Teaching Old Dog New Tricks(can artist learn to code?)

I've been a Mac user since 1984 and know a lot about 2D and 3D graphics and animation - years of practice and application. Being an artist I have a built-in aversion to code - it makes me cringe and immediately seek to pull out the little hair I have left. Over the years I have made several attempts to learn scripting of various kinds, always leaving the pursuit for the same reasons. I don't think like a machine, I like immediate feedback and reward and I make syntax errors.

Now, I have been led to understand that Unity is the Bees Knees, when it comes to making a game of some sort. Still, it requires, it demands, it forces one to learn to code - Ohhhh noooooooo. Can't you guys just make pictures that stand for code that I can drag and drop and make things gamelike happen? Why not?

Another thing that has stopped me from pursuing coding in a more long lasting fashion is the way programmers think, talk and attempt to communicate what they know. Programmers do not, generally speaking, think like I do . . . I believe "natural" programmers think symbolically . . . about everything. That is why they like to express themselves in code form. That is why they have chosen programming as a vocation, and often times, as an avocation. On the other hand, the artist thinks pictorially, literally and in a straightforward fashion. And thus, a great chasm has been formed which separates the artist from the programmer.

If an artist seeks to learn to program, guess who he has at his disposal, anxious to teach him the ropes? . . . . the programmer. The programmer who always knows what he, himself, means. He knows what he means, but I don't have a clue. Since his thinking processes are different than mine, he can't understand why I don't know what he is talking about, no matter how many snippets of code he shows me. You see, it is a matter of thinking modes. I see things in pictures, he sees things in symbols. You could say the same thing of a mathematician. The mathematician thinks also in symbols, which is why the bulk of humanity "doesn't get it", mathematically speaking. The bulk of humanity thinks in pictures, literally, leaving "us" all in the dust, symbolically. Why does the world contain more artists than programmers? Because most folks don't think like programmers and won't be made to think that way.

So, the gulf remains, which is quite lucrative if you happen to be of the programmer's ilk. Whatever happened to "Programming for the rest of us?" We're Mac users, visual people, not DOS dweebs, like Bill Gates. Shoot, I even struggled with HyperCard.

Well, I know some of you will reply, "Anyone can learn to program with languages like BOO and Python". Don't be so sure. Boo still thinks like a machine and I don't. And, as I said, I make syntax errors. To prove a point, just go over to the BOO or the Python site and with truthful eyes view what is available for the absolute, know nothing novice, regarding really grasping programming concepts. Of course I undertand the "hello world" example and several other of the more basic ones. In fact, most of the examples which deal with linguistic usage are graspable. But games are really just massive logic machines, not language machines, if you understand me. You, the programmer, must possess the ability to look "way down the road" a piece and stay focussed, regardless of the details that lie all over the path in front of you, if I may speak symbolically. The distractions will kill you.

Pardon me for saying so, but another thing that absolutely flabbergasts me about programmers, (people who make their living by typing), is that in real language they usually can't spell or punctuate accurately, or write a complete sentence. (I exaggerate, here). How in the world can they communicate with a machine that forgives nothing, that overlooks nothing, when they can't even communicate clearly with genial and understanding human beings? Please pardon my bluntness. This just kills me.

Anyway, because it gets old just making things that sit there or animate linearly, I would love to be able to make a playable, entertaining game of some sort, one that my grandchildren may look back on and say, wow, my grandpa made that back in the 21st century, wasn't he smart?

Sincerely,

Greg Smith

 

To be absolutely honest, it seems to me like you're making a list of reasons why you'll never learn how to code... Well, guess what? As long as you keep those reasons close to your heart, you never will...

It is true that there is a gap, but in order to to learn a new field, you need to approach it with an open heart. Yes, I am a programmer since I was 10. That did not mean that I was convinced that I could not learn to draw. I tried, and got 'ok' at it. If you want to learn, you need to shed those shields and give an honest try.

In practical terms, there are a number of things you can do:
1) Instead of browsing the web sites of various programming languages, try to turn to the professional pedagogues - they are people who have made a career out of bridging these kind of gaps. Buy a book, or look for courses on programming.

2) Just ignore the problem - you're a graphic artist, fine. You don't understand programming, fine. Find someone who is as entrenched in the programming view of the world as you are in the art perspective. Then join forces. That's what we did with GooBall....

A free and easy thing to do, right now, would be to go through the Unity tutorials. try to look at the scripting tutorial. Maybe you'll just think it is wholly unnatural the first time. Then just go through the tutorial on autopilot - you'll have plenty to do. After that, try to make a small modification to the game. Then another, then another. Remember, you probably spent years learning to be a good artist. Just the same, you won't pick up programming in an afternoon....

And yes, there is a gulf. But there are some of us attempting to bridge it. We're standing on the programming side of the gorge, and have built half a bridge - called Unity - trying to reach the other side. Now it's up to people like you to build the other half of the bridge.

 

Nicholas:

It is true, I am compiling a list of reasons for never learning to code . . . it is that painful. But there is another reason for my trepidation.

Does the scripting tutorial use a specific scripting language, or could I complete it with, say, BOO? Which scripting language offers the best starting point for the absolute beginner, with the most supportive documentation and the fastest payoff? (Which commercial publication do you recommend?) Can you give me, a programmatically disabled individual, a discount on Unity?

One final and valid point: finishing what you start. From everything I have read, nearly no one person has ever finished a marketable game alone. Yet, your product is being marketed to the independent developer. Independent = Individual. (aha!, I can code!) Truthfully, what are the odds that any independent developer will ever, single-handedly, finish a marketable game? As you can probably tell, I am not a spectacular team player. I work and think alone. Look at Goo-Ball, as you have already stated, it is a collaborative work - and though frivolous, took an enormous number of man-hours to complete. There have got to be some tangible reasons that a lone developer would and should spend $249 on your product. Perhaps it is the best platform for actually learning to code. That would be a worthwhile investment. Can you post a list of reasons that a person working alone should invest his or her time and money on Unity? Can you discuss discounts for the disabled?

Sincerely,

Greg Smith

 

Hi there Greg Smith,

I consider myself a lone developer or A wanna be developer.
Actually, I think I'm just a hobbiest( Is Hobbiest even a valid word?)

I'm 41 yrs old and studying Computer Science.
Wanted to just learn C++ but decided to enroll for a Bachelor's degree. I can code on Qbasic. (the very old basic languages) and very rusty on cobol.

I spend $$ for unity ,decided to get the pro version.
I also own a license of torque.($100.00 to read the source code, still trying to play with it but it is much harder than Unity and that's a fact.)

Creating a simple game, one needs a good graphics or an acceptable graphics and yes, one needs to code too.

The way I see it is, try to mod the tutorials with your own graphics and follow along the scripting tutorial. (That's what I'm doing on my free time.)

To me being an indie developer is , your not employed by the big companies that create games in a manufacturing set of thinking. (Producing x amounts of product to meet quotas/deadlines.) Sure they can put out lots of games, but are they all good?

I think collaboration is very good (If not a must) for indie developer.

I know that when my stuff is ready, I will be needing some good contents (graphics). Right know, my contents are all squares, circles, triangles, etc. Still working on how playable the game will be and will it be addictive.

Sure it's nice to have a game engine that's cut and paste. (I'm a cut and paste kinda guy too javascript:emoticon('')). Maybe someday Unity will evolve into that.

For me, I'm not getting any younger, when I die, I will not take my money with me (and I don't even have a lot) or my G5 with me, so I decided to just do the things that I enjoy so I spend more money( charge it baby!!!) and purchase cheetah 3d, right now testing hexagon from eovia makers of carrara 3d and also testing sketchup.

Am I a graphics artist, NOPE.
Do I consider myself a programmer, NOPE.
I think I'm just a NUT!javascript:emoticon('') Wanted to learn everything that I'm willing to spend $$ just to satisfy my desire, needs and wants.

Ray

 

Ray Nicholas:

Well, Ray, I've got you beat. I'm going on 51 and feel like I've wasted an incredible amount of time, especially trying to develop graphic content with and for the computer-related marketplace. People simply do not realize the immense volume of time needed to develop anything saleable. And, the consumer appetites and tastes are constantly getting more sophisticated and demanding, making the job even harder.

I can tell these guys who have developed Unity are youngsters, and full of optimism. They may be programmatically and in other ways brilliant, but what they probably lack is the time retrospective that some of us have acquired the hard way. When young, one tends to feel that time is not an issue since there is so much of it left, and energy levels are so high. Like the difference in characters of a video game - one is starting out with perfect health, time and energy, the other is nearing the "game over" stages, having made many mistakes and used up much of his "power". The new characters have not yet spent more than half of their potential lifetimes, (and health points), as I have. It jades you, somewhat, no?

So, I've got to be told the truth at my stage in life. I don't have any more time to spend on fantasy, or to squander the time I have left. If everyone concerned would just be honest, there wouldn't be these grey areas with regard to game development:

Fact - Making marketable games takes a lot of man-hours

Fact - Making marketable games takes expert programming skills

Fact - Making marketable games takes expert graphic skills

Fact - Making marketable games requires innate entertainment perception

Fact - $249, (or is it $259) is a lot of money to pay for something that you may not directly profit from obtaining.

Fact - Most people considering the purchase of products like Unity lack more than one of the above.


It's all about time, skills obtained, and the requirements time has, and how much of it we lack to accomplish the things we desire, before the game is over, so to speak.

I know that to you youngsters, this may sound very pessimistic and on the down side, and it truly doesn't apply to you, yet. But, I entreat you to be nice and answer these few questions of mine. (From my last post).

Greg Smith

 

Sounds like you've already given up without having really started.

 

aarku:

Let's take "Bug Thug" as a telling example. It is a free game widget that has won some awards. How many people worked on it for how long? What skillsets are represented by these people? How did everyone involved profit from the experience? Who are you?

It is truly wise to not venture into something that may not be possible, or too expensive, or beyond your skillset to complete with success. Why waste your only available resources?

Greg Smith

 

Hi Greg. You make a lot of interesting points, both about the labor involved in developing a game, and the learning curve involved in learning a new skill, in your case, programming. I personally believe that a game simply can not be made by one person alone. Even if that person has enormous programming and art talent, that person will still need someone else to play the game and provide feedback. Otherwise the game isn't going to be worthwhile after all that effort.

You seem to have an immense skillset when it comes to art. If you stay involved with the community here, you may find that there are several people who are lacking these skills (such as myself) and are seeking to collaborate with people who do (again, such as myself). One of the great things about Unity is how easy it makes collaboration within a small group. The point I want to make is that no one makes a brilliant piece of software alone. And rather than feeling like you need to learn to program before you can be a one-man band, you might consider contributing your skills to a project that will take value in your work.

I am relatively new to programming, myself. I come from a film/video production and I am a very visual person. So I understand the frustration you have encountered in trying to learn how to program. Nevertheless, I encourage you to go through the scripting tutorial, using Javascript (the language the tutorial is written in). Do it again and again until it starts to make sense. When you get sick of the included code, change it and see what happens. That will be the best experience you can get with Unity, I think.

Oh, and in case it's still unclear-- Would you care to contribute your art skills to my project? If you do, I'd be more than happy to explain the code I am using as we go. Email me if you're interested: sam.kalman@gmail.com

 

BugThug (no space) was made in six weeks of spare/hobby time by myself. It's an application, not a widget. OverWhelmed Arena is the widget, which was made in two weeks by two people in their spare time. Back to BugThug: There were a few friends I went to bounce ideas off, get feedback and design ideas, and some miscellaneous graphics and voice acting work. The main thing I got out of BugThug was enjoyment. During development and after it was released. I had a great time in particular animating the title screen to the music I was making. After it was released, it was truly amazing to hear from people around the world who they themselves or their children got some bit of enjoyment out of it. There wasn't a whole ton of feedback but I was really grateful for the few emails I received. Depending on how you want to add it up, I also got about $4k worth of prizes. That reward was due to the nearly thankless work of a group of volunteers and the companies who donated them. They did the volunteer work because they loved what they were doing. They certainly didn't get fame or money out of the deal.

I think if you see all of this primarily in terms of material profit, you should run far far away from game development as fast as you can. I do this because I love it and I find the bright spots in the field. If it all seems like a "waste" now then it probably will seem like even more of one the more you get into it. Just leave me out of it, because I'm quite happy in my naïve bright view of the world as-is.

Good Luck,
-Jon

 

Ulognep:

I think, collaboration, for me is the crux of the matter. I have very specific graphic visions, tastes and game play goals, not very suitable for a collaborative project. It's all in my head, so to speak. I want to make what I want to make, not what someone else envisions. This is the source of my pointed statements and questions. If it is not realistic to attempt alone, I won't attempt it at all, that is the point. I don't have time to mess around anymore. Time and money could be better spent doing something else, rather than starting off on another learning adventure taking years to obtain a novice level of expertise, which, I think is the case with game programming. Someone with experience could answer these questions I have asked in a heartbeat, and the fact that nobody is stepping forth to answer them indicates to me that I am mostly right in my assumptions.

Let me put it this way, is there anyone out there that knows anybody who has, single-handedly put his internal vision into game-playing reality, and how long did it take?

Greg Smith

 

aarku:

Nothing wrong with a bright outlook. I wish I had one. Were you born loving to program, or did this happen over time? How much time? Are you by profession a programmer? Are you independently wealthy? Are you on any mood altering drugs?

Greg Smith

 

That's exactly the reason I'm buying Unity! I'm spending money to save time.

Let me explain where I'm coming from. I had drafted a nice long response but I turned my back for a minute, and my wife had closed that window. :-(
So I'll just sum up.

- I'm 38
- I released 2 shareware games in 1992, they did ok. Took me 6 years to finish those games, working in fits and starts obviously.
- Lack of time (demanding job, starting a family) meant no game development for about 10 years.
- uDG#2 rolls around, I can't stand it any more so I develop a game from scratch in my spare time over 3 months, teaching myself some simple OpenGL as I go. Thanks to a canny choice of projects I pull it off, and win 2nd place for originality too.
- Entered uDG 3 4, and did respectably each time.
- Sure, I'm jealous of the people who have entire summers free to work on their games, and who don't have families to raise, but I'll do what I can.

With more development polish, plus help from an actual artist, I believe 2 of those 3 uDG games would have been suitable for shareware release. I estimate 6 months more work, per title.

This year I am trying something much more insane. 5 weeks to make a game from scratch that's as good or better than my other uDG entries, and learning Unity as I go. And I might just make it.

I have $250. What I lack is time. If Unity can help me prototype or finish a game in 1/3rd of the time, and I'm virtually certain now that it can, it's well worth the money for me. And with faster turnaround I'll be much more able to work with an artist one day, something my games would benefit from. (It's hard for me to let go of sole authorship, I understand that point that others have made, but if I ever decide to go shareware or try to get published again, it'll be a necessary step.)

The other thing Unity saves me from is some of the work that I find most tedious. Who wants to learn who to program that resolution-switching dialog, or the loading and playback of Ogg Vorbis files? I'd find it diverting if I had lots more time, but as things stand I resent having to locate or write a snippet of code that hundreds of other programmers have coded in the past. I want to concentrate on the unique aspects of my game.

That's my perspective, anyway. My "profit" from Unity is time saved.

Incidentally, my old games I mentioned can be found at my website:
http://home.comcast.net/~squarebin

 

Hey. I'm young, 19, and I have big ambitions. And so I don't understand everything you feel, but I may some day. I'm a very negative person, always looking at the dark side of things and I'm often depressed. So I understand somewhat how you are feeling, the feeling that you can't get to what you want to.

I bought Unity on a whim of sorts. I have always wanted to create video games, I bought the ColdStone Game Engine a few years back. And then found that Ambrosia and Benox were not even going to get it running on the next OS version that came out.

I'm not a programer, not at all. I look at code and I might as well be looking at something written in Mandarin. I mean heck I can hardly even spell. I love 3D but I'm a noob at it. And then on top of all this I have very defined goals. I have this game I want to make, and I want it MY way. So it has always seemed impossible, I'm an artist not a programer. How on earth can I create a game.

I'm still wondering this. And the fact that I spent $250 on a game engine that I can't even create anything in on my own worried me. What if I don't find a programer to work on my project. But I have been having a blast! I'm learning 3D game modeling, UV mapping and lots of other stuff at a much much faster rate than I would have if I didn't have something to test them in. I have been able to create cool maps and bring worlds to life in a way I never could, and I haven't even touched scripting yet. I haven't gone through the scripting tutorial or anything, I'm having so much fun just creating things, places, adding rain, and things like that. And now I'm working with Kevin on his game, Its cool to see my art start to come alive in a game, and all this knowledge will just make it easier, faster, and smother when I get to creating my own game. So for me Unity was well worth the $250 I spent on it just for the fun of bringing things to life in a new way, and for the great community that it has. Plus some day I'm going to finish my game and its going to be beyond what I want. Well I'll shut up now, hope I got my point across. Jeff

P.S. The guy who made "Alida" did it all by himself over 6 years. He is my insperation.

 

I feel the same way. For me it not about the money, its not about the fame. I never want to be famous, I don't want to be rich. Sure it will be great when I can make a living off of this because then I get to do what I love all day. And game design isn't something with Fame and money in it, especially for the Indies. Its all about pashion, something like art. Jeff

 

Greg,
I think the reason no one has stepped forward to give the bad news is not because of rights or wrongs or those kinds of concepts. I think it is more because games mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

One thing I've noticed watching the more experienced developers (that have shipped multiple successful titles in various markets, and continued to do so - indie through AAA) is that the notable ones tend towards simplification over time, even with comparably unlimited funds. Most notable failures (in my view) have been from designers shooting too high, sometimes over-engineering their games, sometimes just underestimating the amount of raw content required.

I believe things are becoming much more modular these days due to improvements in all the things we hold dear (processor speeds, memory, graphics cards, etc), which can make bringing a game together much easier, assuming you're not trying to push any envelopes! I think perfect evidence of this is Unity. Even 5 years ago, I don't think it would have been possible to pull together such a generalized engine and stick it under such a nice IDE and have it work for each persons individual vision so consistantly (AND being so close to latest tech visually).

The question that sparked my interest the most, about whether one person could do it all? I think yes, but there is no formula that works at this level. Unless you are dipping in to commercial-quality budget levels (millions in development and marketing), I think the most valuable thing you can consider is scope and depth. What is your vision? What makes your idea unique? My own belief is that you can excel at the Indie level through two primary paths: bare originality or polish and perfection.

Either way, the scope and depth of a game are the most important things to understand when deciding whether your own idea is possible in a given time frame. If you plan to fly solo and you scope your game just right, you could finish it in a reasonable amount of time, but if you are going it alone you MUST be conservative in design and tighten scope in every place you can. Once you think you've dropped enough features to make it achievable, drop some more

Also, personally I agree with the general intention of your Fact list above, but I do not think it is so easily defined as that. I think that some of your facts are subjective, and some are speculative. Most of those facts revolve around what I outlined above: scope and depth. If you go for a deep RPG which spans several large locales, your list is truth defined. If you get lucky and design the next Tetris (and I'm not saying the next generation of it, aka: Lumines) then all but one of your Facts are invalidated, leaving the subjective one about cost. What's a game? Is it solitaire? Is it Halo? Is it Tetris? My wife, my mother, my grandmother, my father and I all answer this completely differently. Which market are you after? Each one requires a different arrangement of priorities in your Fact list.

Making games is a strange place to do business. Tastes change and there are a lot of different markets for different kinds of games. The first game that truly touched me was (I think) Enchanter on an Atari 800, but these days I really like turning green and throwing cars at helicopters.

Well then, maybe there is one more qualifier to making games. If it doesn't burn you alive when you're not working on an idea (and I mean this generally - sketching it, coding it, designing, whatever), its probably not something that will make you happy - you can make a lot more money with less time and effort in lots of other places! If money is not the objective, but accomplishing something is (its difficult to read your true intention through what you've told us), then this is probably one of the most interesting places to be. You sound sort of like a businessman who is used to thinking of the bottom line and keeping things on the straight and narrow, so if you go ahead with game dev, I think you will have a good sense about keeping things lean.

Anyway, I guess I got touched by the amount of practicality in your questions and couldn't resist blathering until my fingers hurt. Hope it helped in some way.

Russ

 

I do not see any problem with you making a list of reasons you should not code. In fact, I would suggest you do not spend your limited time learning to code, something which you obviously have an aversion to. Instead collaborate with someone or, what I would suggest, hire someone (terms are flexible) to do the coding. Odds are someone who loves to code will be at least an order of magnitude faster than you will ever be. Concentrate on your strengths, which is the graphics department. That is where all the time will be spent anyway, especially with Unity.

The secret is putting together a team where each member has their own unique strengths. Hopefully you have had the opportunity to at least observe a group of people that work well together. In my experience those types of groups are usually populated with people that have different strengths. Take some time finding someone who is a good match for you and shares your vision, or at least does not mind following your directions. If cash is tight, then equity or deferred compensation are options. There are a myriad of schemes and structures available. If you are unfamiliar with many of the options, you might want to invest paying a decent lawyer for an hour of their time.

Marketing is always challenging, especially if you don't have millions. However, their are ways. I assume you already have a target market in mind. If not, you will want to develop a target market so then your marketing strategy can be based on targeting that market. Don't go off and consider the market as uniform. That is a road leading to failure.

You mention the fabled drag and drop programming environment. Programming is logic, nothing more. You already know a language far more difficult than any programming language. Even if you had a drag and drop programming environment, you still must do the logic in how you put together all the pretty shapes, and that is where the devil lays.

Just as you want that programming environment that makes all that messy programming simple, I am still waiting on that graphics program that can take the vision in my head and allows me to create the graphics. Perhaps a drag and drop then, viola, beauty

 

Independent != Individual

Making a marketable game requires time and dedication. Most people only get that from being supported by a big team and a hefty salary, but its far from the rule.

--

Yes ofcourse you have to think differently as you are applying your ideas onto a media.

I find it illogic to think of pictures as a collection of differently coloured strokes. When I think of a picture its sorta just there, but if an artist wants to recreate an idea of an image, he or she must think in strokes.

You have to adapt your way of thinking to suit your tool - this is not only logic, but also very human.

 

I'll make a formal presentation of myself.

Hi, I'm 20 years old and I live in Finland. At the moment I'm going through mandatory military service, which still lasts for 54 days. I have no prior experience as a programmer. One and a half years ago I just got an idea for an rpg and I started feverishly developing that idea forward. Soon I had a lot of game mechanics written down and even some early thoughts for a story. I had worked on both of them for a few months before I started showing them to game developers at iDevGames. To my big surprise they liked it a lot. Felt like I had actually managed to create interesting gameplay and great ideas for a story.

Fast forward to the present. My time has been very limited after I started my military service back in January 10th. Even before that I had several months, when my game did not see any progress because of various reasons. But now I've acquired a writing mood again and my story has seen continuous development, even though I'm only able to write it on weekends. The rest of the week going to learning war mongering at the military base.

The problem that has risen is that while I write the story for my rpg, I don't have time to learn any programming. I bought BlitzMax a few months ago with the idea of learning to program my own games. But since I really want to push to have a really good story, all of my time goes for that. After I finish the story, I still have a lot of game mechanics to think of, not to mention not having any knowledge in programming. I won't be able to start work on my rpg alone, so I'll have to find people hopefully interested in doing the work for me.

After I've finished the story, guess what I'm going to do? Start writing another one. Even though I'd really like to create my own games, I'm beginning to get profiled as a story writer. I don't know will I ever get really good at it and I'm not sure will the story I'm writing now turn good, but at least that's what I want to do. The bad thing is that I write stories for games that would take years to finish. When I played Half-Life 2, all I could think of was "Wow, yet another tube-running fps. Yet it does have tremendously well animated characters with voice acting, great physics and graphics to really make the world come alive. If only I could create a story for it and get animators create lifelike actors and in game cut scenes etc…". I know, I'm a overly ambitious thinking that I could some day create something like that, even if it doesn't have as good graphics. I do have some ideas for smaller 2D games, but without having no time to learn programming - and hopefully I'll get to study electronics engineering in a polytechnic next fall - I have no chance in creating games of my own alone.

So, how about putting together a dev team to create roleplaying games? How many people are willing to put years of effort to create a game? Most game developers only program simple puzzle games, because that will produce gratification without taking too long to create. Nowadays I can understand them after having worked for that one and a half years on one rpg.

Maybe it's time I just accept the truth that all I'll ever get to do is 2D-games that look like they were created for Super Nintendo. But hey, at least that way I might get finished games.

 

Russ and others:

Thank you all very much for your responses to my questions. I think they all got answered, mostly in the way I expected. To tell you the truth, I think the amount of labor required to produce what most people are used to calling "games" is far too high for the expected "shelf life" of the game, whether shelf life is describing the length of time the game will remain saleable or the length of time it will retain the interest of the intended audience.

To those who are trying to make games as a hobby, better listen to what everyone has said here. What I keep hearing are words all meaning the same thing - collaboration. If you don't fancy collaborating, I wouldn't advise you to waste much time dreaming, because that is all it will ever be, alone. I'm speaking of producing what I think of as a game - 3D worlds to explore, lots of mysteries to uncover, inspiring situations and interesting characters, (action, to me is unnecessary - the inclusion of which would add even more to the projected time-table). The graphic work alone on this kind of production would consume many man years of your time. I'm sure you could finish some of it, but not most of it.

Also, I think those who are passionate about the game-play methods of story-telling, and, who have no trouble collaborating with others, might very well spend their time better by actually working on inventing that fabled, graphically driven programming environment, rather than trying to produce games, themselves using the clunky programming tools available today. And I do mean clunky - by comparison to all the other sophistication present in the world of computers, programming "languages" are still in the stone age. The power of the computer remains under lock and key and in the control of the priesthood, much like all knowledge was controlled in the middle ages by those of priveledged access and secret codes.

Much less collaboration would be necessary if the tools to visually piece together the logic of a game were made directly available to those who have the overall vision in their own heads. Why get someone else to do something that you could, more efficiently, do directly, yourself? (I know this advice is falling on deaf ears).

People have been working on this concept for some time, now. I believe the visual, (not Microsoft visual), approach makes far more sense for everyone, even the hard core programmers. Everything in code is becoming self-contained and modular, with each passing day. The wheel has already been invented a million or more times by a million or more people. And people seem to still love the process of re-inventing it. Game logic consists of logic fragments that are mostly the same kinds of things, the same procedures and conditions used over and over. They have already been written in code more than a few times. Even the act of copying and pasting this code requires some kind of cryptic understanding of the underlying meaning of the thing. Rather than use this cryptic, inhuman jargon to describe these relatively mundane and simple processes, leaving the jargon in control of you and your ignorance, why not enslave it, instead of it enslaving you and others. Put it in a capsule and seal it up forever. It does this thing - fine, so wrap it up and make a representation of it that is as simple as the thing it does. Make a picture out of it. The ultimate symbol.

Every seeing human being understands pictures. Not every human being can understand a cryptic machine message, nor should they want to. By taking a series of obviously descriptive pictures, each one a symbol for the thing that it does, and arranging them so that a visual process appears in the arrangement, (a game is primarily a visual thing, today, anyway - even chess is largely visual in nature), not only does the overall "picture" of the game emerge, but the act of arranging the pictures into processes becomes a game in and of itself. "Fun for the whole family!"

I know that difficulties emerge when logic becomes extremely complex - thus the multi-dimensional array - (I only understand this thing on a surface level) - and things like that. But even these complex processes of logic can be made to "look" simpler and more intelligible by wrapping them in the ultimate symbol - the picture. Everything in nature is a symbol - a picture of something deeper and hidden, all expressed and encapsulated in the picture, itself.

Take a leaf, for example: within this beautifully simple physical object, a whole world of life exists, a complex living mechanism that exists together for the expression that is the leaf, which is the thing that we see, the thing that we interact with. To receive the benefit of the leaf, we do not need to understand its workings, necessarily. The workings exist and function, yet are beautifully concealed within the wonderful exterior of the leaf "picture" which is also the leaf "symbol". The picture is the symbol which is the function containing the life and all of its processes. It is immediately understandable, apprehendable and appreciable, and all for what it is and does - and, most importantly, what it "seems" to be. (of course, there are a number of "deceptive" leaves).

I say, all programming should be descriptive in nature and simple in appearance. A thing able to be used and enjoyed and appreciated by everyone, not just those who love its secrets and hidden functions. The day of the nerd is dead, or should be. The nerd will be dead when the secrets have been revealed, put in submission and shared by all, to the benefit of all.

Greg Smith

 

Just want to chime in and say that Unity is a tool that is a step in the direction of the future of game development you are hoping for.

I think the tension here is that we are consumers of products like movies and videogames that are multi-million dollar enterprises with often 100's of collaborators working over a year or more to create one product. When we think in the realm of what they produced and expect to produce the same thing on our own in a few months time, well... what is easy to imagine is simply not possible to do alone in the same amount of time.

As far as modularizing things... it all just changes so quickly. Take the MMORPG phenomenon. Almost every one of those games has a different solution to the problems the game-type presents. How is one supposed to modularize each one of those options into something as simple to understand as a leaf. Furthermore, if it takes dozen people to create it, how many will it take to, then, figure out how to make it into that leaf for everyone to use?

Plus, not everything in game design projects nicely in to an object recognizable by the common person. Not everyone even understands what a leaf is might be good for. Your understanding of that simple object comes from studying (just like programmers study the language they use.)

Unity does leverage some of these recognizable things, however. Games have increasingly pushed towards using real world physics. This is, at least, something most people have experienced all their lives, first hand.

In the future this can be made even more simple to grasp, yes, even through pictures, but there will ALWAYS be that group of people pushing the limits of technology that will be ahead of the curve because they are putting the most risk in terms of money and time in to a project. The simplification of the process for the masses can't really happen until they do that. I should also mention the sacrifices of all those open source programmers also trying to accomplish this for free, at the expense of huge amounts of time, instead.

One person can certainly make a game with Unity. You just can't expect to instantaneously create something at the level that a dozen people can make together.

 

I have seen programmers who were completely unable to grasp the intricacies of any aesthetic insist that game graphics should be generated by code.

I have seen graphic artists completely unable to grasp or appreciate the intricacies of hard logic insist that all code should be done away with.

And then I have seen a group that do not believe in dogmas, but instead are flexible. People who bend to the wind rather than insisting that the wind should just disappear so the world is exactly like they want it.

Guess which kind of people gets their things done...

Seriously, games are a cross-disciplinary art form. Either you learn all disciplines or you learn how to work together. Tools can help you some of the way. Just like a painting brush makes it easier to make a work of art than if you had to carve it in stone. If you don't know human proportions, however - any man you draw will look bad. Same here. The tools can alleviate some of the burden, but you need to know the basics.

Same here. Same as always. If you want to do art, learn the craft.

 

No! The other kind is the evil one!

Agreed, Nicholas.

 

Nicholas and Aaron Sullivan:

O.K. You have stated that there are two basic possibilities for one lending his talents to the creation of games: either he consents to work in collaboration or alone. The one working alone is faced with the biggest set of challenges, of necessity, needing to learn all of the disciplines involved. Is this practical? Is this probable? For the audience you are aiming your product toward, I mean.

I find it unlikely that many individuals will invest this much of themselves in the endeavor.

Game code is not modular in nature? Gameplay is so constantly changing that there is no way one could profit from encapsulating often-used routines into simple, reusable symbols? Game logic is so complex that it never repeats itself? That it must always be written from the ground up? Gaming tastes dictate that root logic systems cannot and will not be standardized?

The argument of changing tastes and what is perceived as "new" forms of gaming entertainment, I think, can be wrapped up and compared accurately to the textile industry and styles. The textile moguls perpetuate their success by spiraling repetition. Styles and tastes are dictated through the proper advertising channels, and the cycle of styles moves faster and faster until people are wearing what they did, not more than 5 years before, when the styles changed at that time. In other words, don't worry about gaming trends, they must repeat and they do repeat. Just like gaming code, you can use it over and over.

So, one must conclude that Unity is a product, today, that is best suited for collaborative game creation. No? That, though possible, it is not likely, a tool that an individual could successfully use to complete an independent game project of any saleable merit. If this is not the case, then there will be some shining examples that will materialize, somewhere, sometime. If this is possible, now, I, for one, would like to have this demonstrated in a basic, understandable fashion.

As it stands, I see very few examples of any game projects, made with any of today's tools, that are of a marketable nature. It could be that the tools are insufficient to the task at hand. That it would benefit everyone if the tools, themselves, were improved.

If a parallel is drawn between computers being leant to the task of animated graphic production, today, versus the task of creating animated graphics before computers were enlisted to the task - and the case of the archaic programming tools of today being marshalled into the production of computer games, versus the natural, graphic tools of tomorrow brought to the same task; one must readily admit that a single person might certainly produce far more product with this assistance than without. More individual productivity would be the fruit of the innovation. And, consequently, more variety would be offered the consuming marketplace. But, alas, this is not what is, but what could be.

Unity is a step in the right direction, but still demands that the individual, independent user master several disciplines before he can profit, in a commercial manner, from his investment in time and money.

As far as who gets things done . . . The collaborators get things done. And I might add, the younger, more optimistic and energetic the collaborator, the better.

I guess I'm just a holdover from those Mac days of yore, days far more optimistic than today. Where men were men and a real computer was a simple one, a Mac with a one-button mouse, the consumate toaster that promised the world and gave us black and white bitmapped graphics. I guess, I, myself am a lasting victim of advertising, very good Jobs-type advertising. But, apparently its not the Jobses that make the real miracles happen, but the Wozniaks, hidden in the dark recesses in the belly of the beast, now, no more than a burned-out memory.

Just forget about that "computer for the rest of us". You wimps, just get out there and turn your lives into code, like the real men do.

Greg Smith

 

Hi Greg,

Very interesting discussion you created here

I could write for days on this subject, but I'll just try to add a couple of (hopefully)helpful points:

a) What project do you want to create? If you tell us, it's easier to mete out advice. If there is some secret invention involved, you may feel more comfortable to leave it out... in any case, it won't be necessary to describe the scope, look and gameplay complexity of your game.

b) Graphical programming tools exists, but haven't caught on. Blender has some tools for this, as does GameMaker 2D. Check them out, Blender is free, GameMaker 2D is cheap. My take is that I've never seen such a system function. What you said about programming games and reusability doesn't just apply to games: almost all programming is or can be modular, developers constantly have to reinvent the wheel. On the face of it making programming accessible to all would be a multi-billion or -trillion business. Yet no one did it (yet). While we've got some excellent heads in OTEE, innovative, creative, and damn clever, we don't know how to design such a system.

c) It's been said before but I'll repeat: $249 is a lump sum, provided you value your own time it's nothing. No matter how low.

Hey, and by the way several of the people you've been discussing with are programmers. Are we that bad with human language?

d.

 

I never intended to suggest that game programming is not modular. It is VERY VERY modular. In fact, the ideas you've presented about taking certain pieces of logic that are used over and over and putting them into modules... well, that's exactly what an engine like Unity does. Only, it does it in CODE.

Back in the day, a video game was a couple of sprites moving around or a text adventure. Yes, back then an individual (programmer) could complete a competitive game because the artistic/storytelling/musical/soundfx needs were infinitesimal. Like I said before, we are consumers of products that are completed by teams so our expectations are high.

But, let me suggest that there is a HUGE market for smaller, simpler, addictive games that is running right alongside these huge projects. Making a game like that is much more attainable with one person and certainly with a two or three person team (One for programming, one for art, one for music/sound with shared design responsibilities.)

Even back in the Apple ][ days, programmers would find creative ways to avoid making their own title themes... usually they'd just use some classical music in the public domain, for instance.

Tools like GarageBand make passable music much easier to accomplish. For graphics, if someone is not an artist, make a game that doesn't require impressive art like tetris. Or make it entirely comprised of primitives like a marble game. Can't program? Keep the mechanics simple and make the content interesting. Interactive storybook or Name that tune.

Undoubtedly, taking on those more one-sided games will help you ease into more complex games or give you confidence to bring someone else into the mix (and also give them confidence in you.)

Most importantly, get involved in a good forum to support you. If using Unity stick around. There is also iDevGames.com's forum for a much wider array of help.

As far as Unity goes. It's not called unary. Unity implies making several parts working together. Many people have grown up with coding now, not even realizing it. Just using the web exposes you to coding ideas all over. Someone begins making their own web pages and soon they are looking at Javascript. Many of those younger people will be able to pick up the basics of programming at a much faster rate. Still, it's never too late to create some new pathways in the brain.

 

Ech ek am utz ahr etz?

 

brucegregory:

I agree with you as I am sure everyone here does that the ideal game-dev system would allow you to drag and drop modules to do exactly what you want to do with out code.

Many people have attempted to create those type of tools where you have a set "Toolbox" of behaviors and effects that you can just drag in to your game. But what do you get? You end up with a game that is very much like every other game produced with that system and you will always reach limits.

The sad reality is the only way to properly make the game exactly how YOU want it, you will have to make some sacrifices of simplicity for control. We are not talking about linear animations here, we are talking about interactive computer software. Software. It's like saying you should be able to make a world-class car with lego. Sure lego is simple but cars are not.

You mentioned the advances in computer technology, and ease of use and how game dev should have the same simplicity as using any other point-and-click program. Do you realize the amount of complexity involved in creating a program that is point-and-click and still empowers everyone? OTEE got as close as I think you could ever hope to get to an application that takes an extremely complex task like 3D game programming and makes it available to the masses. OTEE took away the nitty-gritty, seemingly abstract programming tasks involved in 3D graphics, animation, etc, so we could focus on making our games.

While I completely agree that a complete point-and-click solution would be great, it will be many YEARS before anything will be developed that can do that. Even then it will be impossible to create what the individual artist/developer wants to create. There are simply too many variables. Everyone create differently and everyone has different ideas and plans.

You mentioned that game code can and should be modular. Unity turnes everything into modules so you don't have to access any of the hardcore aspects of game dev. But, and there is a but, there will always have to be a way you can control exactly what you want and how you want it or you are going to feel limited and dissapointed. That way is some code.

It seems to me (and I may be hearing you wrong ) that you are not willing to even try to learn properly. Searching for random programming tutorials and code snippets will get you discouraged VERY fast. What whould be better is to buy a book and go step-by-step through the lessons. You cannot learn to program by looking at other peoples code until you understand the basics. I tried to learn on the net with various code samples. It wasn't until I bought a book and spent a few nights that I actually began to understand a bit of the basics. Anyone can learn anything if they are willing to try. They may not ever become experts in it, but they can learn.

You are also very closed-minded about collaboration. You can work with a programmer and still have full control over your project. I would maybe think about it a little more before you shoot it down entirely. None of us will ever be able to become experts in every field.

It seems like you are here with your mind already made up and you are trying to convince us that our plans are hopeless. If you are not here to actually ask but rather to change our way of thinking, I would ask that you don't try to change the way the rest of us think or discourage other new users who are willing to try and do what is necessary to learn.

Now what I said is not really my place to say, this forum is open to everyone, and I have only been here a short time myself, and I realize what I said may sound harsh. I am sorry if it does.

I don't really have any more to say and I apologize if it sounds rude in any way. Not intended. I hope you find a way to do what you want to do that workes for you.

Good luck!

-Jeremy

 

Are these questions serious? Some, in particular the last one, are pretty out of line.

 

David:

I've looked at the simple graphic-based solutions, (GameMaker, Multi-Media Fusion, GameEditor, etc.) and found them incomplete and, in some ways, broken. Not only so, but eventually, the developers lead you down the lane and bring you to the gate which says, "To go further, you must learn to code . . . end of line."

Believe it or not, the most brilliant and innovative application of graphic-based programming that I've seen is one made specifically for very young children: StageCast. Again, it is not complete. I now understand why. Some of the most brilliant, productive and enthusiastic people have embarked upon this journey and simply could not get their point across to those who had the ability to "make it happen". And, it's the conundrum of having to use "code" to develop software that does not use code. It is too difficult and time consuming even for the experts.

If "coding" were really a humanly efficient way of giving a machine a set of instructions, then we would see many more tools for development of all kinds of computer based applications than we do.

Regarding my game making needs: my taste in games is so basic and childlike that I'm embarrassed to share it on a public forum. Pong really amuzed me, in its "chewing gum for the mind" sort of way. I'm amuzed by games in the same way I'm amuzed at a $.50 wingnut spinning up and down on $.50 bolt.
That is where I think Unity is on the right track - incorporating natural physics automatically into its game making guts. Cosmic Osmo also gave me a thrill, at the time. At the higher end of the spectrum, I'm quite taken with graphically rich games like the Myst series, for all of their slowness, loneliness, solitude and mystery. I'm sure the demands for a game of the first sort, that would amuze me, personally, are well within the realm of "amature" programming skills. I doubt whether the second are, however, (inventories and all of that). But the fact that such things amuze me, does not come directly to bear on whether the game would be commercially successful, or generally popular, either.

Just to expand and divert for a moment: why do games that incorporate simple natural physical response work and sell so well? Chewing gum for the mind. Or, gravy for the brain, if you prefer. Simple cause and effect reactions entertain. Real world, cause and effect reactions, that is. I really don't believe games need to be as complex as they are today to be entertaining as well as financially successful. Look at all of the idiotic things people do to entertain themselves like pushing all of the little buttons on their cell phones for hours on end. And what is the reward for their button pushing?

Starting a dialog between user and developer regarding their own personal coding requirements, on a case by case basis will kill you, eventually. It is not realistic for you to offer your services to me, on an ongoing basis, advising me how to code such and such a thing, javascript line by line, phrase by phrase, variable by variable. You would have to do it for everyone, all the time, and development on Unity would come to a standstill.

Why don't programs like Unity end up doing better than they do? Well, I'll tell you: the guys making the software are incapable of providing those who could most effectively evangelize the product, (the average, Joe user guy), with elementary through advanced help, from start to finish. They are incapable, primarily because of time constraints, seeing that teaching is a full-time occupation and so is coding. Nobody, even the huge corporations like AutoDesk, have the budget to deploy a fleet of tutors and trainers to their users at the cost of the software, alone. Then there is also the downside of providing "paid support", which usually ends up being also quite substandard and not really meeting the day to day needs of their "average" users. So, companies like OverTheEdge end up turning all of their userbase over to the free-for-all called a forum.

And, in the end, the developers are forced to eventually reply to struggling users with something along the lines of, "just go learn to code, enroll in classes . . . buy a book, that's what I did".

You see, it has to do with expectations. People are attracted to products like Unity, largely from the source of false hopes and dreams. Generally, they think that because they love video games and can imagine fascinating scenarios, that there must be some way to make the things in their imagination happen. To spit it out of their brains, quickly. And, as you have all stated, that is not the reality of the situation in question.

Being left with option of developing games using the Unity platform on the Mac and only the coding "languages" that Unity currently supports, I suppose a user would be faced with the question, "which language do I use? The answer should be, "which ever language is simplest to learn with the most documentation and examples available - the one with the most support." Unfortunately, I think, in this case, that would be javascript. However, I don't think javascript should really be the language of choice for Unity. A cursory look at BOO, makes me reluctantly inclined to use its methods. But, the documentation and number of examples, especially game related examples, is very limited, so not ideal for the beginning coder. The result of the question . . . "return to statement "A"."

Greg Smith

 

aarku:

Only the first several questions I asked were serious, because it does matter whether you are a professional programmer, or not, and what the extent of your programming knowledge is, and how long it took you to obtain that knowledge. Answers to these questions really could provide Unity users with some necessary perspective. I should have also asked whether the game was developed using Unity.

Whether you are independently wealthy also has some bearing on your reasons for investing your time and money on a "free" project. The last question, really, was a joke. Sorry if it touched a nerve. Probably was out of line.

Greg Smith

 

If you don't mind, I'll answer those questions (for myself ofcourse)

• :arrow: I wouldn't say I love to program (read below)
  :arrow: I got interested in computers and then started to read about programming - I guess it took me about half a year to really get stuck in it
  :arrow: Yep
  :arrow: I am independently poor
  :arrow: *checks time* Nope

I wouldn't say I love to program in the sense you present it in. I love to develop, program, in the sense of telling a computer what to do with different sets of data.

Loving to program/develop is a rather vague definition also - I'd say I'm fascinated by the process of creating something, bringing my ideas to life (much like art or any other constructive trade when you give it a though).

Do I prefer to do my work by memorising and typing some cryptic language? No ofcourse not. I am not developing computer languages, but game AI and therefore the syntax of C or Python does not interest me beyond which one I can use to get to my goal faster.

What interests me is the process of bringing my thoughts to life and the result of this. This is my fascination.

• 
  Edit: Just read Gregs clarifying post
  
  
  I'd say I probably spend a year to get from "what is a computer?" to being able to code in C++ and have the means to do the programmatic work I do now (not quite as skilled ofcourse). Most of computer development is about getting the basic idea of a system - learning some syntax is secondary at best.

 

AngryAnt:

Glad to know that, even though you are a programmer by profession, you have a sense of humor, "cough". I truly admire your commitment and your knowledge - I wish I had it.

I can see by your photo, if, that, indeed, is really your likeness, that you are in a position to dedicate a much larger portion of your time to mastering the "art" of programming, than I am. It's all based on how much time you "think" you have.

As an aside, have you ever looked at some of these guys who have spent the last 30 or so years of their lives programming? I mean, professionally. Shudder. Games or not, I don't want to end up like that.

Greg Smith

 

Nicholas or David:

I'll get back to the root of my questions.

Can I have a discount?

Greg Smith

 

Now, why should you have a discount sir? You're not the only one who doesn't know how to program.

Say there's a user out there that (like me) doesn't know how to make 3D graphics or draw textures. He wouldn't be able to make a sellable game with Unity. Should he have a discount?

To my (and your) knowledge there isn't a viable graphical programming environment on the market (for any price) that you can use. In my sort-of-humble opinion, Unity is the absolutely best alternative you've got. It makes a lot of things easier for you and can save you an insane amount of time... we spent years creating it, enduring much pain (and hunger, sometimes) so that you wouldn't have to.

$249 is a steal.

d.

Edit: Let me add that whoever comes up with truly useful and scalable codeless programming tool could become a billionaire. A lot of brilliant minds know this and have tried. The fact that it hasn't happened in the last 20-30-40 years of computing tells me that it's possibly impossible, or at least requires some sort of inventive jump. Maybe an inventive mind will look at it and think up a system (on paper for that matter, I don't see why the inventor would have to be a programmer)... show it to me when you're done, I want a share of that billion

 

David:

Cause I'm old and feeble and hungry and tired.

Hey, what I really could use is a concise description on exactly what a non-programmer, like myself, could accomplish with Unity, out of the box. How far can I take it with the built-in stuff? If a simple, physics based reaction type of game could be made with Unity, how can one do it without writing one line of code?

As a point of reference, I was just beginning to really get into AxelEdge when they . . . disappeared. Imagine my chagrin. Axel had what is known as sensors and reactions, springs and joints, and even bones. And a fantastic timeline. All canned, so to speak. Quite a lot of interesting content has been created with this most visual of Mac applications. And, it wasn't cheap, either. How close to Axel functionality could one come with Unity?

I ask these things because I couldn't figure it out by looking at everything on the web site. I would rather not spend the next week of my time experimenting, besides, I think my demo time is running short. It took me quite a while to ascertain that I had to learn to code to do any serious game-making, silly me. But, from what you and others are saying, many functions are already "canned" in a point and click kind of way. Which ones?

A really good description of the possibilities of Unity without code would be a valuable thing for all potential users. Precisely which things can be done, game-wise? A short tutorial on the absolutely most advanced kind of simulation/game that could be made without code, in a relatively short period of time, would help everyone who is "on the fence" to make an educated purchasing decision. Right?

I also understand that Carrara 5 has .fbx support, meaning that every Carrara user would have "somewhere to go" with their animated artwork. Think of the possibilities. Has anyone done any testing of using the 2 applications together? What were the results?

Greg Smith

 

I couldn't really say Greg.

I actually doubt you'd get really far without any coding... I mean, you can stitch things together. Making objects physical, making joints and motors, using triggers. There's a whole lot of bang-for-the-non-programming-buck in there. But for a real game you may need menus, high-scrores, user settings, ... I won't lie to you at tell you all that will be point-and-click. It won't.

Now, if the question were "with just a little bit of coding" the answer would be different...

d.

 

David:

Edit:
I think the billionaire you allude to will, inevitably be, the one and only, William Gates III.

Have you looked at any of the stuff posted at the

www.mindavenue.com website?

Take a few minutes and have a gander. AxelEdge, despite its high price, had quite a Mac and PC following. These guys were also headed in the right direction. Brilliant minds, etc. Now they are gone. And I've got this piece of . . . well, never mind about that.

As far as I can tell, you guys only have a couple of elementary scripting tutorials available as a learning resource for new users. I'm sorry, but that is not going to be enough for me . . . or any new users trying to really grasp the potentialities of Unity. And, I won't drop another cool $259 U.S. on something I'm not absolutely sure about.

Think about it.

Greg Smith

 

Thanks for your inputs Greg.... I hope we didn't come off rude; I'm sure you understand that we're working very hard for this and that we really want to make Unity the best it can be for a lot of people. Not everyone unfortunately, that's not possible, but for a lot of people.

I hope you will choose to buy Unity. But we're not about selling it no-matter-what. Only buy Unity if you feel comfortable with its features, its difficulty level, its community support, its price, and how it compares to whatever other products you might be considering.

Regards,

d.

 

You are wise to think about what happens if/when Unity vanishes. There's risk, and there's benefit. Everyone's answer will be different.

My answer is, the potential time savings is huge, the chances of me getting a game or two out of it even within the next couple of years is very high. And $750 to port my stuff to Windows is a nice option. The support I've experienced from OTEE has been good, and I'm having lots of fun. (Would you pay $250 for a console, or a 2-year MMORPG subscription? Many people would, even though they are almost guaranteed never to produce anything marketable as a result.)

Let's say OTEE disappears 2 years from now. I'm already learning a lot from Unity. Some of the Unity features (such as immediate feedback for changes to scripts and models) are things that I could recreate. I've seen other game developers do it but never spent the time. But now that I've used such a system I can see that it would be worth my time to implement, or look for another system (PyGame? Quake 3 open-source? Crystal Space? Blender Gamekit?)

Unity also seems like a less painful way to experiment with 3D math, shaders, C#, .NET libraries, and other topics. There's a lot to be said for trying and learning new things, at any age. Proven health benefits.

I dunno. If I thought only about likelihood of making money, and so on, I never would have published my first shareware game, let alone decided to buy Unity. Sometimes you gotta do what interests you, even if there's no percentage in it. Not sure what else life is for, really...

Sounds like you've already decided not to buy it, that's cool.

Good luck to you,
Matt

 

Matt:

Thanks for the understanding my position, and thanks for the view at "the bright side".

I'm still undecided. My basic feeling is that because all of the game development software seems to require coding, I'll eventually go for the one that provides the most in the way of learning resources that are specific to making games with their particular product, not just generic, "go learn javascript" kinds of encouragement.

Thanks all of you guys over here at OverTheEdge for giving me space to express myself. I don't usually blather on like this, but I do think this kind of discussion needs to be had to clarify the game making waters.

Greg Smith

 

This is an interesting thread
I am very much like you Bruce, I work alone at home, I am very comfortable making my own decisions without other people's opinions, but we differ in that I desperately do want to be able to code expertly - just don't seem to be able to make the logic leap (yet)
I have also been working in 2d/3d art for quite some time but feel that the stills I produce for money are only half the story - the software we have these days can make things move and also help you to write/record and add sounds to projects - for some years the idea of all these combined disciplines has led me to think I want to do more with my pictures which means one of two things: get into animation or get into game making. The idea of both is extrememly appealing, but game making also adds a very intriguing aspect - realtime rendering and ineractivity; providing you can learn how to code or are lucky enough to stumble across a coder that is willing to try your ideas out. A few years ago I even started thinking about how the gui to such an game based IDE would look, mocking it up in photoshop. One of the conclusions I soon came to was that although I wanted artists to be able to operate it at a level which only required drag and drop scripts, I also thought such a piece of software would be extrememly limited if it did not allow people to get very deep into an 'expert mode' custom scripting environment. But anyways, Unity's prefab FPS walker is the same basic idea - given that there are many many such fragments of game making which are common to many games/game styles - they could be all made into drag/drop objects to the extent that an artist could concievably create a game on their own. Some examples of this are the fps walker, ammo, HUD elements and their associated in game objects like health scores and health pack - if the idea was brought to a sophisticated level I'm sure you could even include enemy ai etc in the list of drag and drop behaviour scripts. At the time I spoke to several programmers about the idea, all of whom liked it very much, but (understandably) tutted sharply at the thought of actually creating such a piece of software - the general consensus being that making it easier for the user means way too much initial background work for the programmer...but even then I knew it was inevitable someone would produce such a piece of software. I got very excited about Unity because its the first step in that direction.
Boxy

 

To code expertly, one must first code inexpertly.

Starting small is the key.

Unity has some pros and cons as far as learning to code.

Small amounts of code go a long way - that's good. Rapid feedback, also good.

But lack of a good integrated code editor is less good. There isn't a cheap or free editor that gives you syntax coloring or auto-completion, which would be undeniably helpful to you. (To me too, for that matter.)

On the plus side, the fact that OTEE chose Mono with Javascript and C# is good because there are many resources available for them, both in books and online. Not sure how to write a for-loop in Javascript? Just google for an example.

The other thing you want to do is, whenever possible, is take existing code and make small changes to it. OTEE has a fair number of examples, and the tutorial projects have code you can borrow from as well. Whenever I come across a bit of code that looks useful I grab it and save it somewhere (I use iClip but a text file on your desktop would work just as well.) But most of all you have a community who can make suggestions. Trying to learn to program without someone to ask questions of is a major handicap.

 

Bamf
That is spot on advice - I guess the other main problem goes back to Bruce's original theme. I'm not exactly old but no spring chicken either, I have to work (urgh!) I have a wife who wants a life (cool!) and if I thought learning the ins and outs of 3D software over the last decade was time consuming then I imagine learning to program will take at least the same amount of time and dedication, probably more since it doesn't come as naturally. On the plus side, I can make a cube spin in Unity, so I think we can officially say I've started small hehe
Thanks
Boxy

 

Have you tried TextWrangler? It's free and has syntax higlighting for Javascript, PHP and C among others... Basically a cut-down version of BBEdit...

http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/index.shtml

Good thread this one! ;-)

Cheers.

 

GentleFolk:

I've had some time to think more about game development and making things game-like usable in a graphic way.

Since AxelEdge is a "suspended" project, and not being supported anymore, I think I can ethically use it as an example of what should be.

What, really is a game? What makes the most popular games popular? I believe the answer has to do with behaviors that either simulate accurately or with much exaggeration, real-world, perceivable phenomenon. What, really, are these phenomenon? I say, cause and effect relationships, exploration and discovery.

Several examples: in Pong, a ball hits a paddle and rebounds, striking walls and paddles and rebounds, interestingly, off of them, and so on. What made Pong such an addicting thing? Cause and effect in an "ideal" environment and in an ideal way.

First person shooters or any shoot-em-up game: wander around, discover new and strange places. Shoot gun: bullets rebound and strike things and cause interesting reactions. Sometimes the cause and effect reactions demonstrate "ideal" physical response, and sometimes an exaggerated or physically unexpected or comical response. I really do think it boils down to mainly these things.

In the case of AxelEdge and its "tools" one can use to simulate cause and effect reactions, they are all visually obvious and behave in a way you would expect. They are encapsulated in familiar, pictorial items that you can move around the screen and place in 3D space, just as you would if you were making a physical simulation or game. You have all kinds of primitives, or you provide your own models as the objects that interact with each other. These are "tangible" things. What does Axel provide that allows you to set up "cause and effect" reactions?

Bones, hinge joints, slider joints, ball and socket joints, springs, animatable vertices and many other "constraints" that simulate the kinds of behaviors that real world objects do. These represent thousands of lines of code or script. Every one of these is an encapsulation, a picture of a concept, a symbol that is easily understandable and apprehensible.

Sensors, (which are symbols of the "cause" portion of the equation), are tangible items that can be attached to any ojbect, just as you would in the real world. A lot of logic code is encapsulated in every one of Axel's sensors. They sense object proximity, position, orientation, mouse position and keyboard actions and specific and universal time. Most of the things that every game needs.

Then there are reactions, (which are symbols of the "effect" part of the equation), that respond to the basic sensors: these react by causing objects to change their position, orientation, which animation plays, which file is loaded, which material or geometry the object displays, its scale, its pose, which predefined parameter is set, many "camera" behaviors and the overall controlling of time.

And then, the program provides real-time "handles" which allow the user to do "natural" things with the objects in the game, like: translate, rotate, bend, push and scale or, rotate the view, zoom the view or orbit the view.

Admittedly, these do not represent every behavior available in every game, but combining all of these "physical" behaviors that Axel does provide, in many ways, allows for an exponential number of complex "game-like" things to happen in an entertaining fashion.

All of this demonstrates the value of encapsulation of the most common behaviors and processes, which, in turn, represent thousands and thousands of lines of code somebody, otherwise, has to write. The wheel has already been invented, so why not use it instead of reinventing it again?

It's all about time, isn't it?

Greg Smith

 

Actually I own BBEdit.. but it's version 7. Someone posted a C# syntax highlighting thingy for it, but I think it required version 8. TextWrangler is a good idea, maybe that'll work.
Someone also posted an add-on module for SubEthaEdit (I think it was) but I couldn't figure out how to add the module. I put it in the apps bundle but no effect; perhaps you need to register first?

Anyway, this sub-topic should probably be continued in this thread:
http://forum.otee.dk/viewtopic.php?t=831

Thanks,
Matt