Really bothered by the Starter Kits

#41 @Mike Lilligreen: The ones I have tried "Whack a Mole" and the "Checkers" tutorial are not working. I tried the "Whack a Mole" one around the time 1.5 came out and it didn't work then. I've been working with the Checkers tutorial and literally I've had so many problems I've given up.

I have Torsion and besides a few simple spelling mistakes on my part, everything is perfect as per the tutorial, but it does not work. I've gone through it three times and my business partner just retried "Whack a Mole" and he couldn't get that one to work either.

All of the TOrque engines are sub par on documentation. It's a fact and most things are never updated. We were told when the "big merger" took place that more time would be put into documentation. I believe that now just as much as I believe the promises that the RTS kit will be updated to any future TGE version.

I'll go through all of the tutorials the rest of the week and post my findings on this forum.

#42 Just to add in my own two cents, but Chris is correct within regards to the Checkers Demo Tutorial, it does not work completely. I've tried it on two seperate occasion (once when it first come out, 1.5 I think), and again when I got 1.72. I got all the way through to the end but the farthest it goes is to have the checkers be able to be picked up, but not moved. That's why I'm writing my own tutorial for a network game. So that there is something that can be used as a full working example.
I never actually tried the Whack A Mole tuorial, so I can't state to a fact about that one. The one thing I think might be seomwhat beneficial to include with the tutorials is an actual working copy of the project being demonstrated. That way, users can look at an existing project and if they have problems re-creating it, then they have an application available for reference to see what differences are there.
This would beef up the d/l size a little, but I think in the end, at least then there'd be something for the users of Torque to actually be able to grasp onto. TGE comes with a playable FPS, and Racing Game, why can't TGB have a working demo project included?
Just a thought.. Maybe it would help.
By the way, my network tutorial should be up before the end of this month. So, that should be some good news to some of the community here to have a fully playable network game. I'm documenting all my steps, so hopefully it'll be easy to understand.

#43 Update: As I promised, I started going through the tutorials. The FishDemo tutorial works perfectly. I will be going on to the FishGame tutorial later today. I'll report my findings here or I can start another thread.

#44 Fish Tutorial and FishGame tutorial work just fine with 1.7.2
I haven't finished the Mole tutorial yet but so far all works for the Mole as well

"Derelict" makes sense.

I think the issue shows up when you have people buying TGB as their first experience with coding... therefore they can try to understand Torque Script but they/we were hoping to learn how to use it as well (as in how to code with torque script); for people with no previous coding experience it is harder. One thing is to learn how TS is structured... one thing is learning to code (with any language). Just saying that new comers may expect to learn how to code via TS documentation and that is when the wall is hit.

A matter of misplaced expectations and difficulty in finding what you need fast. Sticking around you will get the idea about how the whole GG site/documentation/forum/tdn works and you will find your way around it. This does not mean that GG should not try to make the learning process easier and I'm sure they are trying. They could try harder including a learn to code with TS manual with their packages... there are other engines that do provide more examples and library of scripts but they are indeed more expensive. (well not engine like TGB, more for 3D stuff).

I do understand people getting stressed about it. And GG should take into consideration that they are marketing TGB as a GAME BUILDER which makes people think it will be easy to build your own games. But GG does mention on the product page that you do need to learn to program to make the most out of it... I guess people still expects to receive a fully developed manual on TGB that also teaches them how to code with TS.
Probably there is need of a better compromise between what people hopes to find in their download (in terms of learning material) and what currently is offered.

Personally I had TGB since the EA version when I think the only tutorial available was the shooter. For other reasons I couldn't spend too much time with it... now I'm back on TGB and the available documentation is miles, many miles better. Easier to learn more about TS with current TGB and TDN documentation than it was long time ago. So GG is improving both the engine and the documentation.

#45 @Stephen: As it stands, you have a greater chance at making money by selling content or starter kits. I would be interested in seeing the sales figures of the content sold on this site versus the games produced by all the Torque engines. Something to keep in mind is that some of these kits are created by independant companies and only sold by Garagegames. Most of the tutorials are created by independant users as well.

With another engine I used to use (A6 by Conitec) a guy by the name of George puts out an eMagazine each month with tutorials, answers to unanswered forum questions, and other goodies. In the end it is the community that decides the direction the community will go. I encourage you to do what you can to improve this. Garagegames isn't going to suddenly stop selling content and code, but if you release a free tutorial on something then that will allow people to use it versus the paid alternative.

#46 I'm not an A6 user (and I am not comparing engines... so let's not go that way, no need) but I did check it out some time ago and, at that time, a part the eMagazine I had the impression that A6 or now A7 offered more in terms of documentation and tutorials to start with (compared to Torque) from using the engine to scripting, editing, etc..

As a general rule I don't particularly like the idea that a commercial product REQUIRES or HAS TO COUNT ON community efforts when it comes down to documentation; it is great when the Community goes beyond standard documentation and GG community is top notch for that.

Documentation for Torque products has been poor and Garage Game mentioned a few times they know about it. Improvements have been made and that's nice.

What is upsetting though is that basic information/tutorials/documentation (to make things usable for newbies) contained in books like "3D Game Programming All in One" and "The Game Programmer's Guide to Torque" is not actually included with Torque products by default.
If it was, it would be easier for new comers to get started with Torque (as in get started properly) and it would prompt technical/book writers to go beyond basic info and write books about advanced stuff.

Let's say there is a mismatch between offering good Indie Tools and not offering as good documentation with it that would indeed enable a new indie wannabe to achieve his/her dream more smoothly. Documentation and Art Pipeline are the weak points here.

Maybe one day GG will indeed offer their good tech coupled with appropriate documentation; in the meanwhile we will try to make good use of good products like TGB/TGE/TGEA 1.7 and spend an unnecessary amount of time to achieve basic results while we hunt down for information... after that initial phase users will be able to gradually make the most of it :) and spend more time making games, innovating and waste less time learning basic stuff or trying to come up with a usable/friendly/affordable pipeline (The Free Constructor on the other hand was a great gesture and step forward from GG... so they are trying :) )

Edit:
By the way, TGEA 1.7 (I didn't open it yet) documentation is receiving some good comments; I haven't seen it yet but it may be the case that GG made another good step forward with it and another reason to trust GG into gradually offering better and better learning docs by default.

#47 Included in my TGB file is a "Documentation Overview". This file contains a tutorial on behaviors, a little fish tutorial, a checkers tutorial that includes networking, a whack-a-mole tutorial...

In the section labeled "Features" there are tutorials for:

-workspace
-mounting
-collision
-animated sprites
-scrollers
-world limit
-tile maps
-paths
-resources
-file IO
-audio
-3D shapes
-static sprites

...the section that I find most useful is the section labeled "Reference" which has detailed information about the particle engine and my favorite, "TGB Reference" which contains information about all of the scripting commands. **This section I would like to see improved, with examples of useful code under each command**

With the engine and it's documentation, you can create a game.

@Hokuto: I haven't seen the TGEA doc's because I don't have that license. I'm not sure how many people know that TGB has documentation also.

#48 I'd like to jump in here & say that a lack of documentation doesn't mean most people can't figure things out. I like to point out Doom 3 had (and still doesn't) no official documentations except some descriptions of some keywords on id's SDK website.

Basically, that stopped the people who didn't really want to KNOW how to mod from modding. Amazing things were done, and still are being done, that nobody thought could be done. Often times I've found that if people use tutorials/doc's all the time they tend to make what the tutorial's/doc's teach. They don't normally go outside the "limits" their given in a class-like setting.

#49 Stephen: Is that an argument against documentation? *grins*

I seriously couldn't disagree more with the notion that a well documented game more often results in less "pushing of the limits". A plethora of examples exist of good documentation and a powerful engine--the Unreal engine and the Aurora (NWN/NWN2) engines are both solid examples for which there is plenty of "limit pushing" to be found.

Really, it comes down to the complexity of the engine in combination with the documentation. The more complex the engine (and the poorer the documentation), the longer the learning curve and the "build" time is for anyone trying to modify it.

Neverwinter Nights is an excellent example. When it was first released, the engine was powerful, notably well documented, and at the time both different and complex. The learning curve was substantial because of intricacies with the engine and the editor, not to mention the new nature of the game itself. The result was that the first notably substantial modifications didn't arise for at least a good six to eight months (truly more than that if you inspect it closely).

For all of that, NWN is probably one of the most modded games around with some serious limits not only pushed, but completely toppled by the community. It didn't happen overnight, of course, but the documentation never once limited the creativity of the community.

By contrast, the Torque engine (and/or TGB) are also quite complex for the average fellow to engage, perhaps even moreso. Most people do not have very extensive understandings of C++ or C/C++ style scripting languages such as TorqueScript, and there are a bevy of nuances to the engine and the editors that do take time to absorb and adjust too. That most who encounter the engine and the scripting language find the documentation not entirely satisfactory only speaks to the increases in difficulty and time investment involved because of its lack.

Keep in mind, we're talking about a fully exposed AAA game engine here. It is little wonder that some might find it overwhelming, even from just a modding and not an engine modification stance. Documentation is a tool meant to aid a developer understand the engine or the scripting language and quickly return to productivity. It isn't something that limits a developer or causes them to become uninspired.

Documentation also doesn't make an engine or a language any less complex, it only makes it easier to comprehend. If the converse were true, we'd all be overnight C++ and Java gurus thanks to the mounds of documentation on the language and the environments which exist.

Frankly, if people are not pushing the limits and are tending to create content similar to the tutorials, it is far more likely due to a general lack of skill on their part or real, hard limits on the modding capability of the engine, rather than anything to do with documentation--good or bad alike. Obviously, the engine is not a limiting factor here, so that points to the former.

People will tend to build what they can, limited by their skill or the engines, whichever comes first. The only other consideration is the complexity of the work involved as to how quickly they can build it.

#50 There have been many games that have pushed the Torque Engine in directions that wasnt originally thought of. Marble Blast is the first game that comes to mind that completely took the torque engine in a direction that it was never originally intended to go in (fps games). Theres also Minions of Mirth a MMO game something that Torque was defently not originally created for.

The big limiting factor is not the lack of documentation (theres over 6 years worth of documentation in resources alone not counting all of the forum posting and people taking the engine to new areas. No the big limiting factor is peoples determination to finish something. There are loads of people here with amazing ideas and the talent to pull it off. But alot of people always fall to the side of putting the time in to finish there idea.

Now I am not saying documentation is a bad thing, far from that. But anyone that has been around here for the last 6-7 years knows that Torque has come leaps and bounds from where it was then to where it is now in the documentation area and just general use area.

#51 The original poster's complaint really wasn't so much about the lack of documentation. The reason I posted about the documentation is that it seems that's the direction this thread was beginning to take. Stephen's complaint was that GG is selling starter kits, because they know people will pay for content that's directly associated with their game's genre.

Starter kits are very useful (whether free or not), but the problem people often have with them is that they don't actually "start" anything with them. I agree with Derelict about the perseverance that making a game requires. I think that by forcing users to purchase starter kits, you are likewise forcing them to do something with them. In a way, it's like a guilt trip (unless you're rich). If you spend $40 on something then do nothing with it, you're out $40. If you do something with it, that $40 investment is a small price to pay for the reward of your effort.