Plan for Bryan Edds

Submit your own resources!

Mark Barner   (Jul 03, 2005 at 14:57 GMT)

I agree with you. Also they need to look at what TheGameCreators.com are doing. They have been doing this business for 7 years. GG has done alot more in 4 years. I think they are going through what every company goes through....growing pains. They have still alot of work to do and they need to ask the community what it wants in a better way then that of his plan. GG needs to understand that alot of people never developed a game before. You get alot of these people because of the $100 price. These are the same people that got GG to where it is today.

Torque 2D had alot more "getting started" documentation that really helped.

Brett Fattori   (Jul 03, 2005 at 15:07 GMT)

I have to disagree here. I don't think the engine would be better if everything could be done from script. I know that our game would suck if we were writing vehicle physics in script. I think the major problem is that TGE isn't aimed generically at 3D -- it's an FPS engine. T2D, on the other hand, is just a 2D engine... it's not aimed specifically at any one genre.

To really utilize TGE you have to undo a bunch of things before you can start to create. With T2D it's ready to go out of the box.

I just realized something. How silly of me to miss this... Clark's component system will do for TGE what T2D did for 2D game programming. Instead of locking the engine into one genre, out of the box, it'll be as open ended. Heh... you're all in for a great advancement.

- Brett

Darren Stuart   (Jul 03, 2005 at 15:15 GMT)

I am a T2d user and using it has made me think about using tge. I do all my work using torque script at the moment and if I could take what I have learnt and put it to use in tge without going into the source then I would. For an example of an engine that can deliver many different game types from just scripting look at Unreal.

Maybe there is room for a new product that bridges the game.

Bryan Edds   (Jul 03, 2005 at 15:17 GMT)

Brett, I think we do agree on a general point though that refactoring TGE in general will be a great boon to productivity. I don't really care too much about the final goal of the refactoring so long as it is taking place to, in at least some way, make the engine easier to use. I chose scripting as the target because... well... I love Torque scripting and I feel that it, as a refactoring target, has the potential to unify TGE greatly as well as indirectly force modularity into the engine (which is what the component system is all about).

So really, we're not disagreeing that much at all :)
Edited on Jul 03, 2005 15:26 GMT

Bryan Edds   (Jul 03, 2005 at 15:27 GMT)

And if the component system is as good as you make it sound, then perhaps a good portion of my wishes have already come true :)

Xavier "eXoDuS" Amado   (Jul 03, 2005 at 16:10 GMT)

Most torque games are more cpu intensive than any T2D game though, so making everything in script would make your game run "unneedly" slow.

Nmuta Jones   (Jul 03, 2005 at 16:45 GMT)

Studying where all of this is going yes...I believe that is the key. I think the people at Virtools have an excellent idea, and when it can be perfected, I think this will help many indies toward a more rapid development process. No sense in re-inventing the wheel when you don't have to. I think TGE is already moving in this path.

Bryan Edds   (Jul 03, 2005 at 17:20 GMT)

I might be giving people the wrong idea - let me explain. Just because I want everything to become possible to drive from script (including physics perhaps...) doesn't also mean that you would thereforeHhave to drive it from script. For example, almost everything in T2D can be driven from script, but that doesn't stop or hinder you from doing it in C++ instead. You can easily drop out to C++ any time for any reason. The availability of script interfacing does not negate the ability to interface with the engine in C++. Allowing everything to be done in script only adds one way to how you can do something - it does not disallow you from doing it in-engine the old fashioned way if the speed / mem requirements called for it ;)
Edited on Jul 03, 2005 18:43 GMT

Ben Garney   (Jul 03, 2005 at 21:49 GMT)

I think we should rewrite our code to make it better.

Meanwhile, Torque is not significantly worse than any other engine out there (and if anything, the gap was smaller five years ago when we released). And even with its unique charms, it's still a big leg up from writing your own engine. So why is it that so few indies are producing?

Michael \"Evic\" Wales   (Jul 03, 2005 at 22:52 GMT)

I'm a T2D and TGE license holder, I've had TGE for about a year now and T2D since it's release. I've done 100x as much "work" in T2D than TGE - why? Because T2D told me how.

TGE needs better documentation. Don't tell me to go search the resources - been there, done that, it's crap.

As it is now, if I want to learn how to use a certain function I have to read an entire tutorial on making a flying vehicle or a tank, whatever.

Go look at php.net's documentation - they are you're guide. We need every function outlined. A technical description of the function's arguments, an English explanation of what the function does, and a small example using that function only. Even if it's just echo'ing out the number 1-10 in a different way, a simple example - not something elaborate.

The problem is, there are a lot of TGE licensees - but they don't learn how to code their own stuff. They learn how to code other people's stuff by following the tutorials.

T2D teaches you from the get-go, especially with Matthew's (aka King Tut) tutorials. He shows you how to do something simple and cool to teach you some new things (Physics Tutorial!) and explains it line-by-line.

Yes, we're asking for more from GG than we would get from any other engine, but you are trying to make money off of us. Due to the pricing of the engines, it's obvious your business plan is to make money from the publishing side of the house. You have given us great tools to make you money in this way, unfortunately you have yet shown us how to use them. Only 10% of your licensees are knowledgeable, true to the bone indies, with prior game development experience. The rest of us are hobbyists with awesome ideas, awesome tools, yet horrible instruction.

Hopefully TDN will fix this, but as I have said in the past - where is it? Based on previous plans it seems as if it is done, now you just have 10 or so trusted people adding content to it. Open it up already, it's a wiki. Content creation is useless until it's opened up. Once it's opened you will see a flurry of documentation come out within weeks.

Bryan Edds   (Jul 04, 2005 at 04:06 GMT)

Personally, (and this is in hindsight), I feel as if the resources put into making TSE should have instead been put into refactoring TGE for usability (to increase productivity). Of course, much of TSE's development invovled refactoring and did increase usability... but I feel that with the proper refactoring, TGE could become extremely easy to use and also allow TSE's main features to be dropped into TGE without creating another engine (and the massive amounts of extra maintenance that comes with it).

BUT, the problem is that refactoring TGE is probably not a sustainable profitable as making and selling a new engine. People just expect to get access to all the refactorings to an engine even though that is one of the most resource-expensive dev tasks of all. So it's as if the market is discouraging this sort of thing.

But, if GG could charge for updates, then such a thing would be profitable. Will GG do that? For both principle, legal and business reasons, I wouldn't think so. But it'd be nice...

Oh well. Back to the drawing board I guess :/

Gareth Fouche   (Jul 04, 2005 at 10:40 GMT)

Honestly, I think it is the nature of "indies".

You can do all the re-arranging of the engine you want, but game development is still amazingly hard. It will never be easy. Trying to to create a game while earning a living/attending high school/university etc is tough. And few people have the endurance.

There are simply too many people starting doing it because games are "fun", but when it comes time to do hard, thankless, unpaid slog for upwards of a year or two, they give up.

We complain about the "crunch time" in the industry, but that is what you are looking at as an indie, at least in the beginning. A very long crunch, with no paycheck, for a very long time, on the hope that you can maybe make it and quit your day job. Few people have the endurance and dedication, few people actually realise what they are getting into/have to sacrifice and few people scale down their dreams to whats actually possible.

The result, a plethora of unfinished projects.

Justin Mette   (Jul 04, 2005 at 13:03 GMT)

Well said Gareth. Making good games that will sell with an unexperienced, remote, part-time team is extremely difficult (talking from experience) and is likely the main reason more games aren't getting shipped from this community. Torque is just one of many tools we have to create games with including 3DS Max, Photoshop, Worldcraft/Quark, etc. While these tools can sometimes slow you down because of their learning curve, they are far from the primary obstacle in the way of progress.

So what's the solution? There is no shortage of ideas of passion in this community from what I can tell so it really comes down to experience building games and the resources to do it. Teaching teams how to make good games "that will sell" would go along way towards reducing the experience burden. It also would help teams understand the amount of work involved and why they need a dedicated group of talented, passionate indivudals to stick with it for 6-12 months. It's not a silver bullet solution but is a topic that often goes untouched whilst we all scramble to learn and play with the latest tech.

You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.

Home | Products | Solutions | Downloads | Support | Search | About Us
Copyright © GarageGames.com 2000 - 2008 All Rights Reserved