As far as I am aware there is no difference between these roles in job-placement at game studios.
'Game Designers' are typically the programmers who get a lead development role that basically oversees all the work and designs of the programmers. They may participate in the overall game's design depending on their level of experience and their position in the studio. They require job-experience and usually possess knowledge of multiple areas of game-development, like programming, writing, music, and art.
'Game Programmers' are the people 'below' who do the programming work.
I've never seen any studio hiring entry-level "designers" or such... How would that even work?
Besides, the only position a programmer could get promoted to is to become a 'game designer'.
As well, 'Game Designers' can sometimes get promoted as writers or artists, they don't necessarily need to be a programmer... but it's actually beneficial to have all of these skills if you want to someday become a Game Designer. I believe, in the industry, that most Designers were once programmers... Companies like to hire programmers so that they can participate in coding problems and understand the processes, as well as understand what can and can't be done.
So... unless there is a different definition of "Game Designer" that I'm not aware of... You have only given yourself one choice here. You will begin as a lowly "programmer" and one day get promoted to "designer"... Then, if you're good, become a "director" or "producer".
If you don't want to program, and it WILL be boring, start somewhere else.
I'll also point out that getting hired to a game studio is very difficult. It's a HIGHLY competitive area and most programmers start as QA testers, which get paid almost nothing.
QA testers are also often disillusioned with the entire game-development industry because they begin thinking they will be providing input on the game's development, but realize all they are really there to do is tell them if the game crashed or not and if the game felt playable ('Yes' or 'No' questions).
- Registered Member
Member for 8 years, 9 months, and 22 days
Last active Fri, Jul, 17 2015 11:01:27
- 0 Followers
- 6,378 Total Posts
- 1111 Thanks
Mar 19, 2014Posted in: Computer Science and TechnologyQuote from Superintendent
If you help us code our games, you will be entitled to a share of income.
No really? And I just thought everyone wanted to break the law and force people to work as slaves without pay... Who woulda guessed someone out there would actually pay you for doing work!
Quote from Superintendent
You would join our app-making developer group, CraveTech.
And what kind of "app-making developer group" is this?
You leave out fundamental details... Such as what kind of people the developer would be working with, how many, and etc.
Which honestly leads me, and everyone else here, to assume that you are not really an "app-making developer group" but actually a "guy with ideas" and you're just looking for someone to do all the programming work for you.
....Is that right?
Mar 5, 2014Posted in: Computer Science and Technology
What programming language should I learn?
It really doesn't matter. Just pick one you think you might like and learn.
The important part is not learning a "language" but how to program. The language is unimportant and the skills are always transferable between languages.
Though, if you want something 'friendly', well-documented, and often used for games, my suggestion would be C#. It is probably the most common language used for indie game development.
If you don't mind getting into some of the more details of programming, like understanding how memory management works, you can use C++ which is still the most-used language for professional game development (usually by bigger studios and such, but many, many indie devs use it as well).
...But again, it really doesn't matter. It's your choice. Every language has pros and cons and you should choose the one right for you.
What does this have that others don't?
C# has XNA for game-development, which itself is also very highly documented and has numerous tutorials for making simple games, or even game engines, all over the internet.
C++ has SDL and SFML libaries which are also good and well-documented. There are some good tutorials on the web for these as well.
Java has some good libraries as well, but I'm not so familiar with them.
Python is another language that I know has some good libraries and frameworks and lots of tutorials, and is also "user-friendly". I've heard good things about it, but I have never actually used Python myself.
How should I start after learning the language?
Create simple software first. Do NOT start by making games.
Games are one of the largest software projects you could possibly ever make. They require rather advanced technology compared to practically anything else. You must understand they are, and have always been, at the cutting edge of software-development. They are not an easy thing to make.
A simple game is going to be about 10 times more difficult than a simple program.
A complex game is going to be about a 10 times more difficult than a complex program.
Though it varies quite a bit on what you're doing... Games are, in general, one of the most difficult things to program.
No one learns carpentry by building a house. They start small and might build a chair or a table first.
So to hone your skills, start by making simple things, then work your way towards simple games. Then alter them and make those games more and more complex. Then start a new game project that is more difficult... Eventually you will gather a lot of skills and experience that will be invaluable to you when you actually want to make a "real game".
What kind of software should I use to write the lines of code?
With any language you will use an IDE, like any serious programmer.
An IDE is something like Visual Studio, CodeBlocks, NetBeans, Eclipse, etc.
Don't use something like Notepad++. Only amateurs who don't know any better use things like that.
Notepad++ (or similar things) are for quick, small little edits to things when you don't have your IDE up for some reason.
Any other advice that may prove useful.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Feb 18, 2014Posted in: Computer Science and TechnologyQuote from TheFieldZy
Let me ask this: What do you do in C++ for game development that can't be done in Java?
In high-quality game development, C++ can squeeze out extra optimization where memory-managed languages like Java and C# can't.
For indie developers, the only reason you might want C++ over Java is if you didn't want to rely on the users installing (the correct version of) Java and instead wanted a native program that doesn't require additional software.
For beginners, I'd probably recommend C#, though.
Not only is it quicker to build programs from scratch, and is more 'user-friendly', but it also has the XNA framework which is simply beneficial for new game developers. It is much easier to use XNA in C# than it is to use SDL or SFML in C++.
An indie developer could develop a game in a much more reasonable amount of time using tools you can find in C#, than you could using C++. (Unless you already know C++ very well, but don't know any C#, when the time to create something would be subjective and be biased towards previous knowledge.)
And squeezing out optimization is not really an issue for indies.
There is nothing they could ever do to maximize CPU or GPU resources without programming badly. C++ would not help you there, if anything it would just give you errors instead.
C++ is still a good language, though. It's good for a programmer to understand memory management even if they always use a memory-managed language. It's just not 'beginner friendly' as they say, for this reason.
Understanding memory management helps you get a grasp on pointers, references, and such... Which are things still used in other languages like C#, even if you aren't using them directly anymore. They are still 'there'... The compiler is just doing a lot of it for you.
Feb 13, 2014Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
OSS=Open Source Software
You confuse me with your use of terms.
You refer to them as if they are a group.... but it's simply a phrase to refer to a type of software.
I think you're referring to the 'Open-Source Initiative', or some such thing... but really the only group complaining to Nvidia are simply just Linux users in general, and in particular the group who are working on the Open-Source Nvidia drivers.
The Proprietary Driver has always been far better than the Open Source one, to the point where there is very little reason to use the Open Source driver on it's own merits.
I've not argued otherwise. There is also a very good reason why that driver is not very good.
However, this is not even slightly relevant to the discussion.
Another false straw man.
From my understanding, from the arguments I've personally seen myself, the entire conflict between Linux users and Nvidia is simply just that Nvidia holds a sort of apathy or contention towards Linux. They don't actually put much development effort into the Linux drivers, even going so far as to hinder it specifically just because Windows can't handle all of the features that Linux can.
I already corrected you on this, I even gave you links.
Your only argument against this is simply just you stating they want to be entitled. Not actually providing any motive or reasoning, but simply dismissing them.
So, why are you still maintaining the previous straw man? I think this is faulty logic.
I personally think the facts are clear.... They want the hardware specs so they can personally make the drivers themselves and keep up with the features they want to see in their community, rather than depending on a company which honestly does not care about developing for their system.
Let me provide an example of something perhaps more understandable...
Let's say a third-party company decides to make a game for both Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. Both systems are roughly equivalent in power (PS3 is actually somewhat faster), but the game itself runs about 1.5 times better on the Xbox.
This is specifically because the company who made the game simply put more effort into the Xbox port of the game because the Xbox was more popular. The PS3 users complain to get equal performance, but the company simply just doesn't care because they already have their money and apparently don't care enough about customer satisfaction. So the PS3 users try to reverse-engineer the game and make tweaks themselves... But this doesn't work well, is overly difficult, and very few people can contribute as opposed to if they had the game's code themselves.... So what do they do next? They offer to do all the work themselves if the company will provide them with the game's code.
This isn't entitlement.... This is simply people wanting to get fair performance out of their system. Sure, you could tell them not to buy the game on the PS3 if they don't like how it runs.... but then you're really just being a snob yourself, at that point.
Sure, maybe there are some people who just want the source code simply to remake the same exact game, flaws and all, for no real reason at all except just to have the source code.... But you really think the majority want to do all that work for absolutely nothing but to possess something they don't have? Come on man. That doesn't even make any sense.
the "requests for an effective driver" don't exist.
Wut is this I don't even..................
I'm not sure what you're seeing, but this is the ONLY THING I've seen.
You are simply just wrong.... And I'll add, being quite silly to state something does not exist when in fact it does.
Now you can tell me you don't believe 'bigfoot' exists... but if you don't tell me you don't believe 'humans' exist, I'll just have to laugh.
No one can seriously acknowledge such a ridiculous argument.
the Nvidia Proprietary Driver is already effective.
As of Nov. 2012, as I demonstrated to you in a direct announcement from Nvidia themselves, which is honestly not that long ago...
And many will argue that:
1. They are still hindering the Linux drivers (as I've also demonstrated, which was an explicitly willful intent to hinder them)
2. That the efficacy of their drivers will eventually slow down and become ineffective again, because of irregular updates and/or apathy for the linux drivers.
3. Problems may crop up that go unfixed because of, again, irregular updates and/or apathy for the Linux drivers.
....Arguments? I've provided arguments and evidence to support those arguments. It's your turn.
"The Inquirer is reporting that Nvidia deliberately crippled its Linux driver to stop it from exceeding the Windows version"->"According to a forum poster at the Nvidia Developer Zone"
They changed the maximum number of monitors in baseMosaic modefrom 4 monitors to 3 monitors.
What have you provided but statements from yourself?... You, whom are, a forum poster.
....Reliable source you are, eh?
I'll take this citation off the table if you're willing to take all of your arguments off the table.
Oh, what's that? You mean I'd win the argument if you did that? Oh my, I guess I didn't realize that. ;D
But if you actually read this article, the 'question' of what happened to the feature came from a 'forum user' the response, which explained they were doing it because of 'parity with Windows', came from an Nvidia rep. I don't know how you missed this. Failure to take the argument seriously, I assume?
Here is the original source:
All the buzz about "Optimus" is not really a concern brought up... So why are you acting as if I brought it up? *shrug*
I bring up point A, you address point B. Don't you think this seems a bit strange? Why not address point A and then if you feel like it bring up point B yourself.
And If you honestly want to talk about entitlement.... I can definitely talk about that....
I have some rather strong arguments against the entitlement of Capitalism and the massive egotistic entitlement of Capitalists, honestly, and I don't think you'll have any place to argue there either, but that is another topic altogether. For now we are discussing Nvidia's Linux drivers.
The choice was made by Nvidia, not Microsoft. Nowhere has any NVidia representative said it had anything to do with windows. The only statement was that it was for "feature parity with other platforms". The representative stating this was not on the developer team and was just that- a representative.
1. No, they didn't state "other platforms", they stated "Windows".
2. According to the Nvidia website, these people actually are part of the development team you speak to.
3. Even if it was just a representative... They still, you know.... represent the company. That's the point, isn't it?
The change was probably not made by reason of corporate politics.
Corporate politics or simply corporate stupidity.... Does it really matter?
It's their job to make drivers, not to comply with artificial standards to make all OS's appear to be the same.
Additionally, this doesn't preventing using more than 3 monitors- it only prevents using more than 3 monitors using the driver in baseMosaic Mode.
You are entirely missing the point.
Basemosaic was effectively a massive hack that was only implemented due to kernel developers stonewalling requested changed solely because the changes were desired for use in a proprietary piece of software. the reduction to limit to 3 monitors was probably related to the fact that baseMosaic used a rather hacky method of rendering the multiple displays- it doesn't use SLI or any parallel processing model on the cards, instead it renders the entire desktop for each display and simply displays that appropriate part of the full framebuffer. This results in a fairly large performance hit- with each added monitor, performance is reduced.
Again, you're missing the point but at least here you attempt to provide a relevant argument.
The problem is....
Why does reducing the number of monitors that can be used, for parity with Windows, help to resolve the problem that it is a "hacky method"?
One might also wonder why anyone would ever, ever, ever want to stretch their monitor along THREE screens rather than FOUR.... Maybe this is just me, but I personally think it'd be far more common to use 4 monitors in such a display than 3.... How would you get the box-effect with only 3 monitors? I can't even imagine a monitor wide enough even being made to fit with two others to make a proper square.
Am I just confused about what this feature does, or is limiting it to 3 as truly dumb as it sounds?
It all seems very strange and nonsensical why such a feature would be limited when previously it had worked fine. Whether or not this caused issues with performance is not really the point. People were using it, as noted by the forum user who asked why it was removed in the first place...
If it was so much a problem for being a "hacky method"... Why not just remove it entirely?
Your argument brings up so many different questions, and I don't think really answers ANYTHING.
if Nvidia was able to support SLI Mosaic mode on Linux, this wouldn't be a problem; but they can't due to the license stone-walling of Linux kernel devs. BaseMosaic was a hack that they came up with since to try to workaround it, and they found performance issues when you use a crapload of monitors due to the hacky way they do it- a driver dev probably added the limit for performance reasons.
While licensing issues may be a problem, that's still no excuse to remove working features in order to have "parity with Windows".
The Ubuntu developers and such should just figure out a way to solve the stupid problem and stop worrying about ridiculous legal issues, but still.... That isn't an excuse for Nvidia to be ridiculous, too.
It'd be like a farmer trying to stop a teen from cow-tipping, but instead of trying to reason with the teen he just tries to tip the cows before the teen can do it first. In essence, they are both being very childish and irrational. That isn't to mean every farmer and every teen is irrational, though.
...Get my point?
And yet there are people all to willing to note that their graphics performance is higher in Linux than in Windows.
In SOME circumstances it is...
In others it's not. In some instances their drivers don't even work properly, or at all.
It's a really touch-and-go thing. And while the licensing issues may have a lot to do with it, are they the ONLY thing preventing Nvidia from releasing proper drivers that are actually effectively using hardware on Linux systems? Perhaps... but Linux users refuse to believe this because of the problems they have had with Nvidia in the past, and they cite the fact that AMD has no such major problems like Nvidia seems to have with everything.
The listed charts show the Nvidia Proprietary Linux driver running faster than the Windows driver, so I'm not sure exactly what you are going for.
On the final page the Linux drivers are not consistent (they are sub-par) with the previous two pages.
This doesn't make sense. It could be because of these licensing issues, as you've pointed out....
But let me ask... Do you know if they are or not? Does AMD have problems with their drivers in these same specific circumstances?
Uh, yeah. Doesn't that go against your point, though? If the Proprietary Linux driver is faster on Linux than Windows, than how is Nvidia "neglecting Linux" in any fashion?
Consistency, of course.
If it's faster than Windows it should be faster than Windows consistently. If it is slower than Windows it should be slower than Windows consistently. We see neither of these things. We see large differences in performance based on the circumstances. The OS can possibly effect the circumstances, of course.... but again we can also reference AMD to confirm that it is a driver problem and not an OS issue.
It's simple deduction, really.
They don't give their specs to anybody else who has requested them. Microsoft requested detailed technical information on hardware interfaces from Nvidia and ATI (at the time) when creating Direct3D and neither provided it; Thus I'm not really sure why an Open Source project should somehow be able to receive it.
*shrug* Because Nvidia's drivers are inconsistent and often suck and they want Linux users business? It adds up.
Sure you can argue they shouldn't get it for many reasons... but you can't honestly argue the only reason they want it is "entitlement".
It isn't a valid argument.
Their drivers are already working quite well, as your link has demonstrated.
And I'll again point out they didn't start "working well" as you see in this link until Nov. 2012 when Nvidia FINALLY got pressure from Valve to release actually useful Linux drivers.
I'll also point out that once these drivers were release a majority of the complaints to Nvidia to release specs were stopped. It's now a minority argument, when previously it was the majority of Linux users in general.
This was a defining moment for Nvidia and Linux... Before that point there were massive contentions between the two groups, some of these contentions still exist and therefore why we still see many complaints over silly things like reducing the number of monitors someone can use in a feature that is very rarely ever used.
So please make a mental note of that if you continue to argue this point.
The only thing with issues is Nouveau, but they should probably try to figure it out themselves instead of blame-shifting.
Nouveau is honestly irrelevant to this argument.
You miss the point. It's not "blame-shifting" it really is a problem with Nvidia. There are a multitude of signs demonstrating this.
Nouveau is merely the demonstration of the need for one of these two things:
1. Consistent, useable proprietary drivers that don't lack features and have proper updates.
2. Release of specs.
It has no other real relevance than that. It is a far inferior driver, there is no argument about that. No one should use it. I'm surprised they are even still working on it now. (Are they still working on it?)
Well considering Linus, who read the linked newsgroup posting I linked above, tried to call Nvidia out on not supporting Optimus when the only reason they don't support Optimus is because a Kernel feature they need to use for it is only usable by GPL Software, it's clear there is a heavy environment of stone-walling fllowed by blame-shifting, and not by Nvidia.
While he might have a bit more.... How shall we say this.... 'weight' to his arguments than most Linux users.... The fact is he, and some of the others, are simply just outspoken minorities that do not necessarily reflect the real problem but instead are more often trying to get attention focused on the problem.
Again, while it may be true that the licensing issues cause some of this and that Nvidia is not really responsible for some of these problems... It's really still no excuse for the things they HAVE done which they WERE responsible for.
Furthermore, why can't they just make more Linux users aware that there is a licensing issue that prevents them from adding certain features? Instead of just accepting things for how they are, why not actually try to do something about it? It seems apathetic for a company which might profit quite a bit from the prospect of actually solving these problems.
Keeping secrets about low level hardware optimizations is a competitive market advantage.
Sure. I'm not arguing that.
But obviously there is also a "competitive market advantage" to having open-sourced stuff, as well.
These companies use confidence in their product, the quality they ensure, and their brand label to make profit and it's demonstrated to work very well.
So the question becomes.... Is Nvidia not confident in it's product?
AMD is confident about their products. They have lots of open-source stuff and assist with them often enough.
Anyway, I think I'm done here. I've said what I had to say.
If you still want to talk about "entitlement", we can start with the 'entitlement of Capitalism' over on the philosophy/politics forum, or in a PM. I'd love to explain why pro-Capitalists are spoiled, entitled, and morally bankrupt and why Communism is a superior system that solves these real-world problems.
Feb 13, 2014Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
THEY DO! They treat OSS EXACTLY the same as windows.
OSS? What does that have to do with anything?
For a moment I thought you were referring to OS X, but no... you repeat "OSS" several times referring to Linux.
OSS stands for Open Sound System, doesn't it? What does this have to do with the graphics drivers?
Microsoft doesn't get detailed hardware specifications, and NVidia makes a perfectly capable Driver for Linux.
From my understanding, no.... Their Linux driver has always lacked in performance up until at the very least Linux users seriously started to complain and the absolute very reason why people request the hardware specifications to make their own open-source drivers.
I think the problem here is that you're misinterpreting the requests for an effective driver as being requests simply to open-source Linux software.
This is not correct.
For example... Why does Nvidia intentionally lower specs for it's Linux drivers, just because Window can't handle the same specs? It's nonsense
Linux people really don't like this... and it's mostly just a "screw you, Linux" from the people at Nvidia. They are essentially being told they aren't allowed to do something with their hardware not because their hardware can't handle it... but because the hardware manufacturers essentially just don't want them to because it hurts Microsoft's poor little feelings. Boohoo.
This really ticks Linux people off, by the way. They don't care about Windows, nor it's feelings.
Nobody even cares that it's extremely rare to even have 4 monitors... the fact is the Nvidia people cared enough to do this despite the already existent frustrations between the two groups.
Not to mention that it took a while before Nvidia would even make complete drivers for Linux...
It actually required an incentive from VALVE, a gaming company, to push the initiative for better Linux drivers for Nvidia to do anything about their previous poor performance.
And let's not even mention we are still seeing some major performance differences on graphically intensive software:
This isn't an issue with Linux itself being unable to compete with Windows, this is an issue with Nvidia's drivers... As some software runs even better on Linux (as you can see on Page 2 and 3).
Finally, I'll again mention that giving specs to fulfill open-source drivers is still in their best interests. It would allow others to create drivers for them and give people more incentive to buy THEIR hardware. There are reasons they might not want to provide absolute details of everything, but they could still definitely aid in releasing some documentation. Providing this documentation would take very little time out of their company's time, but could possibly benefit them quite a bit... It seems unreasonable they would choose not to do this. It seems irrational.
Feb 13, 2014Posted in: Computer Science and Technology
Extremely misleading article.
He uses biased and misleading statements about how hard or difficult some things are to do....
Like using the console, making text-games, parsing text, or etc. But these things aren't difficult at all..... Far from that.
He also uses biased and misleading statements to make graphics seem easier to make... Leaving out, for example, setting up your SFML screen where you will display the example he gave... Or how his example only shows how to make a sprite but not how to do something more complex, like movement or animation, or how to change that animation.
.... Why'd he leave so much out?
It's required in a graphical game. You don't need anything like that in text-games. Leaving out relevant information like that is an obvious bias.
And finally.... He compares making text-games to making something like a pong or galaga clone, in vain attempts to explain that making graphics is easier than a text game....
lol, He used the most primitive type of video game he possibly could for his comparison, meanwhile letting anyone's imagination wander about what a "text game" might be. That's an obvious bias right there.
If you're to compare a primitive to a primitive, why not compare an early text-game to an early graphical game?
How about 'The Sumer Game', one of the earliest computer games created?
I can assure you this game is by far quite a bit less complex to code than something like Galaga.
It's nothing but a few IF statements, some math, and some input-checking. Nothing else going on there.
Sure, maybe a detailed non-linear text-game maybe, just MAYBE, be a bit more complex than coding an extremely simple graphical game... but the question is, which one will be more fun? Will either of them even be fun?
Honestly and personally, I'd rather see a unique, complex text game than a cliche 70's-era clone.
I don't need to see another Breakout clone, honestly.
It just seems this guy had a HUGE bias towards people not making text-games. It doesn't really make much sense. I assume he tried to make a text-game and either couldn't parse correctly (amateur mistake), or he just hates text games and likes flashy pictures.
Perhaps it's true that the console "wasn't made" for doing certain things you might want it to do... but does that really mean anything? No, not really. A good programmer manipulates the computer, he doesn't allow the computer to manipulate him. Using the console is still easier than trying to get a graphic to animate properly. It would be silly to suggest otherwise.
And while it's also true that making basic graphics is really not that hard at all....
If one is to be truly fair and not biased, then you're to accept that text-games are easier to make than graphical ones... simply because the nature of graphics requires additional work.
You'll still be doing EVERYTHING else you'd normally do in a text-game, if all else is the same, the only difference is that instead of showing the player text you show them graphics. And I think that is this guy's real confusion...
He makes unfair comparisons where 'everything else' besides graphics/text in a game is not equal, but you can't compare stuff like that... It's not really fair.
I feel that it's much harder to get the user involved in an interactive world with only text as an option. It takes much more work to do something like that.
From a design-perspective, perhaps that is true.
They are harder to make "fun" than graphical games, because you can make the most boring, tedious, and repetitive graphical game and still make it seem "Fun" (Think FarmVille, Bejeweled, and other crap-games as examples).
But are they harder to make overall? Absolutely no way that is ever going to be possible, unless you're trying to make really crappy graphical games.
Text games are by far the easiest type of game you could possibly ever make, unless you're trying to make a cliche 70's-era game that really is not actually that fun.
Want to know what the hardest kind of game to make is?..... RPGs.
So much going on in RPGs... Economics systems, text-systems, choice-systems, story, battles, navigation and world maps, NPCs, monsters, bosses, AI, allies, inventories, levels, stats... and, ugh, balancing.
RPGs are essentially the all-in-one genre.
Feb 12, 2014Posted in: Computer Science and TechnologyQuote from EnderKyuubiMC
My question is this. Is there any thing or person who teaches codes to people?
Yes! It's called a "school" and the people are called "teachers" and the "codes" are called "programming".
Therefore, what you want are school classes led by teachers who can teach you these things in Programming courses.
There are actually many colleges that have games-design programs.
And most colleges have some form of Computer Programming / Computer Science program, though these may never cover specifically how to make games.
There are pros and cons to each program and school... but either way this is something you need College for.
Quote from EnderKyuubiMC
I have tried various websites like code.org and codeacademy. I'm specifically looking for a class or lessons and they don't need to be free. I have done my research and I would like to get this project going ASAP. Im the head in code and my friend is head in graphic design. It would help if you can suggest something for that too.
The way you refer to "codes" and "code" instead of "programming" has me only to assume you don't really know how to code yet.
And as you state you're in 7th grade, college is obviously not yet the option.
But you have the right mentality it seems... This really is something that will take years of work.
So I have many different suggestions for you... If you really want to continue this goal as a career.
1. Take as many programming courses as you find, in Middle school and High School and whatever.
2. Start from scratch and take basic tutorials for a language you want to use online (books might work, too, but they are often outdated). There are MANY tutorials all over the internet to help you learn how to program.
3. When you feel comfortable enough with your programming skills, try to do a game-tutorials like the ones you might find at the XNA website. These are easy-to-follow tutorials teaching you how to program an actual game, from scratch... But you need to understand what is going on so this means you need to understand the "codes" first.
Some things you can work on for now:
1. Find a ready-to-use "game engine", like 'RPG Maker', 'GameMaker', or etc. and learn to make basic games in these.
2. Take tutorials on this engine.
3. Start learning the 'scripting language' associated with the game engine you chose.
This will not only help introduce you to programming, but will also introduce you to how exceedingly hard it is to make a game. How much work you have to put into the projects. How much effort you have to put into the idea itself, and solidifying the idea as a real, true concept. And how to eventually balance the game itself and actually make it "fun", which are both very difficult.
You'll learn basics of game design: Conceptualizing, Prioritizing, Developing, Balancing, Polishing, etc.
You may even learn 'Budgeting' and 'Team Work', both very important skills, too.
As for your artist, what can he do? The exact same things except instead of 'programming', he works on art.
He takes art and computer-graphics classes whenever possible. Goes to school for art and "computer-aided design".
He can practice on his art skills now. He can learn to use graphics programs, like Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop, or GIMP (if you want a free one).
Basically, do whatever you can to advance the skills you want to work on... and eventually, someday, you'll eventually have enough skills to make a real true game.
Years and years of work.... and it finally comes together, and what results from it you can honestly be proud of.
Assuming they're going to be used for text-based RPGs, don't do this. Beginners often jump into text-based RPGs because they think that graphics libs are insanely hard, and this isn't the case. Text based RPGs are actually harder to make than a graphical game.
lol, wut? That's not even slightly true at all.
Text-based games, no matter how complex, will absolutely never be harder to make than a "graphical game".
What could have possibly ever given you that idea?
Quote from BKrenz
Do you understand what's actually going on? Do you understand the matrix transformation and quaternions that are being used for 3D graphics? Or are you using stuff that other people have done?
Well to be fair, everyone serious use's "stuff that other people have done". As they say... No point in re-inventing the wheel.
Serious programmers rarely ever write from scratch. (In fact, I'd argue it never happens anymore because this would imply writing in binary!) They use libraries and frameworks and designs and paradigms and etc. etc. etc. all which is stuff that other people have done.
You don't really need to understand how binary converts into computer language, or how computer language creates Windows, or how Windows even opens your program up, in order to create an executable on Windows. You only need to understand the language you're using and the concepts you wish to use in your program.
Likewise, you don't need to fully understand 3D graphics in order to make a 3D game if you have a 3D framework to do that stuff for you.
.... Though, it couldn't hurt.
There is a reason that professional game studios and such have different kinds of programmers...
They have 3D programmers, game-engine programmers, gameplay programmers, tool programmers, and etc.
They all have different focuses and know different things.
Indie developers typically never use anything as deep or as complicated as professionals, so in general there is very little need to understand the finer details of how these things work. Game Engines will do this work for you.
Feb 12, 2014Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
The suggestion that Nvidia or any other company should play nicely with Open Source is based on nothing more than a feeling of entitlement.
Not sure what political ideology you personally appeal to, but to me this just sounds like one of those big Republican flip-everyone-off statements.
I think, if we're to be serious here... It actually is in everyone's interests, including Nvidia's, that they support operating systems other than just Windows.... They should indeed "play nicely with Open Source", since having those Linux drivers available, open-source or proprietary, would mean they get more business from people running Linux.
Remember, they are not in the business of selling Windows, nor are they in the business of selling graphics drivers. They are very blatantly a graphics hardware company. They want to sell the hardware above all else.... And any way to promote this is good for them.
Why should mega-corporations hold a mega-monopoly on everything just because they want to? This is truly ridiculous and anyone arguing against it should not be stated to hold nothing but "feelings of entitlement". Your argument is invalid, and honestly I have to say a bit naive in regards to modern social obligations.
So in the common interests of humanity, I say... Screw you, too, BC! ;D
Dec 6, 2013My wife has had that problem a few times before... and I think maybe I had it once, too. I have no idea what causes it. My guess is that updates occasionally get corrupted somehow...Posted in: General Gaming
Uninstalling and then reinstalling does seem to fix it, though.
Uninstalling will (for some reason!?) delete all of your games, so.... If you don't want to re-download all your games again then move them out of the steam folder before you uninstall. Put them back in after installing it. Steam will verify the files again and say it is "downloading" but it will go much faster than if you actually downloaded them again. Despite what it says it's not actually downloading anything, it's just verifying each file.
This process may still take quite a while, and quite a long time if you have a lot of games... So be prepared to let it run for a while.
Oct 9, 2013Posted in: Hardware & Software SupportQuote from charsmud
I was thinking of just using 3.0 or 3.1. The only reason I don't want to use a fallback version for now is that I don't want to spend the time to learn that right now: I just want to focus on modern OGL and then I'll work with the older versions.
Then use OpenGL 4 and learn the others later.
You answered your own question.
If you really want to do it this way then use 4 and then implement a 'fallback version' for older cards that don't support it later once you've gotten the hang of using the newest one.
You don't really need to learn 1 or 3 if you're using 4... Learn 4 then use 2 as the 'fallback' option as pretty much every graphics card still in existence will be able to run 2 (so 1 is now obsolete)... Most will support up to 3.1, but there is no point to use that one if you're using 4.0 and only using another version for people with older graphics cards... unless you don't care about people with really old cards, in which case you can use 4.0 and 3.1 to simply get the vast majority. This makes it possible to include porting to linux with the fastest version.
Some people might do all three versions for optimum compatibility and speed, but that's really unnecessary as even most modern built-in cards will be able to run 3.1 today (though they typically don't do 4). Only the really old cards can only handle version 2.
Did that make sense?
tl;dr: It sounds like you want to start with 4.0 and then later build compatibility versions for whoever your target audiences are.
Sep 18, 2013CosmicSpore posted a message on What do you hate and love about yourself? (Just let it out)lol... Love how over half of the answers are either arrogance or jokes.Posted in: General Off Topic
I have a love-hate relationship with myself. ;P
Jun 13, 2013Posted in: Hardware & Software SupportQuote from streamstudios
It seems like that would work fine, but I have absolutely no idea how to code ANYTHING, so I would have no idea what to do with the code or where to put it or anything.
So you're trying to make a website with some kind of membership option... Yet have no experience doing anything with websites? Sounds to me like a basic logic problem...
1+1 does not equal 11. To get to 11 you missed 9 other incremental steps.
And honestly, why are you selling memberships on a website you can't even code? What do the memberships do if you can't code anything? Sounds like a scam to me, why should anyone help you scam people?
May 28, 2013Posted in: Hardware & Software SupportQuote from Zhekvovien
yeah, maybe he just is not updating the post and he is working on the game himself. Thats pretty unlikely though
Actually that was the case. I was busy on the game and not really updating the topic as there wasn't really that much to talk about (as you'll find is true for most games which aren't yet to an alpha stage).
However, if you check my last two recent posts/updates, you'll find this project is on hold. I am currently working on a smaller and faster project in order to get some initial funding for Project Forge. The development was moving too slowly as I only spent my little bits of free time on it and I need full-time development to finish a game like this.
I will update you guys with info about my new project once there is actually something to show.
Once again, this project is NOT cancelled. It is just on hold until I get some funding.
May 22, 2013CosmicSpore posted a message on I think I may have a R.A.T. on my computer, and they are stealing my MC passwords...You have two options...Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
Option 1: Format your drive and reinstall everything. This will remove all viruses and is the quickest most efficient way to remove viruses.
Option 2: Run virus scanners and virus removal tools until you have completely removed the viruses. This is a LONG process and you may eventually run out of option and still have to reformat your hard drive. If you choose this, follow the directions below.
1. Get a REAL anti-virus program, like Avast, MSE, or Avira. Run a FULL SCAN.
Allow the full scan time to complete, this may take hours.
I don't know what these crappy programs you're using are, but stop using them. Uninstall them. You don't need them, and they likely won't ever find anything.
2. Get Malware Bytes or Spybot: Search and Destroy, and run another full scan with one of these programs.
3. Restart, do it all again.
If viruses remained after the restart, then you need a more specific tool to remove the virus. Get the name of the virus off of the program that finds it and look it up. You should find instructions to remove the virus on a legit security site, likely downloading a small program. After following these directions, restart and do it all again.
4. If you still can't remove the viruses: Reformat... or take it to a specialist who will likely just reformat it for you.
After you've removed the viruses:
1. Get the IP of the website you went to, along with the other two IPs you got.
2. Find out the ISP of all of the IP addresses you had.
3. Call their ISP and report these IP addresses, explaining that you were attacked by these individuals and their website with viruses.
Keep your crap up to date, Windows, Browsers, and Java, so this sort of crap doesn't happen again.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.