be found easily.


So you are looking at just one forum? To me that might mean that maybe most people don't have issues with GUI forums, considering we do get posts in our other TGB forums daily, I just took a screen capture of the TGB Public and Private forums
I looked in the forum I posted in. Maybe the problem that there are too many forums? If most TGB posts are in just one or two forums, and a few posts in the the other, you should consider to reduce the number of forums to minimize ghost posts like those.

So it's not that people don't post, it's that most people don't post in the GUI forum, which to me is a good sign.
Not sure I can follow you here. By that logic, no posts in your community forum at all would be a reason to celebrate? :)

One thing that you've bypassed is the usefulness of using TGB objects as GUI objects. Using the Level Builder and static/animated sprites you can script GUI responses very easily, you can then add particles and other "shiny" effects.
Sounds good! I think this might even fit more natural in the current TGB environment. The GUI editor feels a bit "different" - it's hard to describe. Using normal sprites might make the experience more coherent.

As I said before: I really think that TGB is a great tool and that I'd love it if I could get into it. I'll play around with it some more.

[Greg Squire]

... but I think they really just don't know where to look or how to use the .dump command. ... don't get TGB unless you are willing to make a real commitment to learn it.

Joe just indirectly pointed out one of my frustrations with TGB. He just mentioned the .dump command. I didn't even know there was such a thing, let alone how it could be of use to me. There are so many things with this engine where certain things have to be in certain places, or have to be referred to in a certain way, or be done in a certain order. I understand that much of this is because its built on top of TGE, so it sometimes seems counterintuitive or it just gets a bit confusing.

I guess for me it mostly boils down to incomplete or outdated documentation. Couple that with the fact that my time is so limited, that I really don't have time to become a "Torque Guru". It gets frustrating when I seeming have to "go on a quest" to get answers. Please don't get me wrong, as I like a lot of things about TGB as well. I like a lot of its power, and I like the concept of "behaviors" in the current beta. I think it's a great engine, but some of the finer details have been frustrating for me.

[Bad Sector]

Not sure I can follow you here. By that logic, no posts in your community forum at all would be a reason to celebrate? :)

Um, i think the idea is that since they have lots of posts in other forums and no posts in that particular forum, that means that there are active users (since there are posts) which don't have problems with the GUI (since there are no posts in the GUI forum), so that could be a sign that people in general don't have problems with the GUI.

[tau]

Thanks, Matt for taking the time and giving the answer.


We understand this, that's why I've spent the past year on TGB docs... Though then again at the price we sell our tech we have limited resources. We try to do the best with what we have and beleive me, we haven't forgotten about documentation in TGE, far from it... the downside of living our dream of giving indies an engine is we have to dance around limited resources.


I bolded the key phrase above. And here is why: the PR machine of GG makes a big effort to lure in the customers without explaining what to expect... In my case (and not only mine), when I bought the license, I was pretty sure that I'm getting the final product to work with. I'm not afraid to deep my hands into the custom C++ code, but I just dont have time to do that. That's the reason of so many frustrated people - they were expecting what they were reading about the product. It's like buying that cat in a sack :)
If GG will change the PR approach, things will go differently, and likely people will contribute patches instead of turning to the open-source alternatives which appreciate their contributions and add them to the developer lists (good if you are getting into the industry). Right now I know not less then 50+ people who went to Ogre3D, Irrich, etc and work on their custom solutions, and are not willing to wait the so-long-development cycles of Torque products...

[Bad Sector]

In my case (and not only mine), when I bought the license, I was pretty sure that I'm getting the final product to work with.

How can there be a "final" product for something like a game development program or library?

There isn't a "final" Quake engine (docs? what's that?)
There isn't a "final" Unreal Engine (and you pay lots of money for that)
There isn't a "final" FMOD library (in development since early nineties)
There isn't a "final" OpenAL
There isn't a "final" Game Maker
There isn't a "final" Flash
There isn't a "final" Java (when i started, i cursed every single Java developer for the "unintuitive docs" of the language)
and of course there isn't a "final" OGRE, Irrlicht, Crystal Space or whatever

Such things always change, improve, docs written, get old, stuff break, fixed, etc. If there was a "final" version for something then that something would stop being developed and would become obsolete very soon.

That holds true especially for libraries and frameworks. It's impossible to cover all aspects what you may want to make. What you pay for is the time it would take for you to develop what you buy and nothing more.

[Reactor]

It's impossible to cover all aspects what you may want to make.

Aspects of workflow, yes, but not information about each part of the library, or development kit. It's quite possible to document as you go.

What you pay for is the time it would take for you to develop what you buy and nothing more.

Unless it's stated that you're also purchasing good documentation, and then you're paying for that as well.

[spellcaster]

Um, i think the idea is that since they have lots of posts in other forums
Well, they have posts in other forums.

and no posts in that particular forum, that means that there are active users (since there are posts) which don't have problems with the GUI (since there are no posts in the GUI forum), so that could be a sign that people in general don't have problems with the GUI.

But if a posts means "there is a problem" then a post would be bad, regardless of forum. They might not have problems with the GUI but with other parts of the engine.

On the other hand, maybe he thinks that people only post in th GUI forum because they have problems or are frustrated. In this case, the statement wouldn't be very positive as well.

If you have a forum where people don't get answers, it can't be a good thing.


How can there be a "final" product for something like a game development program or library?
Pardon me.
When was the last time the Quake Engine was advertised as ab easy to use engine for people starting to code games?
I'd also like to point out, that the definitions of final seem to be different. If I buy a finished product, I'd like to have a documentation explaining all the currently available features. If it's advertised as easy to use, and lists a couple of features, I'd also expect that it is easy to use, has all these features and that these features can be accessed in an easy way.

The version number of TGB is > 1.
Problem is it feels more like something getting close to first beta release. I bought TGB more than 2 years ago. Some of the features that were advertised back then are not implemented today (but the marketing has changed, and some of the features are no longer advertised ;)).

Also, if you just find the product and buy it, download it and want to use it, you have a problem. Without the forum, you can't use it. You'll be missing lots of information that has been either documented by other people or has not been documented at all so you need access to the employees.
Worst thing is: They don't tell you this. Right now there is a big thread in the TGB forums (big by TGB forum standards. Around 12 posts) because a buyer didn't know that there are private forums.
TGB is advertised as a product. You download it, you use it, you click a bit and voila: Game.
But right now TGB is no such product.

It's a good engine with some nice editors you can use from inside that engine. But there is no application glue. It doesn't have an integrated editor. It doesn't allow you to specify an external editor. This isn't a "big thing." But it breaks the experience. It adds an extra step. It's not that big. But since TGB presents itself as a "Game Builder" you need to change views from it's a Game Builder to it's an engine again.
It also means that you need to know the file layout.

Which would be no problem, if the documentation would explain that. But the current documentation explains by example. If there isn't an example for what you want to do.. bad luck.


I think the problem is how TGB was created.
At the beginning was Torque. Then somebody added something to create a 2d game. Then an editor was created, then another one. If you're a Torque user wanting to make 2d games, this is great. Every add-on makes it a better tool.
So, instead of sitting together and thinking "how could we make a nice, easy to use 2d game builder" it was "how can we make T3D more suited to make 2d games."

[RinkuHero]

One thing that would be useful is a game creation software that would allow user-made modules or plug-ins; not just dlls or libraries, but true plug-ins that could be used within the game creation software's program.

That way you could create, say, a GUI-engine, plug it in to the game creation software, and then make the GUI from that. Someone else could create a Dragon Warrior style RPG battle system, and you could insert and use that. Someone else might create a shop and money system, and you could insert and use that.

These basic game elements would ideally allow a lot customization but have default values that would be easy to use, sort of like modules in Wordpress or Drupal.

[Joe Rossi]

spellcaster I'm going to assume you are Lennart Steinke on the forums. I replied to your post the other day. You can click "notify me when new replies are posted" and get email notification when someone replies. It may not happen right away, but eventually it will. You may not like my answer though...I basically told you to buy a book ;) You're right, the forum is an important factor when learning to use the engine. This holds true for any engine. As they say in the open source world, it's harder to code in a vacuum.

there is no application glue. It doesn't have an integrated editor
I think what would make TGB more useable to new users is a way to create scripts without going into text files. It'd be great if TGB had something inside the editor to define functionality of your main loop and maybe more. I'm thinking something like "Scratch", the Java based language meant for kids. This would be quite possible, and make TGB more fun to use. I wrote down how it might work, but I don't have the time to code it and I don't exactly need it myself.

True plug-ins that could be used within the game creation software's program.
This is essentially what the new "behaviors" do. Eventually we will have packs of premade behaviors that you can use to make games easily. A set of GUI behaviors would rock! If they were done well enough they could probably replace the GUI editor. They would also allow more eye candy effects on the GUIs since they will be TGB scriptobjects.

I hope GarageGames is still listening :P

[spellcaster]

You may not like my answer though...I basically told you to buy a book
Hehe. I was actually considering buying that book, but it doesn't seem to target TGB, but torque in general. If I _had_ to use TGB I might consider buying it. Good thing is that I don't have to.

Right now, I wouldn't recommend TGB at all. We'll see how it develops, but right now it's not appealing enough. There are other (fresher) engines around that also provide nice scripting interfaces.
CrystalSpace seems to be a direct competitor. Esp. with CELstart (http://www.crystalspace3d.org/main/CELstart).

Other engines provide a really nice workflow, unity3D is a pretty slick engine, for example.

Personally I'll stick with C/C++ right now, and play around with CELstart a bit.

[Matt Langley]

@tau:

and are not willing to wait the so-long-development cycles of Torque products...

The developers of the Unreal engine have been working on it for years now and are selling it at hundreds of millions of dollars.

I hate to break this to you (if you aren't already familiar with this in game tech), with a game engine there is never a true final product... if there is that simply means the developers have given up on updating it or moved on.

the PR machine of GG makes a big effort to lure in the customers without explaining what to expect.

Unfortunately you can never tell people enough info to prepare them for game dev. Sure there are areas that we could work on in our PR though I find no ground or basis for what you are saying. If you do have a basis for it then maybe you should share it instead of making generalized comments. The comment I quoted is completely empty... it's 100% opinion. Not a solid argument or very convincing.



@Bad Sector:

How can there be a "final" product for something like a game development program or library?

I'd have to agree with Bad Sector's post. A "final" product as you define it never comes for a living project like a game engine. At least it should never come, that simply means the engine won't be udpated.


@Greg:

I guess for me it mostly boils down to incomplete or outdated documentation. Couple that with the fact that my time is so limited, that I really don't have time to become a "Torque Guru". It gets frustrating when I seeming have to "go on a quest" to get answers. Please don't get me wrong, as I like a lot of things about TGB as well. I like a lot of its power, and I like the concept of "behaviors" in the current beta. I think it's a great engine, but some of the finer details have been frustrating for me

A very fair statement. Very well said as well. There are definitely areas that we need to direct you to answers better, we are continually working on it as well. For the past few releases we've made improvmenets to the docs and the way you navigate docs. It's a slow process to work on and improve but we are making ground.



@Spellcaster:

Nice info! May I suggest that you add a link to those documents in the "documentation overview" link in the start menu? A good documentation looses value if it can't be found easily.

Very true... though we don't have a direct link to it, in the Table of contents at the top we have a link to the TGB TDN page and the link I gave you to the whole list of tutorials is only a single click away from that TDN page. Given it may take a bit of navigation before you check that area we do in fact direct you to the proper location.


I looked in the forum I posted in. Maybe the problem that there are too many forums? If most TGB posts are in just one or two forums, and a few posts in the the other, you should consider to reduce the number of forums to minimize ghost posts like those.

We had a large request for seperation of the forums we currently have. If you remember originally TGB (back when it was T2D) had a single forum (this is before I came up to GG and was simply in the community helping). Multiple people specifically asked for a GUI forum as well. We get posts from time to time there, though as a whole people don't seem to struggle drastically with GUIs, usually only specific issues which are typically known quirkiness with the system... though overall compared to people learning how to script, gameplay scripting, etc, GUI editing isn't as troublesome area. The question you asked is one of the quirks of the engine that we get questions about from time to time, yes it is something we have on a list somewhere to get addressed though we have many lists... there's always improvements.


Sounds good! I think this might even fit more natural in the current TGB environment. The GUI editor feels a bit "different" - it's hard to describe. Using normal sprites might make the experience more coherent.

Beleive me, I understand... it's archaic and though mostly quite functional it is quirky. We do want to address it though it's not as simple as it may seem on the outside. We have to be careful whenever we spend time working on something, for one we have limited resource so we can't waste, things like that also tend to break many other aspects when you work on them so we have to consider the overall effect and priority.


But if a posts means "there is a problem" then a post would be bad, regardless of forum. They might not have problems with the GUI but with other parts of the engine.

On the other hand, maybe he thinks that people only post in th GUI forum because they have problems or are frustrated. In this case, the statement wouldn't be very positive as well.

If you have a forum where people don't get answers, it can't be a good thing.

I was mentioning it more towards what Bad Sector was saying. Our most common posts are in these three forums:

General Discussion
Getting Started
TGB Scripting

We get much fewer posts in our specific forums... this is a good sign to me considering when we had more issues in the engine we got more posts in those specific areas, considering if you have a problem with a GUI you would post it in the GUI Building forum, or a physics issue you'd post it in collision and physics.

Those three listed forums on the other hand are fairly general... general discussion includes quite a bit of talk not related to issues but general questions, getting started is obviously a location for people who are curious on ways to get started or issues related to that... and TGB Scripting is usually for general scripting language questions, sometimes issues.

considering the most popular forums are not related to specfic aspects of the engine (given TGB Scripting sometimes is used as that, though sometimes for people new to scripting in general or langauge specific questions from those used to other script languages) that is a good sign to me. Obviously it doesn't mean there are no issues with the engine and tools, just that when I see the forums moving towards this I note it as a good sign and showing that we are headed in the right direction.


If it's advertised as easy to use, and lists a couple of features, I'd also expect that it is easy to use, has all these features and that these features can be accessed in an easy way.

Not saying TGB is perfect or as easy to use as it could be (there could be many many things done and things we are doing), though "easy to use" is relative. I've talked with high school students who have found TGB easy to use, while adults struggle and vice versa. In fact I've talked to many Flash users w ho love TGB and find it amazingly easy to use compared to Flash, while other Flash users struggle.

Obviously this means we have more work to do before it's "easy to use" for everyone, then again nothing will be perfect for everyone, plain and simple.


Also, if you just find the product and buy it, download it and want to use it, you have a problem. Without the forum, you can't use it. You'll be missing lots of information that has been either documented by other people or has not been documented at all so you need access to the employees.

We do have a TGB Public forum that anyone can access, a lot of questions from trial users get answered there. Also there is quite a bit of documentation with TGB... it's impossible to cover everything everyone would ever want to know... though we try our best. Though the private forums is an invaluable source. We have some great community members that really try to help everyone out. Thats why I'm at GG, because I was in the community and loved the community back when T2D started... TGB is more than just something we work on, it's our work of passion and what we choose to do and make sacrafices to do at times. It's far from perfect and has many weaknesses, though I also think it has some great strengths, some of these other options can't compare to.

It's a good engine with some nice editors you can use from inside that engine. But there is no application glue. It doesn't have an integrated editor. It doesn't allow you to specify an external editor. This isn't a "big thing." But it breaks the experience. It adds an extra step. It's not that big. But since TGB presents itself as a "Game Builder" you need to change views from it's a Game Builder to it's an engine again.
It also means that you need to know the file layout.

Which would be no problem, if the documentation would explain that. But the current documentation explains by example. If there isn't an example for what you want to do.. bad luck.

Well hate to break it to you but documentation for anything will never cover everything. I don't think I can say anything that will please you in this area considering you will always find something the documentation is missing. This is true about every single engine and product out there... So all I can say is we are doing our best, we are improving it drastically, it's also seen drastic improvements (remember when T2D launched and it had no visual editors, fully scripted only, and only one tutorial! It's come a long way :). The rest is up to you, if you really want to make a game with TGB you will do so, you shouldn't let things stop you... can we do more to help you, yes, though the best we can is do all we can with the time and resources we have.

[Matt Langley]

Right now, I wouldn't recommend TGB at all. We'll see how it develops, but right now it's not appealing enough. There are other (fresher) engines around that also provide nice scripting interfaces.
CrystalSpace seems to be a direct competitor. Esp. with CELstart (http://www.crystalspace3d.org/main/CELstart).

Other engines provide a really nice workflow, unity3D is a pretty slick engine, for example.

I appreciate your honesty and am sorry you feel that way.

The recommendations really aren't valid considering they aren't 2D game dev options and they have their own bag of issues too (Unity being only dev'able on Mac and not ideal for 2D).


TGB has some strengths and weaknesses... just like any engine out there. There is no all in one solution for game dev, some have found TGB to be theres, others have found other engines to be theres. There is nothing wrong with this. If TGB doesn't please you enough it doesn't mean it doesn't please others enough.


@Joe & Rinku

This is essentially what the new "behaviors" do. Eventually we will have packs of premade behaviors that you can use to make games easily. A set of GUI behaviors would rock! If they were done well enough they could probably replace the GUI editor. They would also allow more eye candy effects on the GUIs since they will be TGB scriptobjects.

I hope GarageGames is still listening :P

You are completely correct Joe. Behaviors allow for a very robust way to add multitudes of plugin style functionality in the editor.

I'm still listening Joe :) Unfortunately I have to space out my responses or the docs won't get more work done on them and there's so much I want to do. We also truly take a lot of these suggestions to heart, especially the more constructive ones.

[spellcaster]

If TGB doesn't please you enough it doesn't mean it doesn't please others enough.
Sure thing. Problem is that one can't try TGB. And right now, it's hard to say whether you will like it or not. Also, the learning curve is pretty steep - so the main difference to the free engines is that TGB does cost a bit and that detailed information about it can only be posted in the TGB forums.

I really think that TGB has great potential. I'm also sure that it'll be a top notch tool for 2d development once the documentation issues and some other small things are sorted out.

[Matt Langley]

Sure thing. Problem is that one can't try TGB.

There is a 30 day TGB trial that gives you full access to the engine via scripts, tools, and all docs (simply a 30 day and watermark mechanism minus source code of course) :)

[Backov]

There was only a couple of reasons I didn't dig TGB.. The first was Torquescript. Ugh.

The second was the GUI editor.. It's been a while, but doesn't toggling the GUI editor basically make you start editing the GUI of the level editor? Who thought that was a good idea? I agree with Spellcaster above that there needed to be an actual GUI editor structure in place, and not whatever they had there.

I found the docs to be fairly decent, except when you needed to do something non-trivial. Or more precisely, something that didn't fit within the use cases the documentation guys had envisioned.

All in all, I found it much easier to roll my own 2d engine than use TGB.

[Ojuzu]

I've been a TGB user for over a year and while there are many things I love about it, there are some things that I really hate. IMHO, the worst aspects of TGB are the horrendous GUI editor and Torquescript. Outside of that, it's suited my needs pretty well and I've been able to deal with the negatives. However...

I'm now curious about the video issues that portals are having with TGB produced games. Can someone at least briefly explain what the issues are? It makes me very concerned as I'm nearing completion on my current game and I'll be very frustrated and annoyed if I can't submit it to portals without "fixing" the engine. Anyone?

As far as alternatives, Flash is now a different animal with the release of CS3 and Actionscript 3. And with the brand new virtual machine, performance has increased significantly. (About 10 times faster than Actionscript 2 and the old VM.) Additionally, Adobe will be releasing a new version of Director this year and supposedly they're going to target independent game developers. We'll see what happens, but it could be very cool...

[stanchat]

I'm now curious about the video issues that portals are having with TGB produced games.

Here are the problems you will encounter. Hope and pray you have the Pro version or you will be forking over a extra $45 bucks to get it. Just bad pricing structure IMHO.

$100 TGB Indie license
$250 TGB Pro (with Source)
$195 To upgrade from TGB to TGB Pro (Extra $45) :confused:



amaranthia
Member Posted: Apr 08, 2007 18:50
@Tank
TGB was a good tool to use, but there were some video issues that I think Garage Games needs to fix. I'm pretty sure that most portals will not accept a TGB game if you don't tweak video problems that are in the engine by default. I had a couple of show-stopper video bugs that my publisher would not look past until they were fixed. I'm not really a hard-core programmer, but luckily my boyfriend is. So, I had him clean up some parts of the engine that needed to be fixed before I could get approval to have the game go live.

No worries, though! After I take a little break, I'm going to write up a guide to help casual game developers get the engine ready for casual game development. It will contain important video changes that you'll probably want to make to the engine, a list of gotchas to look out for, and lots of advice from developers on this website that have way more experience than I do with the engine.

If I make a Grimm's Hatchery II, I'll definitely be using TGB. Now that I've got it customized for casual gamer machines, it's a nice piece of work.

@A
I hope it will be up there some time soon :)
,

======================


Kalle Wik
Member Posted: Apr 13, 2007 17:15
The base TGB engine, both 1.1.3 and TGB beta 1.5 r2, do not launch on Windows 98 or Windows ME.

Tested with base app (just a main menu graphic), compiled raw and stock from each engine. Included unicows.dll in the 1.1.3 folder, and noticed it was in 1.5 r2.

Results:
* On 4 of 4 Windows 98 computers tested, launch failed. Includes a high-end, badass CAT lab computer with cleanly installed Windows 98 OS
* On 1 of 1 Win ME computers, launch failed

Errors:
* With unicows.dll in the folder, error states: "Buffer overrun detected! A buffer overrun has been detected which has corrupted the program's internal state. The program cannot safely continue execution and must now be terminated"
* Without it the error is just the typical crash report

The Good News:
* Rack Em Up Road trip launches and runs fine
* Puzzle Poker launches and runs fine

The Bad News:

What's up with your own games (Rack Em Up) getting extra platform love that isn't in the core engine???

What's the method to fix this problem in 1.1.3? Have a game that needs to ship so whatever it is, please help. I am aware of this thread...

http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/Torque/Code/MSLU

Figured it'd be in the core TGB since it's in TGE 1.4.2 engine. If doing these engine fixes will solve it, let me know and we'll compile it in with the other mandatory one - minimizing or clicking off the app cannot be detected - that definitely s/b in the core also.

Thanks for any help here! Need a fix big time,

[Joe Rossi]

FYI Windows 98 is not listed as a supported platform, in fact it only lists XP on the Windows platform (not even Vista yet). Come on now, 98 is about a decade old...People who still use that OS probably can't afford to buy games anyway, and a good % of the new games they download won't even work, so they'll be accustomed to it. I say screw them, they can save that $ and buy themselves XP (not Vista :p ). Not that it would be a bad idea to support 98, just doesn't seem all *that* important, at least to me.

[membrain]

I just feel a need to toss my shinny pennies in on this... Specifically in relevance to Game Maker-
I'm an artist, not a programmer or "developer" per se... but with GM I'm able to make my games and for that I am greatfull.
As has been pointed out already, it's all on the skill of the programmer when it comes to what comes out of it. I've seen some crazy things done in GM that I never thought possible... or anyone in the forum(s) for that matter-

And thatx to GM, I can now look at code in general without my head exploding;) It was a good start for me, and is an excelent tool for the skilled... prototyping is nothing short of a synch with it.


"Remember one man's meat is another man's poison..." - I don't think I've ever head that before, but it made me laugh... so it's alright by me :D

[spellcaster]

I'm currently playing around with Game Maker, and I must say I am impressed ;)
I am working through some of the tutorials right now. It even has an isometric map editor! Nice ;)

Just wondering: How is a look like in this game done:
http://www.yoyogames.com/games/show/2911#

It looks like a projection of a hexmap grid. I don't think it uses the 3d (2.5d?) features of GameMaker because there is also a 3d variant of the same game:
http://www.yoyogames.com/games/show/1602 - so how is the effect done? Looks cool ;)

[RinkuHero]

I suggest asking the author of that game how he did it, it looks pretty impressive for a Game Maker game (and I've seen some pretty impressive Game Maker games).

[Anlino]

Ask the creator or post a question in the Gamemaker forums (gmc.yoyogames.com) (gmc.yoyogames.com), you could also try to search for the game there, maybe you aren't the first one who is wondering :)

[Ojuzu]

@stanchat: Thanks for posting that info, I appreciate it. It helps to know what the issue is so I can plan accordingly. I agree that Win 98 is pretty long in the tooth but for pure casual games it probably is important to maintain compatibility with it.

[Joe Rossi]

Does anyone know why GameMaker is still only available for Windows? I think it would be awesome if it were crossplatform. The main reason I didn't go with GM is because it has no Mac support. Well that, and not getting the source code is kind of an issue for me too. It really is a good tool though, no denying that.

[RinkuHero]

Because it uses DirectX. Overmars has stated that he has no plans of porting it to other platforms unfortunately.

[amaranth]

Wow, this is turning into a juicy subject! I thought I would add some notes...

@RinkuHero
I think that your module idea is awesome! This is something I've been silently thinking about as well for quite some time.

@Joe Rossi
I know it sounds crazy that people are still using Windows 98, but I found that about 25% of my customers are using this old software. Also, Neopets just did a survey and they found that 40% of users were on Win 98.

@Matt
One problem is that cheap game creation systems like GameMaker ($20), RPG Maker ($60) don't have problems passing the quality assurance testing by the major game portals. However, TGB ($250) straight out of the box will trigger several crashing bugs that require changes to the engine before a game will be accepted. I hope GG works on quality assurance testing next. Oh yes, and I think it was a great move for them to hire a technical writer. It's been fun watching the documents mature and expand.

[Jack Norton]

OMG that sucks. Luckily with PTK the few times I had to deal with portals, I had to change NOTHING :D

[tau]

I hope GG works on quality assurance testing next.

That's exactly what I meant :cool: But I did not expressed it as well as you did

[Greg Squire]

One problem is that cheap game creation systems like GameMaker ($20), RPG Maker ($60) don't have problems passing the quality assurance testing by the major game portals. However, TGB ($250) straight out of the box will trigger several crashing bugs that require changes to the engine before a game will be accepted. ...

Amanda makes a good point here, and it hits on why someone would use a pre-built engine or SDK in the first place. The two biggest reasons (in my mind) are to first to "save time" and secondly it provides functionality that one might not be capable (or unwilling) to write. If you have the source to the engine and the skills, then you can fix the engine, but you are no longer saving time. If it's an engine where you have no access to the source (or the skills to fix it), then you are at the mercy of the engine provider to fix it. Thus "reliability" becomes a big factor in choosing an engine. I'd have to agree that TGB isn't quite there yet. It's moving that direction, but not there yet.

It's also interesting to me to note that a lot of engine modifications were done to TGB to get "Rack'em Up RoadTrip" out the door. I know some of that was for some specialized physics code to handle the complex pool physics at a lower level. However I would think there were some more generalized stability changes in there too. Not sure why those types of things didn't get rolled into the general TGB base? (Maybe they did; I'm just guessing here). Also, I do have to commend Garage Games for essentially "eating their own dog food" in creating this game. Ultimately by using their own engine, they can improve it for others. I still think TGB is a powerful engine; I just wish it was more "accessible" to most programmers.

On a different note, I've been looking at a GameMaker quite a bit these past few weeks, and I've found a renewed interest in the engine. When I looked at it before a couple years ago, all I saw were really crappy games that were made with it, and I sort of wrote if off as a "toy that teenagers were using”. Since then I've come across more "professional looking" games built with it. Its still not a perfect engine (is there such a thing?), but it could possibly meet my needs, and it's also extendable. I would be nice if they had a Mac version though (maybe one day).

If you could combine the power and functionality of TGB, with the accessibility of Game Maker, and make it super stable, then you might have something really close to my "dream engine".

[Ratboy]

This thread got me playing around with TGB and Gamemaker too. I like TGB's tools, but as a programmer, I make a pretty good artist, so Gamemaker's looking a little better for my needs. I'm going to be getting BlitzMax too, since Basic is about the only programming language that's managed to stay in my head.

Sooner or later, I've gotta invest in some free time, too...

[amaranth]

One thing to note about Game Maker... I'm not sure if this is true for every game, but it seems that large games take quite a while to load. A looooong time to load.

Oh yes, and if you want to use Software Passport or Armadillo for security, you're going to have problems. (You won't have to worry about that for long. We've created a product that solves this annoying little problem.)

:)

[papillon]

Very true. An exe larger than a couple of MB will have serious problems on the average computer. This can be countered by keeping resources out of the exe file and managing the load/free yourself as needed, but this can raise resource security questions. (And, of course, it's easy to memory leak like crazy if you're not watching your resource handling carefully!)

[Greg Squire]

@amaranth
I saw a post on the GMC forums about your Pre-DRM wrapper. If I finish a project in Game Maker, I'll most likely want that too. Thanks for making a solution available to that issue. Ideally Mark Overmars or YoYoGames ought to just fix the issue, but at least there's a solution for now. (And ideally GarageGames ought to stabilize TGB too. Do I just ask for too much? :D )

@papillon
I've been lurking somewhat on the GMC forums (oh, that just sounds so sinistar! ;) ) and I noticed that was the same thing that most people were recommending to do to improve load times also. It makes sense, so that all the resources don't have to be loaded into memory at once. However, what do you mean by security questions? Are you talking about running running Game Maker in secure mode (not completely sure what that is, but saw references to it on the forums)? Or are you referring to the fact it would be easier for someone to steal your resources and use them in their own game?

[stanchat]

One thing to note about Game Maker... I'm not sure if this is true for every game, but it seems that large games take quite a while to load. A looooong time to load.

Oh yes, and if you want to use Software Passport or Armadillo for security, you're going to have problems. (You won't have to worry about that for long. We've created a product that solves this annoying little problem.)

:)
I actually had Mark Overmas do a special build for me (GameMaker 6.0 and 6.1) that addressed the security issue with DRM packages. After using this build the portals didn't have any problems wrapping the game.

I have made several games in 6.0 and 6.1 but have not played around with 7.0 yet. IMHO Gamemaker has some inconsitent performance problems. You can run a game on almost identical PC's and sometimes you get different results. Lack of cross-platform compatilbility and the above mentioned performance issues just knocks Gamemaker out of contention.

I have invested too much time in TGB at this point to turn back. Even though I cuss and fight it on a daily basis, it does in my opinion has the most upside of all the engines. The problems with TGB are more symptomatic of their business culture at GG and not necessarily TGB engine defecencies. We have all heard the old ethos too many chiefs, not enough indians at GG it appears at some respects it may be quite the opposite. Way too many GG geeks running around with no real business savvy for my liking.

As mentioned above adding the technical writer is a step in the right direction but still not enough. They really need an infusion of true business leadership to give the overall company some true focus and direction and also become more pro-active. IMHO it appears that it is not a lack of resources but quite possibly the misplacement of resources. For instance "The Great Games Experiment":eek: also the 1.5 beta launch when you could probabl