Your Game Making Application

Well, I prefer the more difficult C++ because:
1. Cross-Platform Code. This allows for the Linux and Mac Users to be able to play my games/use my applications. With Game Maker, you can only write Windows Code(for now). This results in needing an interpreter or WINE(neither is perfect) to run the games, and in GM6+, it breaks in WINE.

2. Smaller. This way I won't wind up with 20MB Games that should be only 5MB or less*coughmkfusioncough*.

3. Speed. In Game Maker, it is difficult to make a complex game that runs at 60+ FPS on all Computers. With C++, you can make Complex Games with much less lag.

4. More Power over Programs. C++ gives you more power, so you can have more Control, instead of hoping Game Maker doesn't have a Glitch that will ruin your game. Trust me, it happens.

Also, keep in mind that when making games, you want more people to play it, especially if it's shareware. To do that, you want to write Cross-Platform AND Fast Code. GM has neither. Sure, GM is relatively fast, but it's bad for complex games.

Yes, you can, but Game Maker is naturally slow due to it being interpreted. With C++, unless you make a stupid mistake, you're still going to have much faster code than GM.

MMF2 Dev at the moment, hopefully soon with involving the Lua language.


i attempted an asteroids game with VB.NET before

that was a monstrosity

gm7 pro. i use gm6 unregistered as well, but that's very rarely.

Most of which is due to careless use of large resources like music. All things held equal, my fusion applications are probably smaller compared to the overhead of the media libraries that I have to include or statically link with.

It is difficult to make a complex game run at a high speed on all computers regardless of what it's written in. C++ will always give you a speed advantage in terms of raw execution, but performance is not free and you will pay for it in complexity. Your game is virtually guaranteed to be less stable than anything written in a [more] protected environment like GM or MMF. The lower your code moves on the language abstraction totem pole, the more dangerous it becomes.

Instead you'll write your own glitches. More of them. A lot of things that you might take for granted in existing systems don't come so easily when you have to make them yourself. Your first implementation will probably be inefficient. As they say, with great power comes great responsibility.

If you want people to play your games, you actually have to release them. The GM user already has a huge lead and the race hasn't even started.

C++ is a great goal to reach for, but be prepared to fail harder and more often in your quest. It's going to happen.

Well, that is true, but Game Maker still has the unnecessarily large 2MB Interpreter. If they give you the option of using C++ Code(unlikely) and turning off functions so they aren't included in the interpreter(unlikely), I'll gladly switch back.

With every positive comes a negative. There's no avoiding that. For example, using Silicon is slower, but it is cheaper and smaller. Using Gallium Arsenide is faster, but it's bigger and more expensive. You have to weigh the Pros and Cons. However, well organized code can help avoid this. Several Bug-Testers and good knowledge of C++ will also help.

It's true, you are more likely to create glitches, which is why it's important to write Pseudo-Code first, then translate that to C++. It helps you to find where errors may occur. You can also add Console Debugging to see where your Game was at when it broke down.

That is true, but would you rather release a fatter and slower game in a shorter amount of time, or would you rather release a smaller and faster game after more development time?

C++ is a great goal, and mastering it is quite an achievement, but it is difficult, and it's riskier. But being a Pro is better than taking the lazy way via Game Maker, IMO.

it doesn't matter, as long as the game you make is good.

really, the only fault I can see with GM 6+ is that it isn't compatible with WINE, which will hopefully be fixed by GM 8's release.

... So what you want is a C++ compiler that will cost about $20 when there are far cheaper, even free options of C++ compilers that will probably work much better.

I SEE THE LOGIC IN THAT QUITE CLEARLY DEAR SIR

Topic-Related Post: Game Maker 6.1 Registered, making a transfer to C++ but will probably continue to use Game Maker

Ye olde The Games Factory is what I use(d). Once I stop being a lazy git, I'll re-motivate myself to actually get back into creation, then once again work my way back up to MMF.

i just hope you don't use it to create more libs and then go boast yourself as being the best spriter


remember when you used to do that

No, I want a version of Game Maker that has C++ Support, or at least improved DLL Support.

But since you've basically self-taught yourself C++ why go back to Game Maker if it opens up C++ support?

You'd pretty much just use the C++ support exclusively so WHY WASTE $20 when you can get Dev-C++ for FREE.

(Which is also programmed in Delphi like Game Maker is, so the chances of Game Maker allowing C++ support is actually a fairly likely possibility.)

You can also get the trial version of Microsoft Visual C++, which is probably the only Microsoft product I would ever recommend to anybody.

So far as I know, this trial never runs out, and since it is designed with Windows in mind (exclusively), compatibility with 90% of your audience isn't an issue.

If you know C++, there is no reason for you to be using GameMaker... and besides, GameMaker's built-in language is entirely sufficient for the great majority of games, so the existing *.dll support covers anything you would be missing.

I would not recommend using GameMaker to make any sort of large online game (ie. MMORPG) in the first place, although 2-4 players with one acting as host should be fine.

Probably just to learn how it implements C++, and maybe write a Tutorial on switching slowly from GML to C++ so others can learn. Also, Dev-C++ does not have a Linux Port AFAIK, so that wouldn't be possible.

This post has been edited by OniLink10 on Mar 11 2009, 11:53 PM

I'm not fond of double-posts, but this is a drastic subject change, so I figure it's not a huge issue ...


Although I would prefer a scripting language like GML, I cannot stand GameMaker's interface and complete lack of user-friendliness (ie. quick-dropping tiles, toggling layer visibility) in the Room Editor, and this is why I prefer Fusion 2. Retriever II coded a LUA object for Fusion 2 to cover the language preference too, so it really beats GameMaker on all counts except one from my perspective.

Fusion 2 seems to be lacking actual global objects, meaning that I still have to modify object graphics separately in each frame, whereas GameMaker has *only* global objects, and very convenient methods to edit and call global scripts, making large changes very easy.

DO NOT SUGGEST VISUAL C++. It forces you to use the Crappy .NET Framework, which is slower than Game Maker's Interpreter. On top of that, using .NET Framework forces you to give the rights to some parts of your Program to Microsoft, and we don't want that, do we?

If they do come out with GM w/ C++, I would just use it to write Tutorials on transitioning from GML to C++. Also, using DLLs in Game Maker is MUCH slower than using the Built-In Functions, so not a good idea.

It does, but it is an alpha that hasn't been updated for seven years.

Dev-C++ is based on MinGW, a GCC port to Windows, which is why there is no Linux version -- the entire point of the program is to compile for Windows. Why port it back?

Dev-C++ can also use Cygwin's compiler, but Cygwin is designed to compile Linux programs for use on Windows.

Considering that Linux is founded on the concept of free software, an alternative compiler for Linux should be fairly easy to find.

Visual C++ does not force you to use the .NET framework. Please get your facts straight. I have to use Visual C++ to write MMF extensions, and there's nothing really wrong with it. It's a decent product. But certainly if your goal is platform-independence, you are much better using mingw, which is also a good product (of course you usually only use it through an interface like code::blocks or dev-c++ or eclipse).

If I were to develop a game purely in C++ today, I think I would embed the lua language into it because it would allow me to speed up my development time by magnitudes and offer some capabilities that are difficult or impossible in a statically compiled language like C++.

Visual C++ has the option of (albeit focus on) the .NET Framework, but does not force you to use it.

I highly doubt that eAthena, a server emulator for Ragnarok Online, would advise using Microsoft Visual C++ to compile for Windows systems if giving rights to Microsoft was a significant threat.

Oh really? It's full name is Visual Studio .NET nowadays, you know? They dropped the .NET part after 2003, but it still uses the .NET Framework.

This post has been edited by OniLink10 on Mar 12 2009, 12:05 AM