My thoughts, and my farewell

Submit your own resources!

Dan -   (Aug 28, 2007 at 01:56 GMT)

I agree and I am in the same boat. I am a programmer by trade so I thought I would do better. Guess I personally don't have the "it" factor.

Good luck to you.

Michael Perry   (Aug 28, 2007 at 02:02 GMT)

I've come out of my hole of seclusion to say this:

Good luck J Sears. I envy you being a Mass. citizen, as I long for the days when I was a Bostonian...God trust me I loved living in Boston =)

You may be making a wise choice about choosing general programming over game programming. The burn out rate in the industry is high, regardless of your abilities. I've come close many times (and am close at the moment); it just takes a certain inner fire to saddle up and keep moving forth.

Your self-reflection is enlightening, so don't invite "flames" and deletion if what you are saying is what you believe. If this were a cry for help, I would not respond.

Again, good luck in your ventures and life. Should you come back to Torque Tech, like I did, you may have a new perspective after your adventures =)

J.C. Smith   (Aug 28, 2007 at 02:14 GMT)

One of the reasons that a lot of those features aren't integrated is because they are so game specific. You sight FPS's all having melee now, but what percentage of Torque based games have been FPS games? Very few. And of those that are there are many different ways to implement it. The melee resource for example is way more than most people need. To do a simple form of melee all you need to do is a quick raycast at a short range in front of your character, its a few lines of code.

The modernization kit is very nice, but integrating that into the engine could cause compatibility problems. For modern graphics the best approach would be to move to TGEA unless portability to Mac/Linux and support for older hardware are important. TGEA is of course more expensive, but it also renders much more efficiently. Alex has done an awesome job on the modernization kit btw, but its still being built on top of a graphics architecture that is not really up to snuff for current hardware. I've ported projects from TGE to TGEA and seen triple the frame rates despite having more complex video features.

I think your also a bit confused on a few things. Torqueschool may have GG's blessing, but its from Dream Games. It's a third party product. That having been said, Torque's documentation could definitely use improvement, the TGEA documentation in particular.

Anton Bursch   (Aug 28, 2007 at 02:36 GMT)

You can't make a commercial game with Torque without money to pay for people to work on it. That's just simply the truth. There are a handful of exceptions to this rule, but they are almost all ex game industry professionals with experience.

I spent years trying to do it and what I got out of it was an education and experience with Torque that has turned into a full time career working for people with money to make commercial games. Someday I'd love to make an indie game, but after years of work with Torque I still think that is years away.

My advice, if I can give it, is to spend your time with Torque learning to make games but without trying to make a game. Then use that to get one of the numerous jobs that are available in the jobs area here on the website. There is a regular stream right now and I think it will keep coming as more and more studios realise what a great choice Torque is for making commercial games... if you have the money for the right people. Then work hard and some day work your way to making your own game.

Torque is the single best choice for any studio that is looking for a Game Engine with the single exception that it's hard to find developers with Torque experience. Cost and Benifits... Torque is a clear winner. Maybe I'd say that for a super high end interior FPS to go with the FEAR engine since it's pretty inexpensive. But for everything else... there isn't a better choice.

Now here's the funny thing about documentation and Torque... it's supply and demand... for those of us who spent the time to learn to work with Torque despite the documentation... we are now a very hot commodity. And that is a good thing in my opinion.

If you want to learn to make 3d games as a hobby... get the HL2 sdk or get the upcoming UT3 sdk. But if you want to join the game industry as a pro... get Torque and get ready for a few years. It's the only way. Take it from someone who's been thru it all.

David Higgins   (Aug 28, 2007 at 02:42 GMT)

J, read all of what you said ... sad to see you feel that way and sad to see you go -- wish you the best of luck with your future ventures.

Vashner   (Aug 28, 2007 at 05:04 GMT)

Uh well too bad. I think everythings changing right now so hopefully you'll come back later.

Nikhil Sharma   (Aug 28, 2007 at 07:16 GMT)

Agree with what you said here. This is the reason why I decided to step away from even thinking about wasting money on TGEA or TGB (that's just costly). It's not really an 'indie' game engine unless you are just talking about the price here since you end up learning and doing a lot more than what you have imagined. It's definitely good for a 3-10 people Indie team though, with good programmers. I find it funny that when asked for help in the forums most people usually forward you to buy the books on TGE. Well if the person was interested in spending so much money he/she wouldn't have really bought the TGE, right?

Anyways. Since I am starting to understand this engine from tutorials here and there I am just slowly working on a game while learning the basics at the same time. No point in complaining about lack of documentation or more 'artists friendly' features in the engine. I am sure most of us would love to have MDK/RPG features/MELEE features merged in TGE (rather than buying TGEA) which are available in the resources section but that won't happen since the free resources are.. free, you just have to do it all yourself.

J.C. Smith   (Aug 28, 2007 at 07:26 GMT)

@Nikhil: Indie encompasses a pretty wide range. I agree completely with what Anton is saying, if you have some money to throw around then you can get things done a lot easier. Contracting out artists or programmers (depending on your need) makes things a lot easier. The problem though is that there is a huge jump in price from the indie engines such as Torque (or other low cost quality engines like C4) and the big engines. It's a big jump from $150-300 to $10,000 and beyond that to $250,000.

It's very common though for people to buy Torque (or other low cost engines) and then just be overwhelmed by how much they need to learn to get going. There's really no easy solution to the problem. With time though it gets a lot easier, unfortunately many do not have the time to allot to it.
Edited on Aug 28, 2007 09:23 GMT

Cary Howe   (Aug 28, 2007 at 09:39 GMT)

I hate to pile on but I have to agree. After spending a bundle and getting commercial licenses for most of the products I found it tough to complete a game. Part of it was the fact that even TGB is very script driven and I come from the art side but the far bigger issue was bugs and quirks in the engine that made it tough to learn and nearly impossible to finish a game. Some things got addressed but others were ignored in spite of a large number of posts. One glaring bug in the particle system, the files corrupt, is supposed to be finally on the list to be fixed but apparently it's been around since day one of TGB's release. I also had miserable luck finding a programmer/scriptor even with money.

I've posted on a number of forums for several lower end engines and questioned why engines can't function more like animation software. Maya is arguably far more powerful than any low end engine and I'd say even the high end engines yet you only need limited scripting to do insanely complex functions. I was repeatedily told it either wasn't possible or at the very least not practical. Well I found that wasn't true. There is an engine out there I think the Torque people need to take a hard look at and that's Unity. It's extremely easy to use and within minutes I was modifying the test game and doing things I couldn't do after many months with Torque. Even many AI functions could be set by changing number values in the interface. If you have to access a script it's a simple click to open a panel within the interface and make your adjustments and see the tweaks in seconds without closing the interface. Importing models is childsplay and you can interactively tweak animations within Maya without closing Unity. It comes with build in physics and shaders as well as ragdoll. The next upgrade that comes out any day now has a landscape generator that can handle thousands of trees. It also has self shadowing and will be able to map videos onto objects or use them as part of a UI display. The new UI features look stunning as well. There's an ocean of other advantages I won't go into. I'm not trying to do a sales pitch and it's Mac based so most couldn't make the switch anyway. The real point is it's possible to make a game engine that doesn't require an army of programmers and is stable. Also the documentation is some of the best I've ever seen. It assumes no prior knowledge. Now with a limited user base, remember it's Mac, and only a slightly higher cost they have an engine with drastically more power, far easier to use and well documented. There are a few things I like better in Torque, particles for one, and I'm going to miss the kits and content but there are a few things in Lightwave I prefer to Maya. Does it mean Lightwave is better than Maya? Not a question that requires an answer.

I was very excited with Torque but the more I used it the less I liked it. I was really enthusiastic about TGB 1.5 but I've yet to see a final release. There was a big anouncement about it nearly two months ago but the copies I downloaded were still the betas and were largely unuseable. I was told weeks ago that the Mac final release would be coming out in days but there's been no word. At this stage I hope to find a programmer in a few months to finish up the one game that was nearly finished six months ago but that will probably be the only one done with Torque. It's a nice idea and there are some cool functions. I had fun with TGE building landscapes and I did figure out a system for importing models but the menuing for importing was really crude and took a lot of trial and error just to get the items to even show up in the interface. Placing them was easy it was getting them to show up in the menu tree that was tricky. I hope they one day get the issues with the engines fixed but there are newer more powerful engines out there and Torque is still based off a very old engine. They need a team working on an actual interface and not depend so much on coding basic functions. Behaviors was a move in the right direction with TGB and the interface is far more evolved than TGE but both still pale compared to Unity. The terrain generator and MMO kit had me debating about sticking around but the new release of Unity will have far more power and it's a lot friendlier for doing on-line games.

In November we'll be gearing up for game production and I have to say we'll be buying Macs and installing Unity. Being able to have the artist do 90% of the game development rather than the programmers is just too attractive. Add to that power and stability and there's no choice.

Well this went down the rant road but after spending many thousands of dollars on engine licenses I have to say Torque was a major disappointment. Most of the people making finished games with Torque seem to have figured out the quirks and come up with workarounds. For a novice in the programming world it's often hard to figure out if it's your code or a bug. I really do wish them well with the engines and I hope they can address the issues. Torque opened my eyes to what was possible in the low end but it's far from practical. It is possible to make a game engine function more like an animation program and that should be the goal. In the early days of CG animation you needed to be able to program in order to animate. Eventually the software got user friendly enough so that anyone could use the programs. CG didn't explode until animation was in the hands of artists and animators. Game engines are going through a similar evolution. Programmers may not want the change to happen but it will happen none the less. There will always be a need for programmers but why have a programmer script or hard code a function that can be set in the interface in seconds? It really shouldn't be this hard to make a game. In Unity you can literally copy and paste characters and with a few changes in number values tweak things like speed, rate of fire, turn speed and such without opening a script. In the first hour I had a half a dozen characters running around with unique behaviors. Try that with Torque. Changing physics are just as easy. Make it stable and make it so artists have a fighting chance to at least rough out a game. I hate to say it but the Torque team really needs to buy a copy of Unity and give it a hard look. If you take into consideration things like the shader engine being a separate purchase Unity is nearly half the price and Torque still doesn't have a physics engine or many of the basic functions of Unity. Look at the documentation and your jaw will drop.

Well enough trolling. I hadn't made a post in months. I just think if more people do speak up then maybe they'll get the message. I hate sounding so negative but I did devote a lot of hours and cash to Torque and I was stunned to find there was an engine doing things the way I said they should be done. I have checked into some high end engines that have more friendly interfaces but a half mill to a mill for a single game license will buy a lot of software and hardware not to mention man hours.

Tim Heldna   (Aug 28, 2007 at 13:20 GMT)

What I don't understand is how does a company with so many talented employees fail to get things done? I mean the important things, like bug fixing and testing of the Torque range of engines. There's so much redundant, non-working, unused and untested code residing in TGE. I mean, GG started with a complete engine in the year 2000, seven years later and it still contains a high volume of bugs.

I've been in these parts since 2004 and have only seen 3 updates to TGE and all of them added just as many, if not more bugs than were fixed - that drives me insane. And most of the bugs aren't even hard to find, reproduce and fix - in fact most of the time someone from the community will submit a patch on the forums, then one and a half years later that fix will make it into the official distribution.

But how does the bug not get noticed upon release? Take the alt-tabbing bug, the foliage bug, the numerous audio and the dedicated server bug, the particle bounds bug, the problem in main.cc that prevented fonts from being cached, the isServerObject explosion bug, the orbital camera bug, the text input bug in guiTextEditCtrl.cc, the time manager bug that was screwing with dedicated servers, the typos in precipitation.cc, the console error reporting bug, heck even that nasty ambient light bug in 1.51 as an example. All were EASILY noticeable, all you had to do was fire up the starter.fps kit and run around for a few seconds, and all were easily fixed. So why didn't they get noticed before the release was made? Doesn't someone from GG conduct any testing, quality assurance work before submitting the release?

Nowadays all I'm seeing is darn content pack after content pack, everyone's trying to make a quick buck by saying "holy crap, I finally got something to work in Torque - I'll sell it to you if you want!

Rex   (Aug 28, 2007 at 13:36 GMT)

Very insightful, Carey. I would tend to agree with most of what was posted here; especially the last bit about the evolution of the engines and how artists have a bit more involvement than often given credit in the grand scheme of things...I tend to think of how the 'hoarding' factor of code writers is a 'true' barrier and how unproductive it is. I, too, as an artist would like to have quite a bit more control on assembling the gameplay and direction of a project, rather than wait for a compiled binary to arrive. I can pop out working art in an instant...too bad the engine/GUI isn't setup up for that, out of box. I don't mind though; as I decided to choose this engine to learn the 'backend' of things, as I hadn't done any computer programming in many, many years...it's been slow; but I feel I really do understand the engine a lot more now, scripting wise, and a can get some objects working and know when/why they stop working[playThread keeping the sequence 'playing'....anyone!? b'ah]. Thanks for the heads up on a working alternative, I haven't purchased a product since v1.4+, for good reasons, ;). Seems more about promotion now[GGE, bloqs]....than game mechanics.

Good luck with your future endeavors!

Fucifer   (Aug 28, 2007 at 14:07 GMT)

I will agreed Unity is far better than Torque. Torque has to many bugs that the reason I stop use it. It seem to me they just dont care to fix it and do better documentation. I am watching to see if any thing change. Until then Torque will sit on the back burner. I am still waiting to see if the adventure kit will be fix to work with the new TGB.

David Montgomery-Blake   (Aug 28, 2007 at 14:26 GMT)

@Cary
Unity is a very nice engine, and quite user friendly. I did have a number of performance issues with the FPS example across different machines. It was nearly unplayable on my Mini and quite nice on my Dual G5. I do love the tutorials, however. Good luck with Unity. It's got a lot of potential, though I ended up scripting a LOT rather than using the predefined GUI elements. Same with Lawmaker. Both fun to use, though Lawmaker is not as friendly as Unity.

@J Sears
Good luck in your endeavors. There is a huge learning curve to Torque, or to any of the engines that come from an industry mindset of segmented production. Hope to see you around in some of the various discussions here.

Mark   (Aug 28, 2007 at 14:29 GMT)

I have been having difficulties with Torque as well. While I think it's a great engine, it's also a pain in the ass. If you don't know how to code or do scripting, you are pretty much screwed. It's not a cakewalk. As soon as you learn programming (C or C++), you have to learn TorqueScript and the engine itself, which throws tons and tons of new stuff at you. A bit discouraging. Not for beginners. That's just the way game development works, I guess. I don't see how anybody could aspire to make a game without expecting to run into the hells of cluster fucked computer symbols.

There needs to come a day and a game engine that has quality on par with Torque, but without code, scripts and symbols - built for people who simply want to make a game, not pull their hair out because their ball bouncing/rolling script doesn't work.

The only advice I have is if you REALLY REALLY want to create a game, that's not enough. If you want to learn programming, even that is not enough. Programming is for programmers, not Texture artists, not 3D modelers, not sound design artists - unless you are multi-talented. You may have the best idea for a game, but chances are that big idea is never going to make it off paper. I hate to sound discouraging, but I'd rather tell you not to waste years of your life trying to do something for nothing. I won't tell you to "never give up", since only the successful people say that. (Just like how the successful people with a hot wife say "The Secret" book and film worked for them even when they were rich before the damn crap came out).

I have learned something very valuable with Torque, don't waste your time. If you can't program because you find it to be a pain in the ass like I do, don't piss yourself off. Just drop it. Go into something else you enjoy learning. Learn a 3d tool, get some music software, or snatch that paint program and start working on textures. Get your content out there in the open. Sure, it's not as grand and huge as your very own game release, but at least it's SOMETHING.

The fact of the matter - computers and technology is a very complicated industry, while the benefits may look appealing, it's not worth over-stressing yourself trying to figure out what the hell, where the hell, when the hell and how the hell. It's made for only certain people. I myself am starting to believe I am not one of those people. Not that we are too dumb, but technology is too dumb. The bigger our imaginations, the more complex information we have to feed into a dumbass computer.

Until the day where computers can read our thoughts and paint the picture exactly as we imagine - that will be the next revolution. It's time computers learn how to understand us, not us to understand them.
Edited on Aug 28, 2007 14:35 GMT

Stephen Zepp   (Aug 28, 2007 at 17:50 GMT)

I think this is a valuable discussion, and would like to interject two thoughts and one minor counterpoint:

--TorqueSchool is not a GG initiative. It was thought up, structured, and is being run by a 3rd party.

--Game Development is not a "one person can do everything, all the time" concept. Think of it as being a part of a band--the guitar player probably isn't going to be playing drums as well, and while the base player may sing, it's probably supporting a lead singer who is able to focus on that portion of the "job".

When a singer with a really good voice (or an extremely talented artist) wants to make music(make a game), he doesn't argue that he should have an instrument (game engine) that does all the work of playing the instruments (writing the code)--he goes out and finds other like minded people that have talent (programming, story development, design) in other areas of making music (developing games), and they work together as a team to make music (finish a game).

Quote:

---

Seems more about promotion now[GGE, bloqs]....than game mechanics.

---

Torque is a game engine, not a suite of game mechanics. It is the game developer's job to make game mechanics, and the very definition of innovation means that no matter how hard someone tries, they won't be able to "pre-implement" all possible game mechanics for you...and it's not the purpose of a game engine to try.

In some ways, Torque goes overboard in providing example/reference implementation game mechanics, and unfortunately that leads to a market expectation that a game engine should already implement their project's game mechanics--but that isn't the path to either a successful game, or a successful game engine.

I'd like to suggest some follow-on reading, from a round table at GCDC of 4 major engine developers:

GCDC: Epic, Cryptic, Crytek, Vicious Cycle Talk Engine Tech, and finally an interesting quote from Ken Levine of Bioshock/System Shock fame (full interview here):

------------------------------------
Now you used the Unreal Engine 3, any issues?

[Laughs] One thing the Unreal Engine is, it's kinda hard to explain to someone who isn't a game developer. Engines aren't monolithic things. Like our version of the Unreal Engine are things we put in with our own work. It's turned into this Frankenstein monster ... people did some amazing things to the render and performance. Of course, it's an engine, engine's are always a bear. Developing games is really hard, I think the mistake that a company like Epic might make is to say, "Oh yeah, it's simple, we give you the engine and you go do it fellas, it'll be a breeze." Development is hard, it gives you a leg up, but if you don't have a great technology team you're going to run into trouble. Even if you have a great technology team you can run into trouble. An engine is a starting point, and you always have trouble, always have trouble, whether it's our engine or someone else's engine. Life is very difficult for a game developer to make games.
Edited on Aug 28, 2007 17:58 GMT

Anton Bursch   (Aug 28, 2007 at 19:04 GMT)

Stephen Zepp,

BRAVO!!!!!!!! I LOVE the quote from Ken Levine!! Awesome!!

Fucifer   (Aug 28, 2007 at 19:15 GMT)

Sound like more reasons for the bugs not been fixed.

mb   (Aug 28, 2007 at 19:27 GMT)

@J Sears - good luck with whatever you go with.

@Stephen Zepp - Very well put. I totally agree.

Quote:

---

There needs to come a day and a game engine that has quality on par with Torque, but without code, scripts and symbols - built for people who simply want to make a game, not pull their hair out because their ball bouncing/rolling script doesn't work.

---

If that day comes it will be the day I quit trying to make a game. What fun would it be to make a game that is already made for you? If your script isn't working it's because you coded it wrong, take a step back, go have a smoke, think about some logic and make it work.

Not every engine is going to have everything you want.

I also agree with Anton Bursch about the documentation. It really is better that less people know how to program in torque. I used to do graphic design using photoshop... now every kid with a computer or laptop knows photoshop and the market for graphic designs is so over-saturated. I have plenty of graphic desginer friends who have a hard time freelancing or even landing a full-time graphic design position. Although I'm not looking for a job programming in torque, I have received offers from other people. It's a good thing to have a rare talent that people need.

Game programming isn't for eveyone.

Nikhil Sharma   (Aug 28, 2007 at 21:05 GMT)

Quote:

---

If that day comes it will be the day I quit trying to make a game. What fun would it be to make a game that is already made for you?

---

How exactly does creating an engine without crappy interface and integrating features that will aid artists = "game that is already made for you" ?? So I suppose adding support for more terrain tiles is also = "making the game for you"?

Your comment wreaks of a programmer scared of artists taking your job just because what 90% of what you will be asked (read=paid) to do is going to be built-in the engine already. Just like those graphics designers who are facing competition from kids with l33t Photoshop skills.
Edited on Aug 28, 2007 21:58 GMT

J Sears   (Aug 28, 2007 at 21:38 GMT)

Well I am surprised at the responses so far. I didn't expect good discussions to come out of this to be honest.

After being corrected, twice, I will retract most of my statement that involved torque school, I thought it was a joint venture between the two.

@Anton, I have used many of the mod programs out there, that was one of the things that helped grow my desire to make games, which in turn led to me buying these tools to try and learn more. I think the mod sdk for most of the major titles out there are amazing tools.

I agree that not every tool, feature can be premade in. But some are very basic, even having multiple starting weapons implemented to show how to handle inventory/weapon switching would be fantastic. You can have a game that's entirely your own based off of others premade mechanics as well. Counter strike is probably the best example of that, made by a few guys as a hobby as a mod for HL, turned into a monster and is one of the most played games on the internet (both 1.6 and CSS). Yet this game was built off of features already implemented in HL. Not every game has to be created purely from scratch.
They don't reinvent a new care engine everytime they make a new car, there are several good car engines that are put in many different cars, the outside wrapping is what helps make them unique.

@stephen I agree to make a good quality, finished product, you need a solid team. That's why I never had that goal. My goal was to make some very simple games, without some of the polish of great sound effects and music, to learn from. Then once I had knowledge maybe join a team with a true finished game goal.

@cary (also known as longest blog comment ever ;-) ) I can agree with that view, but there is also issues. I've looked at Unity myself, I use a PC and their huge price tag for a PC version was a bit out of my hobbiest price range. Also I think they way they have it setup is a lot easier to use, but the downside is performance. I don't think you could make a triple AAA graphic intense game in unity without one insane system to run it. That isn't necessarily a big problem though. If a person's goal is to make a game that is fun and to make it as a hobby then you wouldn't need as intense of graphics so the ease of use would certainly be worth it.
I also hope that the middleware market continues to grow with more, as you put it, artist approach to creation. Look at level editors. I made levels in doom and it was far more difficult then the real time creation tools that exist today. I think game engines for hobbiest/indie users will continue to go in this direction as well.


And to everyone else I appreciate the intelligent feedback, like I said much better then I expected.

Rex   (Aug 28, 2007 at 21:46 GMT)

I agree, Nikhil, the seeming prevailing-attitude then, is: "only programmers need apply, artist go away, or wait till I need some art on demand, animalBoy" to the art/endeavor of producing the strings and commands necessary to produce something enjoyable, in 3D, in a computer....HA.

@Stephen: bad choice of words on my part, 'mechanics'; meant more of/for functioning tools....and items to help the gameplay process. We had to purchase ShowToolPro...Constructor is free, but not quite 'done'....how long now? If the 'true' mission statement, is to help those make games. Allowing the above mentioned bugs out in a 'demo' version....for an 'artist' to start using...ahem...not quite there or helpful in my book of definitions[oh, now let's bring out the 'tried and true'...not cut out for it!], let's keep on subject with the vein of the Thread.

I hack on computers, because it's hard to do and I enjoy difficult endeavors[makes the reward much better-I've built working RC boat models from Blueprints and 3D buildings/objects from printed paper, that's right PAPER]....lol....not because there's certain expectations about software working perfectly on cue....ibut because it's enjoyable. It's just that some things in this engine and the site, I don't find enjoyable...;).

Mark   (Aug 28, 2007 at 22:44 GMT)

What fun would it be to make a game that is already made for you? If your script isn't working it's because you coded it wrong, take a step back, go have a smoke, think about some logic and make it work.
_________________________________________________________________________________

That's easy to say for someone who is fluent in programming, but for those who simply want to make a game and avoid as much programming as possible, it's a total drag. Not everyone likes to code, not everyone wants to code - yet everyone HAS to code. Sure, you could just find someone who can do all the programming for you, but has it not been proven before how difficult it is to find a programmer around here? Or anywhere for that matter? With even more money leaving your checking account?

Some people don't want to have the fun of creating the game, they want to see their ideas just simply come into existence. Not only that, but you can't forget most people simply don't have the time - most folks here are likely to have jobs.

Thankfully, TGB is here. 2 people could make a game with that thing. I think GG should advocate newcomers to get TGB before moving onto TGE/TSE. It's SO much faster, SO much easier to get games finished and out into public, plus it's just simply one of the coolest things I have purchased for my PC in recent years. You don't need a supercomputer to run it.

If people are having problems making games, get TGB. Learn PaintShop/PhotoShop which is pretty easy (PaintShopPro is a nice low price), find yourself a programmer buddy and pump out some games. Then when you have enough $$$, you can move onto TGE and begin paying people to help you with a 3D game. Then, of course, TSE.

For those wanting to create games, do yourself a huge favor, get TGB and IGNORE TGE/TSE until the time is right to begin looking towards the 3D realm.
Edited on Aug 28, 2007 22:50 GMT

Bryce "Cogburn" Weiner   (Aug 29, 2007 at 00:12 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Since this is a nice well-behaved discussion on a topic I am most passionate about, I am going to chime in as well.

I've been a TGE owner since 2003 when I had my first dreams of building a better shooter. I also own TGEA and several products in the GG.com store. My relationship can be best described as "love/hate". I love the engine and it's learning curve (for programmers). I hate the frustrated hours of banging my head into the keyboard because I screwed up some bitmask and now my game crashes randomly. As a programmer, one learns to overcome such minor trials. :)

But after all those literally thousands of lost hours in the Torque engine... I really know this engine. I make no claims at being a C++ guru... but I do know TGE very, very well.

No, TGE is not a "modern" engine by any stretch. What it does do, it does extremely well. If you are a programmer with no game development experience (as I was), this is the perfect learning tool. You can absolutely, positively make a prototype for a game that can be sold to a commerical production house. Yes, you can.

No, TGEA is not a "complete" engine by any stretch and I feel it's at best a work in progress. It's simply not "generic" enough in it's internal architecture (as TGE is now), and as a result bending it to your will is quite a Herculean effort if you have a complex game design. It is, however, every bit as capable and efficient as any other modern engine. I eagerly await further revisions of TGEA and hope that such issues are given a higher priority.

Yes, I have looked at other game engines. My frustration has led me to A6, DB (a kids toy), CryEngine, the Quake engine, OGRE (which has real potential), and some others that don't bear mentioning. Dollar for dollar, TGE is still the best option for the beginning game developer, period.... and unless you have a game on the market you are a beginner.

Documentation is nice, but if you are working w/ TGE/TGEA you must have a C++ guy on your team. There's no substitute for someone who knows how to translate your design dynamics into U32 newHeight = (mProfile->mFont->getHeight() + mLineSpacingPixels) * getMax(numLines, U32(1));. There's no engine out there any better at this than Torque. Sorry... it's all the same.

I'm one of those "this is not what I call an indie art pipeline" TGE owners. I'm continually disappointed in the fact that each talented artist to whom I present the TGE artistic documentation responds with something similar to "LOLWUT?" after looking it over. Two years into my project and I find myself with thousands of concept art pieces, 4 frustrated artists, and not a single acceptable model. I have had no choice but to pay for them from an art house on this website that specializes in Torque models. That plain sucks.... both for my pocketbook and the morale of my team.

I have spent, am spending, and will spend money on developing games with the Torque line of products. I'm taking my talents, my team, and $10,000 to prototype a game it would take one of the big guys $500,000 or more to get just as far.

I'm the kind of guy where if I didn't have this I'd probably be pouring money into rebuilding a 1967 split-window Corvette in my garage. If you are serious hobbyist, you still come out ahead with Torque.
Edited on Aug 29, 2007 00:16 GMT

Kevin Rogers   (Aug 29, 2007 at 01:40 GMT)

I initially wasn't going to get into it here, but I caved in... =)

@Anyone that thinks they can develop a game with no coding: ROFLMAO! Cut back on the mind altering drugs, ok? =)

Making games requires a certain set of skills, which includes coding. If you cannot code and are unwilling/unable to learn, then your only recourses are A) Forget about making games, or B) Collaborate with someone who CAN code. Plain and simple.

@J Sears: I don't know exactly what your situation is or where your Torque abilities lie... All I can say is, look back your ability level in 2004 and compare it with where you're at now. If indeed you haven't made any progress with Torque (and obviously, if you're not having fun with it...), then go ahead and throw in the towel -- it's not for you; go do something else. No sense in banging your head against the wall.

However, if you are still making progress and having fun, stick with it! Torque has only been getting better over time and I expect that trend to continue. And hopefully at some point things will come together and you will be able to make the game you want.

Bryce makes some good points, but I want to confirm one specific point: I have worked with a variety of engines and for the money, Torque is where it's at. There just isn't anything else out there with Torque's power and capability. And I know for a fact that there are other engines out there that have worse documentation, community, and capabilities than Torque and cost a whole lot more.

Oh and one more point (and no, J Sears or anyone else, I'm not pointing a finger at you in particular, just stating my mind here... )

Over the years I've developed something of a pet peeve with people that complain that Garage Games "screwed them out of their money" or whatever. Near as I can tell, since day one Garage Games has provided demos of their products, which -- although sans engine code -- are fully functional! I.E. one could conceivably create a complete prototype of a fully functional game with out laying down one single pfennig, farthing, dime, or peso! So, sorry anyone that feels ripped off, but you simply didn't do your homework before plopping down your hard-earned cashish. =P

Mark   (Aug 29, 2007 at 14:30 GMT)

I have the honest feeling the future of game creation will require no coding. Think of it as the mothership of game engines.

mb   (Aug 29, 2007 at 15:16 GMT)

Sorry but everything on a computer requires coding and making a game requires a lot of coding.

Back when I first started wanting to make games I knew I had to learn several things: programming, art, audio, etc... I've taken my time learning each. Believe me torque is what I've been wanting for a long time. Especially coming from the days of Basic, ASM and trying to peek and poke on a C64, to doing a 256 palette for Q2... to now ... it seems to me most of the hard stuff IS already programmed for you. They give you the engine already coded and thats the hardest part!!

< editted out the useless info :) >
Edited on Aug 29, 2007 15:25 GMT

Nikhil Sharma   (Aug 29, 2007 at 15:41 GMT)

@mb

I think you are getting confused with what people with no programming background are 'really' requesting in TGE. If you have modded games like Quake 2 then you probably know that even Carmack acknowledged the fact that their editors simply suck for the artists. That's the reason that with idTech 5 ('Rage' engine) they hired people to 'just work on the GUI' to eliminate all the complicated stuff for the artists (like creating material shaders and stuff just to import models and textures) so they could concentrate on, you know, art.

Improving TGE interface (look at the Constructor, it's a designers dream come true) by adding simple options to replace the coding in various places, adding more tiles for the terrain itself 9which would require coding).. all of these are just few of the common features which should be present in any engine inside the editor that markets to Indie. Believe it or not, most people dream of making a game all alone and yes, it's possible no matter what you say as long as they have the right tools.

Quote:

---

They give you the engine already coded and thats the hardest part!!

---

The hardest part is that in the end you still end up with just the code in your hands.


Anyways, it just a matter of who can spend/waste more time learning something or just skip over to something easier (or something that suits their skills). The only problem is that TGE product page lacks a quote like, for eg., following CnP from C4 Engine wiki which unlike TDN is actually open so you can go and see how much and what kind of content is actually available instead of relying on something like: "You will get access to our Wiki with all the help in the world." quotes from the developers.

EDIT: Quote on second posts.. stupid post words limit.
Edited on Aug 29, 2007 15:51 GMT

Joseph Greenawalt   (Aug 29, 2007 at 15:45 GMT)

"I have the honest feeling the future of game creation will require no coding."

The death of programming is and has always been greatly exaggerated :-) People have been predicting for over 30 years that computer programming would go the way of the dodo, but it hasn't. The truth is that there is no "programmer conspiracy" by the technological priesthood to lock artists out of game creation. Making a computer do what you want it to do is hard. To get the kind of flexibility that you get from writing code in a programming language, you have to create something that is equivalent in complexity. In the end you gain nothing, other than creating a new programming language. Of course, I could be wrong :-)

Nikhil Sharma   (Aug 29, 2007 at 15:52 GMT)

EDIT: Haha, I have no idea why the quotes aren't working with CnP but here's the FAQ for C4 which I was talking about in previous post.
Edited on Aug 29, 2007 15:56 GMT

Tom Bampton   (Aug 29, 2007 at 16:32 GMT)

Quote:

---

Anyways, it just a matter of who can spend/waste more time learning something or just skip over to something easier (or something that suits their skills).

---

LEARNING IS NEVER A WASTE OF TIME.

With game development, learning never stops. Even professionals are still learning every day, regardless of the engine (or lack thereof) that they are using.

Embrace learning and the intellectual challenge it presents. It's one of the most fun and rewarding aspects of making games. In fact, it's one of the most fun and rewarding aspects of life.

T.

Nikhil Sharma   (Aug 29, 2007 at 16:42 GMT)

Quote:

---

LEARNING IS NEVER A WASTE OF TIME.

---

Right. That's the reason why I typed 'spend/waste'.. for those who 'spend' time learning and for those who think they are 'wasting' time learning something.

J Sears   (Aug 30, 2007 at 01:07 GMT)

I never used the words ripped off, if I felt genuinely ripped off by any product I'd fight for my money back. Torque is technically everything it claims to be, it is a working engine and you can make games with it.

I think saying that games will get to a point where no coding is involved is a stretch but I do think it will continue to get more visual and more script based. As one person pointed out look at 3D modelling programs, they essentially present a completly visual interface and take what you produce and put it in it's code form for an engine to understand. Modelling programs could still require people to enter in the codes but instead they're now visual. I do personally believe middleware will continue to evolve which requires less and less coding by the people making the game. But those will also be specific game type designed, so FPS, RTS, racing etc, the engines will be setup for that one type of game so limits will be greater.


@kevin I agree with you, if anyone is having fun with something they should continue to work with it as long as it's fun/rewarding. For me that part passed long ago to pure frustration.

@bryce I could only dream of having that kind of extra money to work on a hobby I had, but I'm sure you'll be able to make some things happen if that is used right

That

Dee   (Aug 30, 2007 at 02:11 GMT)

Simple.

It IS HARD to make a game.
It is HARDER to make a game that can actually be sold.
It is close to impossible to make a commercial quality game, without some form of help.

Torque is a tool (the main guts) that can be used to assist in making commercial games.
It has been done.
Maybe not a lot, but the proof is there.

I believe somewhere it says it's not really for beginners.
I have it for fun, a hobby.

I think if the purchase goal is towards make a game, then it should be considered a part of the toolset, rather than the whole game making tool.

Success in game making includes need for many tools.
The more tools, the more knowledge of using those tools, and the more people with the appropriate tools in their hands, the greater the success and uniqueness.

i.e.
Imagine one bricklayer building a brick house.
Now imagine 20 doing the same house together, each adding their unique skill and experience to the building task.

Now imagine a different house with 20 different brick layers. Chances are that although the same tools were used, the result can be quite different.

It's a tool. If you want the job, become proefficient with the tools.
With any job, task, desire, it is YOU who learns the tool, and simply uses the tool to complete the job.

Short, don't blame the tool : )

Benjamin L. Grauer   (Aug 30, 2007 at 03:06 GMT)

Quote:

---

@Anyone that thinks they can develop a game with no coding: ROFLMAO! Cut back on the mind altering drugs, ok? =)

Making games requires a certain set of skills, which includes coding. If you cannot code and are unwilling/unable to learn, then your only recourses are A) Forget about making games, or B) Collaborate with someone who CAN code. Plain and simple.

---

or C) use Gamemaker and/or RPGMaker ;)

Kevin Rogers   (Aug 30, 2007 at 21:00 GMT)

Amen, Tom! There's always something new and challenging with game development... that's one of the things that's so cool about it.

@J Sears: Sorry, it's just that when things like, "...complete money wasted for me..." are said, they are generally taken as being analogous to "I feel ripped off." =)

But my point was: If you are planning on purchasing a product -- any product -- you have certain expectations. You'd better make absolutely sure that those expectations will be met before you make the purchase, or -- inevitably -- you will feel ripped off. "Hey, I thought this car had a V-8, but it's only got a V-6! What the....?!"

And anyone who purchases the Torque engine with the expectation that it will make a game for them... they're gonna feel ripped off. =P

Anyway, I'm always disappointed to see others call it quits with Torque -- I think it's a great engine and have no regrets about purchasing it. Sure I've had my share of frustrations with it, but it really is pretty cool to work with. I've messed around with a lot of different game engines, and the only engines that I'd give up Torque for would be CryEngine, idTech4 (or idTech5, mmmm... ), or Source. But alas, licensing any of those engines is a little beyond my means. =)

@Benjamin: Ugh. If those were my only choices, I'd move to Mongolia and herd yaks.
Edited on Aug 30, 2007 21:02 GMT

Bryce "Cogburn" Weiner   (Sep 01, 2007 at 22:33 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@J_Sears: It's not mana from heaven... I did go out and get a loan, but it took two years of development and a solid commitment of me (and my wife) for a bank to listen to my idea. I consider my game a 21st century corner store... I don't expect to make millions, but I do want to make enough to live. I did, however, have enough of a business plan together that I was able to secure $10,000 without a single penny in security. It took 3 banks and 4 bankers.... but if you do your homework and keep talking to people it will happen.

This is somewhat of an epiphany that struck me about 3 months ago and tangents nicely on the OP. :) One of the fundamental errors (and this is not directed at anyone in particular) of "hobbyist" developers is not designing the game with the end in mind.

A) Are you just making a game so you can say you did?

B) Are you just looking to learn a new skillset?

C) Are you just looking to play with a new toy?

D) Are you looking to make money?
D-1) How much money?

If the answer is A, B or C, TGE/TGEA is perfect right out of the box... $150-$250 well spent. Enjoy. However, do not set your expectation of creating the next WoW, EQ, CS:S or what have you: that lightning bolt strikes less often than the lottery.

If the answer is D, you have to approach your project similar to that of any business venture. Make your own lightning bolt. Timelines, cost estimates, and asset allocations. Those "assets" you will allocate are in large part you and your team member's time, blood, and sweat. There does come a point where, if you aren't blessed with a complete cadre of professional game artists and coders, that you are going to have to spend money to make your dream a reality. We've estimated that it will take roughly $45,000 to bring our game to market. This is still less than 10% of the prototyping budget for a commerical product.

The upside is that you will have to spend no where near the amount of money a commercial development house must spend to achieve the same quality product. If you go with TGE/TGEA, you will spend even less money than if you go with any other engine, period.

Set your goals appropriately, create a plan of how to get there, and then pursue them with diligence.... Just like anything else in life. :)
Edited on Sep 01, 2007 22:35 GMT

Pesto126   (Dec 03, 2007 at 22:42 GMT)

But that is the author's point... GG is marketing this as the "anyone can create a game" product.. and it is not... $45,000 to bring your game to market - Good luck my friend... that's a large chunk of change to put into a game.. and of course you are saying that GG is not the way to go.. again supporting the author.

Documentation still stinks all this time later... and I agree about the torque school... LOL.. .there goes your community and TDN GG... now nobody will post free content 0 why should they when they can teach a class!!

Bryce "Cogburn" Weiner   (Dec 04, 2007 at 03:25 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Hehe... My game is an MMOFPS hence the "outrageous" to-market cost.It's the nature of the type of game I'm making, not indicitive of the Torque engine itself. If I may continue for a moment...

Ask the authors of Gish, Marble Madness and the like how much they invested to get their projects to market and I'll bet its probably half of what I require. Both of those games are now featured on GameTap and developed with the Torque engine.

If your goal is to create a AAA quality game on par with WoW, COD4 or BioShock and think that you are going to be able to do it in your spare time with spare change with any game engine, you may need to reset your expectations.

I'm always amazed at folks that purchase this, or any game engine, and then rail about how difficult the task is. Making games.... really making games.... is not an easy task or everyone would do it. It takes time, smarts, dedication, comparitively little money, and love of your creation.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the engine.

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