The Game Maker inferiority argument
Recently I've been using Game Maker to make some game prototypes and I've been wondering why it's frowned upon by a wider community of developers. It's been a decent way of getting some ideas on the screen so far. I want to try justify why someone who isn't experienced in programming shouldn't feel inferior for using it. That said it isn't without its pitfalls and I will mention some of the disadvantages I've discovered as well.
C++ is an industry standard for making games. It's also an impossible thing to decipher. At first it seems like an animal that only people who have sat through a masters degree in computer science can tame. Game Maker has its own programming language. It's a dedicated scripting language serving one purpose in one environment. It's straightforward, and the documentation is all contained within the program. It's also a good stepping stone in attempting to tackle harder languages, since you get a hands-on idea of how things work and can build from the intuition you've gained from it. More than languages, it's a comfy environment where you can learn some of the fundamental things like how models and sprites are textured, simple game logic, and the organisational structures you need to have to make a full game.
A more important point is that Game Maker provides all the structure you need before you can put something on-screen. I'm not saying it's is the only engine that does this, but with a lot of the other options before you have anything on screen you have to work to find and put together separate program libraries, and then do the same for making sounds, and taking in control inputs for you, accepting data in the forms you can use, etc.
Another thing I thought about recently was how some of the structure of classes are imitated by the Object in GameMaker. They are almost analogous when functioning as containers for data, creating instances and destroying them. Scripts take up the role of the methods (though you probably program them in a more pure way, I think you can effectively pass by reference too).
There are a few conveniences it is without, and here is one of the disadvantages. There are certain aspects of the coding you have to create manually that would elsewhere already exist for you (the thing causing my most strife at the moment is calculating some normal vectors for a surface - there's also no easy way to define vectors in the first place!). I can see why as the complexity of a potential game idea rises, the tools become insufficient. A lot of these are to do with trying to make full 3D environments with Game Maker. The tools simply aren't there for that and at that point you've got to reconsider the scope of what you're trying to achieve.
It's important to look at what others have achieved with these tools as well. Gunpoint, Risk of Rain, anything by Vlambeer, were all games of note last year, and Spelunky before that. It's too easy read dismissals on the net of Game Maker mostly by people who either don't make games, or people who are experienced enough to use something more complicated. I say forget that. Go ahead and make prototypes of those games you always wanted to play and remember to be realistic about your goals.
C++ is an industry standard for making games. It's also an impossible thing to decipher. At first it seems like an animal that only people who have sat through a masters degree in computer science can tame. Game Maker has its own programming language. It's a dedicated scripting language serving one purpose in one environment. It's straightforward, and the documentation is all contained within the program. It's also a good stepping stone in attempting to tackle harder languages, since you get a hands-on idea of how things work and can build from the intuition you've gained from it. More than languages, it's a comfy environment where you can learn some of the fundamental things like how models and sprites are textured, simple game logic, and the organisational structures you need to have to make a full game.
A more important point is that Game Maker provides all the structure you need before you can put something on-screen. I'm not saying it's is the only engine that does this, but with a lot of the other options before you have anything on screen you have to work to find and put together separate program libraries, and then do the same for making sounds, and taking in control inputs for you, accepting data in the forms you can use, etc.
Another thing I thought about recently was how some of the structure of classes are imitated by the Object in GameMaker. They are almost analogous when functioning as containers for data, creating instances and destroying them. Scripts take up the role of the methods (though you probably program them in a more pure way, I think you can effectively pass by reference too).
There are a few conveniences it is without, and here is one of the disadvantages. There are certain aspects of the coding you have to create manually that would elsewhere already exist for you (the thing causing my most strife at the moment is calculating some normal vectors for a surface - there's also no easy way to define vectors in the first place!). I can see why as the complexity of a potential game idea rises, the tools become insufficient. A lot of these are to do with trying to make full 3D environments with Game Maker. The tools simply aren't there for that and at that point you've got to reconsider the scope of what you're trying to achieve.
It's important to look at what others have achieved with these tools as well. Gunpoint, Risk of Rain, anything by Vlambeer, were all games of note last year, and Spelunky before that. It's too easy read dismissals on the net of Game Maker mostly by people who either don't make games, or people who are experienced enough to use something more complicated. I say forget that. Go ahead and make prototypes of those games you always wanted to play and remember to be realistic about your goals.
Comments
Post a Comment