At 6/9/11 06:42 PM, Luis wrote: One of Tom's long term goals is to include Unity into the mix of things. It makes sense, i mean with the eventual leap into film stuff, it'd make sense to keep a pulse on gaming trends.

Indeed. Adobe's getting lazy, Flash 3D is slow as hell and probably going nowhere. Unity is the future for browser games methinks.

At 6/10/11 03:27 PM, PSvils wrote: Are you guys serious?

Oddly enough, some good points. But none of us are likely to move out of Flash anyhow. Most of us who are working in Flash at the moment as our day jobs are picking up Unity as a second or third or fourth skill because it's a useful bit of kit.

I don't have brand loyalty. I use whatever tool is going to do the best job. I think most developers are like that too. A lot of the coders haven't been using the Flash IDE, for instance, to write actionscript since we had a suitable alternative. And if we're developing offline or mobile apps, we'll use whichever platform delivers the best performance.

Unity looks like it's actually managing to gain it's ground. At least to the point where it's about where the Shockwave format was a few years back. If it gets that extra push, I for one will just remember to keep practicing my C# as well as my AS3.

At 6/10/11 03:27 PM, PSvils wrote: Usually you can start up Flash, drag things on to stage and have things running in a matter of minutes.

I find it's quicker to mock up basic stuff faster in Unity than in Flash now, especially since Unity does all the physics for you.

Although I will admit that it took me longer to get to grips with Unity than it did with the Flash IDE. Whereas I was able to pick up Flash on my own I needed to be shown the ropes of Unity before I could make anything worth while.

and so people developing Flash 3D games with those engines probably won't see any reason to switch now

While the Molehill stuff does look impressive, it'll be a while before see anything more than an incubator build. It'll probably ship with CS6, which probably wont be 'til next year now, because of all this CS5.5 business.

Doing 3D in Unity is such a dream too! Not least of all because you can view your scene in 3D in the IDE, but when you preview your game you can still edit everything as the game is running. Moving & rotating freely around your game in one window, while the actual game view plays out in another is incredibly useful.

And Flash will always exist for web apps and video playback.

Yeah, I'm not doubting that. Flash is, and always will be, a lot more versatile than Unity. When I said Unity would take over Flash, I meant purely in terms of game development, Flash is still plenty useful for other projects and wont be dying out completely forever, I just personally think it'll have a hard time keeping up with Unity in the game stakes, especially as Unity to can export to pretty much every platform. Rochard is an upcoming game on the PSN, which was made in Unity.

At 6/10/11 04:23 PM, KaynSlamdyke wrote: A lot of the coders haven't been using the Flash IDE, for instance, to write actionscript since we had a suitable alternative.

On that note, the Unity IDE has much better support for working with code - so much so that I got all giddy when I first saw them. For example, you can mess about with variables using slider bars! Change the initial properties of any object with them, stuff like that.
Not exactly hard to do with regular code, but it's a nice touch, and one that I can imagine being much helpful for non-programmers who you've built classes for.

At 6/10/11 09:28 PM, Innermike wrote:

At 6/10/11 07:41 PM, Doomsday-One wrote: you can mess about with variables using slider bars!

NOWAIRLY???

Mike swoops in to destroy the meaningful discussion!

It's super effective

At 6/10/11 07:41 PM, Doomsday-One wrote: For example, you can mess about with variables using slider bars!

So, what about it?

At 6/11/11 01:09 AM, Sanjeev98 wrote:

At 6/10/11 07:41 PM, Doomsday-One wrote: For example, you can mess about with variables using slider bars!

So, what about it?

It's nifty!
As I said, not a required feature, but it feels so much easier testing things by moving a bar or selecting an object from a list rather than going into the code and typing these things out.
And, as I also said, it is probably much less intimidating for non-programmers working with various classes.

To clarify, I'm not saying I'm gonna drop everything Flash and move to Unity just for slidey bars, but I am saying that Flash has always needed better integration with code, and Unity provides a strong example of how to do it.

Flash might be a much simpler thing to get into, but most web games aren't coming from us Newgrounds doofs any more. It's 2011 and this is a MARKET now full o teams of 4 or 5 people in god-knows-where makin a serious living.

So if Unity's the next step up then it's not gonna scare people off if it's a bit harder to use.

At 6/11/11 06:16 AM, Doomsday-One wrote:

At 6/11/11 01:09 AM, Sanjeev98 wrote:

At 6/10/11 07:41 PM, Doomsday-One wrote: For example, you can mess about with variables using slider bars!

So, what about it?

It's nifty!
As I said, not a required feature, but it feels so much easier testing things by moving a bar or selecting an object from a list rather than going into the code and typing these things out.
And, as I also said, it is probably much less intimidating for non-programmers working with various classes.

To clarify, I'm not saying I'm gonna drop everything Flash and move to Unity just for slidey bars, but I am saying that Flash has always needed better integration with code, and Unity provides a strong example of how to do it.

I've always considered Unity, as it appeals to me, but I can't be arsed to learn another language and get used to Unity's interface when I can do almost the same stuff in another program.

The main problem with Unity we've found is that doing anything with User Interfaces is nowhere near as easy as it is with Flash. To be fair, any UIs you have to create and modify using pure code are un-fun, but in Unity's case each UI element adds to the draw calls (which need to be saved for important things on iPhone development), and need to be exported "just so" otherwise they'll be treated like textures, and turned into Power of Two scale images (which are ugly).

I'm sure we'll spring for the third party Sprite Manager and UI Manager classes at some point for 2d imagery manipulation, but it's a shame there's not a simpler solution for managing UIs in Unity.

At 6/11/11 02:50 PM, KaynSlamdyke wrote: I'm sure we'll spring for the third party Sprite Manager and UI Manager classes at some point

Yeah, we've got the Sprite Manager 2 and EZGUI at work, both are shit hot.

Birth year/page post.

If anyone (no one) cares, I was looking into Unity a while back, but never bothered to go anywhere with it. Maybe I'll try to later or whatever.

Stencyl

Is it my relative distance from Game Dev these past two years that caused me to overlook Stencyl? Or is my first impression of the program overestimating its capabilities? Recently NG teamed up with TGF, but if the rumors I've been picking up are anything to go by, Stencyl is a much better solution. Is this true? Has anyone managed to test it out? I'm looking to make a very basic RPG, more parts visual novel, and I'm currently inbetween RPG Maker VX and Stencyl, so I'm just looking to get a more informed, subjective opinion of the program.

At 6/15/11 01:23 PM, PSvils wrote: Just be a man and program it yourself...
Your relative distance from Game Dev has kept you from discovering Actionscript 3.

I'll take your lack of tact as a lack of maturity. I appreciate your input, however. Perhaps I should improve my grasp of AS3, but there is no point re-inventing the wheel. If I can find a suitable API, and associated GUI, why shouldn't I use it to help expedite development?

At 6/15/11 05:53 PM, Deathcon7 wrote: I'll take your lack of tact as a lack of maturity. I appreciate your input, however. Perhaps I should improve my grasp of AS3, but there is no point re-inventing the wheel. If I can find a suitable API, and associated GUI, why shouldn't I use it to help expedite development?

This reminds of an interesting discussion. I believe some people were pissed when that Game Factory 2 came out, because it enabled anyone without much grasp on programming to make a game when other, more competent people had to go through much more and use knowledge they worked hard to obtain to make something similar. But really, if there's an easier way to do whatever it is you're doing, then you should really be practical and use that method.

It's like, why make your own physics engine from scratch when there's perfectly good ones, and even better ones, out there? Why make your game in C++ while you're at it, and find some way to make it playable online, when you can just use Flash? I think that's a pretty bad example, but you can see my point.

As a general rule of thumb though, the more complicated something is to use, the less limited it is. It all just depends on what you want to do.

At 6/11/11 12:14 PM, Sanjeev98 wrote: I've always considered Unity, as it appeals to me, but I can't be arsed to learn another language and get used to Unity's interface when I can do almost the same stuff in another program.

Oh the Unity site is just fucking FULL of tutorials, you should check it out.

At 6/15/11 06:50 PM, 4urentertainment wrote: This reminds of an interesting discussion. I believe some people were pissed when that Game Factory 2 came out, because it enabled anyone without much grasp on programming to make a game when other, more competent people had to go through much more and use knowledge they worked hard to obtain to make something similar. But really, if there's an easier way to do whatever it is you're doing, then you should really be practical and use that method.

It's like, why make your own physics engine from scratch when there's perfectly good ones, and even better ones, out there? Why make your game in C++ while you're at it, and find some way to make it playable online, when you can just use Flash? I think that's a pretty bad example, but you can see my point.

As a general rule of thumb though, the more complicated something is to use, the less limited it is. It all just depends on what you want to do.

god, whoever's saying that sounds like jerk. If your talent's in game design or animation, then you might aswell just jump onboard. Programming is a huge barrier for everyone.

At 6/15/11 08:14 PM, PSvils wrote:

At 6/15/11 07:22 PM, I-smel wrote: god, whoever's saying that sounds like jerk. If your talent's in game design or animation, then you might aswell just jump onboard. Programming is a huge barrier for everyone.

I'm a disciple of the DUI. I mean DIY.

You can fight me with your progressive, liberal, rainbow, everyone-is-happy-and-shouldn't-be-press ured-to-try ideology, but you'll never win!

On a serious note, why do you think that a lot of the big game devs out there create their own engines from scratch, even 3D rendering! (I'm not just talking about big companies, the indie devs of Amnesia also made their engine from the ground up, only used 3rd party physics libs and such...

In the end, yes, do what you can, if you find an easy way of doing it, do it...but making a game is all about developing the core of it. It's what defines the game as yours imo. All flixel games have a similar feel I think...

meh.

Then again I only finally allowed myself to use 3rd party libs a few months ago, and started playing with Box2D a bit...explains my mentality a bit.

I can definitely understand your perspective. There is a more acute sense of ownership when you completely develop an engine. I can also understand your antipathy to anyone that takes "the easy way." Back when I was more active in the flash forum, it was Gust who helped me to build a more practical perspective on programming. His stern words eventually cracked my shell and, despite my drifting from programming, has allowed me to better appreciate the true objective of programming: the result. Since then I have taken the soccer approach to it: so long as the ball hits the back of the net, it's a goal.

As far as stencyl is concerned, I'm taking the time out tonight to work with it since I really didn't get a conclusive opinion. I'll see if it works for me and my needs and report my findings. I know back when I was a regular here, my biggest barrier was ego. Had I had something to supplement my understanding of AS3, I would have been much more productive.

As a programmer I'm more inclined to dislike things like the Game Factory, etc. that make it waaaaay too easy to make bad games, but I will always appreciate the effort that is put in to making a truly enjoyable, unique game, no matter who or what made it.

However, I will respect an author far more if he programmed a game himself.

In the end, a good game programmed entirely from scratch using no "game builders" will always be better than anything made using a "game builder". The easier the game development process becomes, the more similar and repetitive games will become, until there is only a vague sense of originality left. The fewer creative restrictions you have, such as those that generally accompany "game builders" , the better the end result will be.

And some of this applies to Flash vs. C++/Java/whatever--some restrictions had to be applied to make the development process easier. I'm sure if we all spent the time to make games in other, less restrictive languages, we would be much happier with our work.

</ramble>

At 6/15/11 06:50 PM, 4urentertainment wrote: It's like, why make your own physics engine from scratch when there's perfectly good ones, and even better ones, out there?

I believe this sums up my opinion...

"When I tell most people that I made the engine and tools myself, they usually ask, "Why did you do that?" My friends over at FlashBang try to cram Unity down my throat every single time I talk to them, but I stand by the decision to make our own tools and engine.

One huge reason is control. I'm sort of a control freak when it comes to code; I like to understand everything that's going on in my codebase. That way, if something breaks, I know exactly where and how to fix it. Also, I got into games to program games, not to script them. I enjoy all aspects of game programming, from the engine to the gameplay. Since we're indie and can do what we want, and since I had the skill set, I simply enjoyed doing the engine."
(Tommy Refenes (programmer of Super Meat boy))

You people bore me. So when's the re-design coming? Is Tom waiting for the summer vacation?

At 6/16/11 11:14 AM, Xeptic wrote: You people bore me. So when's the re-design coming? Is Tom waiting for the summer vacation?

Tom is waiting for the icon mods... I'm sure it's not the only thing but that's part of the reason we don't have the redesign yet.

Tom holed up in a bunker for the May Rapture and set fire to the NG servers the day before.

When the Rapture was narrowly averted, Tom rebooted NG's servers on his cell phone and has been scrambling ever since to rebuild his empire.

That's why the redesign is delayed.

At 6/16/11 10:57 AM, UnknownFury wrote:

At 6/15/11 06:50 PM, 4urentertainment wrote: It's like, why make your own physics engine from scratch when there's perfectly good ones, and even better ones, out there?

I believe this sums up my opinion...

"When I tell most people that I made the engine and tools myself, they usually ask, "Why did you do that?" My friends over at FlashBang try to cram Unity down my throat every single time I talk to them, but I stand by the decision to make our own tools and engine.

One huge reason is control. I'm sort of a control freak when it comes to code; I like to understand everything that's going on in my codebase. That way, if something breaks, I know exactly where and how to fix it. Also, I got into games to program games, not to script them. I enjoy all aspects of game programming, from the engine to the gameplay. Since we're indie and can do what we want, and since I had the skill set, I simply enjoyed doing the engine."
(Tommy Refenes (programmer of Super Meat boy))

Important words here are "and since I had the skill set"!!

It really depends on the reason why someone wants to use something. Physics seems to be the prime example. If you are making a game with a bit pf physics bit it is neither a focal point of the game or your interest then that is where a pre-made engine is perfect, your efforts may be best spent on other aspects.

Optimise your time better then you optimise your game code! :p

Or maybe you've already outgrown it and now just see yourself as just a viewer rather than developer.

-L

I see myself becoming a developer of more gadgets than anything. I havent submitted much, but i want to make sure that as i submit my ideas are going in the right direction. I actually want to make a smaller easier to use flash... for the beginners who are just playing with the idea. where you draw a character click a button and it has the movement of a platformer character, then the same with the ground. completely no work for the designer... but easy enough to use that the people who cant figure out flash can still have a say in the flash world

<3 things other than Flash

Threw together a level editor for my game in Java and it's nice and simple to use, unlike most things made quickly in Flash.

so how's the market for flash games these days?

At 6/20/11 09:33 AM, Toast wrote: so how's the market for flash games these days?

IMO (not?) bad...(although?) I have never seen any flash games for sale.

At 6/20/11 10:09 AM, Innermike wrote:

At 6/19/11 09:37 PM, Archawn wrote: <3 things other than Flash

*facepalm*

question mark

At 6/20/11 11:24 AM, Gimmick wrote:

At 6/20/11 09:33 AM, Toast wrote: so how's the market for flash games these days?

IMO (not?) bad...(although?) I have never seen any flash games for sale.

The Flash game black market is where it's at.

I decided to register a business so I can release whatever digital media projects I'm working on under a more official name. Can't come up with a good name for it though, suggestions?