What's your opinion on Game Makers?

Not everyone is a programmer. These kinds of tools can by very useful for non-programmers. They can also be useful for quick prototyping.

Game engines and game makers are a tool. Nothing more or less.

I don't care what tools you make to create a game.

I don't care if the game was created by a bunch of programmers in assembly language, or if it was created with no programmers, just an artist/designer and a no-programming game maker.

I tend to not like games that are based on tools like JRPG-builders. I don't dislike them because of the tools, I dislike them because I have already played that game, it just looked different. Once you've played five or ten games from GameMaker, the next game is probably not going to offer anything new and therefore not be fun.

If a person wants to use a particular tool that can save hundreds or thousands of hours, I would absolutely recommend the tool.

I am against, however, every other game maker in existence. Yes, I know they are not 100% game makers, but there is little code involved, and that get's on my nerves a lot. What I don't understand is: If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game? Is it due to people being lazy?

Feel free to code a game without a game engine or APIs of any sort. I mean, that would make you lazy. Let me know when you've succeeded.

If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game? Is it due to people being lazy?

Would you really want to rewrite all of your boilerplate code over and over again for each game you make when the code you wrote for your previous game will still do the job perfectly for your new project? Most of these game creation tools are designed to let people actually focus on designing an actual game instead of having to worry about all the technical details, with each tool giving varying degrees of freedom. Not everyone who makes games or who wants to make games is a programmer you know.

I know some schools teach Scratch, which I thing is WRONG. It's not good to teach people how to use makers. You should be teaching code.

Tools like Scratch are meant to teach students the very basic concepts of programming without having to go into syntactical details of a language. Just throwing code at a student to teach the absolute basics of programming is not the best solution.

I have personally designed and implemented a scratch-like programming environment for programming robot simulations targeted at a teenage audience as an academic project at my university, and I can honestly say that the basic concepts of programming stick with new students much better if they can use them in an easy to learn environment with immediate results for even a short period of time. You wouldn't be able to accomplish something like this with regular programming languages in the same amount of time.

GameMaker, Scratch, and every other game maker(once again, other then UDK and Unreal Engine) should be shut down, along with the companies that develop them. People should not be using little code. They should be using FULL code. The fun part about coding is sitting at an IDE and typing for hours and hours on end. That's what makes programming fun. You should be forced to code. Yes, you can argue you are still "cheating" by letting the language get compiled into Assembly or Binary. You can argue that, but I'm not the one dragging and dropping boxes into a window and clicking on sprites to make a game. In my opinion, the companies should be shut down, along with their engines. I'm not against the people that use them, I'm against the companies that develop them.

This really sounds like you're just trolling.

Not everyone is a programmer nor does everyone experience or enjoy programming like you apparently do. Nobody should be forced to learn how to program just because they have the ambition to make a game.

If all of those companies providing middleware solutions for game development would be shut down as you suggested the gaming scene would be pretty bleak and a lot of some of your favorite game experiences would probably not exist. You can't honestly expect every huge game title to develop every piece of functionality in-house while there are so many high quality and vastly tested tools are out there to make the development process easier and cheaper.

I also have a few questions. I've seen a lot of people say that coding is dying. It will only be around for a few more years, then everyone will be using D&D programs to make programs. So, is coding dying? Is it pointless to code now? I don't believe it is, but I want to know what's going on here.

This is just silly...

Not everyone is a programmer. I am one, yet I have used Construct 2 and Game Maker to produce games.

I could have picked up SFML and coded my games the longer way, but I have little desire to write a game engine. I'm 100% certain if I had to write an engine in order to produce a game that I would have never completed my game. Writing a rendering pipeline sounds like a nightmare to me, and I'm happy for anyone who thinks they would enjoy it.

Tools like Construct 2 and Game Maker are limited in many ways. I grew out of them and moved on. I don't see why a non-programmer couldn't learn to program if they wanted to, and move on the same. Meaning, I do not think having programming ability and using a game creation suite are mutually exclusive.

I have very strong feelings for "Game Makers", some of which include "GameMaker", "Scratch", "Construct 2" and "GameSalad". I'm not against all Game Creators, the only 2 I'm not against are "UDK" and "Unreal Engine", because the amount of code involved to make graphics that HD would be phenomenal, so I understand why companies use them.

I am against, however, every other game maker in existence. Yes, I know they are not 100% game makers, but there is little code involved, and that get's on my nerves a lot. What I don't understand is: If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game? Is it due to people being lazy? I know some schools teach Scratch, which I thing is WRONG. It's not good to teach people how to use makers. You should be teaching code. If people want to use game makers, then they shouldn't be making games(again, not including stuff like UDK). I don't see the point in making a game if you're not going to code it. Instead of teaching Scratch, why not teach Python? Instead of teaching GameSalad, teach a better language.

Now, what really get's on my nerves is that people thing they're coding when they are using D&D stuff. There is a place I used to go to called "CoderDojo". They taught GameMaker and AppInventer. Now, how in the WORLD is that coding? You aren't sitting at an IDE and typing code, you're dragging and dropping. They taught Python, but you had to ask and they said "Coding? Why would you want to do that? Are you sure you want to do it?". That made me want to punch someone in the face. The people there that taught Python were planning on teaching C++, and agreed with me that GameMaker is wrong.

I'm going to state my opinion. It might not be right, but I want to express it:

GameMaker, Scratch, and every other game maker(once again, other then UDK and Unreal Engine) should be shut down, along with the companies that develop them. People should not be using little code. They should be using FULL code. The fun part about coding is sitting at an IDE and typing for hours and hours on end. That's what makes programming fun. You should be forced to code. Yes, you can argue you are still "cheating" by letting the language get compiled into Assembly or Binary. You can argue that, but I'm not the one dragging and dropping boxes into a window and clicking on sprites to make a game. In my opinion, the companies should be shut down, along with their engines. I'm not against the people that use them, I'm against the companies that develop them.

I am aware that GameMaker has GME, but who's going to use that when you can D&D?

I also have a few questions. I've seen a lot of people say that coding is dying. It will only be around for a few more years, then everyone will be using D&D programs to make programs. So, is coding dying? Is it pointless to code now? I don't believe it is, but I want to know what's going on here.

My other question is: Is Unity a Game Maker? I believe it uses C# 100%, and you can use Blender to make assets and such. Is Unity 100% code, or is it just another one of those makers?

If someone else has the same opinion(maybe even a stronger one), I'd love to hear it. I hope it's not just me that is against these programs.

As for your first "question" (more of an opinion really) i'd disagree, the real problem with "game makers (or specialized/inflexible game engines really)" is that they tend to restrict what you can do with them, (RPG Maker for example is restricted to a specific style of JRPGs), if it fits the game you're making they're great, if they don't fit they're almost useless. If there is a tool out there that allows you to produce the game you want to make at a lower cost it would be stupid not to take advantage of it. (a good game is a good game, regardless of how it was made)

As for the second one, no Unity is a fairly general purpose game engine (just like UDK, idTechX, CryEngine, Source, etc), it ships with some pre-written components and a integrated level/scene editor though so you can make basic prototypes without writing much code (and ofcourse, you can download components other people have written and use those rather than writing your own).

As for coding and drag and drop programs, neither will go away, RAD tools are great timesavers but to create custom behaviour from any software you will need some form of code. (if that code is formed using a visual language like kismet(used by UDK) or by a text based language like C++ or C# is irrelevant, code is still code regardless of how its presented to the programmer.

From an educational point of view however i'd agree that for programmers its better to learn a general purpose programming language than to learn how to use , for designers on the other hand those RAD tools are an excellent place to start(as they let you focus on the design rather than the technical details) and for programmers those same RAD tools can be a great way to cut costs and save time on real projects.

Like the posters before me have said.
Not everyone is a programmer...

But id like to put some focus on the whole drag and drop issue here...

Do not under estimate the work people put in with tools that is "simple" utilizing drag and drop functionality.

Taking Unreal Engine for example.

On one of the previous projects i worked on we had one person mostly dedicated to working in their Kismet.

Kismet is a tool used to setup logical chains of events in the game world. It basically functions by drag and drop.

As a spectator it may look easy.

But trust me, it takes dedication, skill and true cleverness to pull of some of the things you can do with these tools.

My opinion on game makers is that they are great.

If Game Maker for example can get someone curios about game development thats superb.

Some people are perfectly happy to make smaller games and dont want to devote their time with programming. Perhaps they are more interested in the art side of game development, then Game Maker is a great choice.

And im sure that it have and continues to serve as a starting platform for people who wants to learn more on how to make games.

Im not going to quote, but ill mention a few thing.

All the games I've played I know have.been coded. Minecraft was coded.

If you're a programmer, why would you use those tools?

If your a designer then work with someone on a game.

Does no one else think these tools are discouraging programming? This is why I dont like them. They make it seem like it's discouraged to fully code games.

I wrote a game in pure Java once: no API's, just everything in Java. I have to say, I had a LOT of fun making it.

I love coding. I spend at least 6 hours a day doing it.

At least someone else agrees that these tools limit you. You get more control if you code a game.

I usually use LibGDX and LÖVE for making games.

So really: if these tools exist, what's the point of coding one?

If you're a programmer, why would you use those tools?

If your a designer then work with someone on a game.

Does no one else think these tools are discouraging programming? This is why I dont like them. They make it seem like it's discouraged to fully code games.

I wrote a game in pure Java once: no API's, just everything in Java. I have to say, I had a LOT of fun making it.

I love coding. I spend at least 6 hours a day doing it.

At least someone else agrees that these tools limit you. You get more control if you code a game.

- These tools can help get a prototype out rather fast, and then when you have your idea down, you can code it up.

- Not everyone knows programmers that have time to spare, or that has time to work with programmers.

- These don't discourage programming, they offer an alternative. Particularly if programming is not your cup of tea but you still want to make a game. Not everyone is into spending several hours a day programming, and some may not have that much time to spend on it, going back to the fast prototyping. These can let you get your game out faster, and the end result, the desired result, is the game.

- These tools do limit you to the functionality they offer as well as how much you can expand the tools (I do believe some let you add some form of code).

Im not going to quote, but ill mention a few thing.

All the games I've played I know have.been coded. Minecraft was coded.

If you're a programmer, why would you use those tools?

If your a designer then work with someone on a game.

Does no one else think these tools are discouraging programming? This is why I dont like them. They make it seem like it's discouraged to fully code games.

I wrote a game in pure Java once: no API's, just everything in Java. I have to say, I had a LOT of fun making it.

I love coding. I spend at least 6 hours a day doing it.

At least someone else agrees that these tools limit you. You get more control if you code a game.

I usually use LibGDX and LÖVE for making games.

So really: if these tools exist, what's the point of coding one?

Please read over the replies people posted again, pretty much everything you ask has been answered.

If you take joy and pride in doing everything from the ground up all by yourself, then by all means go ahead and do so. If however you are working in a setting where lots of people of multiple disciplines have to work together and where you have to think of budget and time constraints it's often not a viable option to build everything from the ground up.

You mention using LibGDX, how is this any different from using any other tool? Why would it be ok in your eyes to use a library like LibGDX to program your games, but not OK to use a scripting language or "visual" language with the Unreal Engine, Unity or any other engine or framework? Why is it not OK to use some tool which has proven itself over and over again over the years? Why is it not OK to use a tool which is probably more performant and more bug-free than anything you could come up with on your own?

Aren't games meant to be all about the user experience? People playing your game don't care about how great of a programmer you are or how you wrote everything from scratch, all they care about is how fun your game is. Don't let the idea of "I'm too l33t of a programmer to use these tools" hinder your user's experiences.

I think "game maker" software is great! It's a real time-saver to be able to use pre-built software rather than coding from nothing, and it makes the task more accessible to a wider range of people who might have difficulty with "real" languages. I think this sort of software isn't for everyone -- there isn't always a suitable game maker for every idea, and sometimes people need the extra performance that's possible with a lower-level language or even simply prefer the experience -- and I think it's perfectly fine is people want to make their own choices and use any option that allows them to make a game.

Sorry for this next part, but I think it's ignorant and irrational that you care so much what other people choose to use. It's absolutely fine that you don't want to use this software yourself, but who the hell are you to tell people they are "WRONG" for using something they're happy with?

What I don't understand is: If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game? Is it due to people being lazy? I know some schools teach Scratch, which I thing is WRONG. It's not good to teach people how to use makers. You should be teaching code.

What do you think it's called when people create a program using Scratch, or by writing some GML, or using the drag-and-drop "event" system in Construct 2?

It's called programming.

Programming isn't just about memorising and typing arcane symbols with a keyboard, which you seem to be focussing on.

Programming is problem solving; coming up with a logical solution that is able to correctly solve a certain problem within a set of given constraints, and whether you're typing C++ syntax into a text editor or dragging and dropping "logic blocks" you're actually still completing exactly the same task.

If people want to use game makers, then they shouldn't be making games(again, not including stuff like UDK). I don't see the point in making a game if you're not going to code it.

Maybe because the point of trying to make a game isn't to write however many lines of code are required to get it working, but to... oh, I don't know... make a game? Some people use Game Making as a vessel for learning about programming in general, and that's a perfectly fine approach, but for many people the end goal isn't any particular learning experience, but actually creating a game. Players do not care how a game was made as long as it doesn't negatively impact their experience, so why not use any tool that allows you to make a great game?

They taught GameMaker and AppInventer. Now, how in the WORLD is that coding? You aren't sitting at an IDE and typing code, you're dragging and dropping.

You're really focussing on the absolute least important facet of programming -- the method of input. As I said above, they're still performing exactly the same problem solving task of expressing a solution that correctly solves a problem within certain constraints -- the only real difference is the method of input.

As an exercise, tell us if you think the following qualify as programming?

1. Implementing the A* algorithm in C++, by typing C++ into a text editor.
2. Implementing the A* algorithm in C++, by using speech-to-text to enter C++ into a text editor.
3. Implementing the A* algorithm in C++, by dragging and dropping normal text symbols into a modified text editor instead of typing.
4. Implementing the A* algorithm in Scratch, by dragging and dropping logic operators into place.

Obviously #1 meets your criteria to be considered programming, but how about #2 and #3? The only thing I've changed is the method of input, writing C++ is still required, so surely these are still programming? Now, how about #4? The only difference between #3 and #4 is that I've changed the tokens being dragged and dropped from the symbols used to create a C++ program to the logic operators provided by Scratch -- how is this not still programming?

Also, continuing on my point from before, surely the more important thing is the fact that the developer is implementing A* in every listed case, the fact that they're using different methods of input is really of no (or truly insignificant) consequence.

The fun part about coding is sitting at an IDE and typing for hours and hours on end.

Note that you said "the fun part about coding", not "the fun part about making games". Not everyone likes coding -- should this mean these people can never create a game?

Seriously, use whatever you like to create your own games, but what on earth do you think gives you the right to tell other people they are wrong for making a different choice? The fact that other people are using game maker software does not stop you from writing code -- the only real impact it might have on you is that you'll probably be less employable in the industry due to your vocal and irrational hatred of perfectly good tools, and that other game developers might have more money than you because they're able to put together 2-3 games in the time it takes you to create 1.

If you don't want to use game makers then just don't use them. Simple.

All the games I've played I know have.been coded.

The critically acclaimed, hugely popular game Myst was actually originally created using a predecessor to modern game maker tools called HyperCard.

Award winning RPG To The Moon was created with a version of RPG Maker.

Legend of Fae and Serious Sam: The Random Encounter were created with Game Maker.

Maybe games you've played weren't created with "game maker" tools, but there are some very popular games that were -- and plenty more that easily could have been if the developers had made a different choice -- maybe you should reserve your judgement until one of your programmed games is at least as popular as one of these?

Again, you're welcome to use whatever tools you want for your own development, but it's offensive and ignorant of you to tell other people they are wrong for making their own choices. Notice there's no-one else on your side of this argument... there are plenty of people who agree with your preference of programming rather than using game makers, but those who think they should force their own choices on others are hard to find.

Game maker users are completing exactly the same logical task as you are, they've just chosen a different -- potentially simpler -- tool with which to do so. Let them do it, and get on with your own programming.

Who cares. If a particular power-drill would've driven your screws just fine, I'm not about to assign you any extra points for subjecting yourself to the misery of using a screwdriver just because you think its more hard core. Certainly not if if it takes you 6 times as long to achieve same or less quality overall.

Tools are tools. I don't understand all the rage and hate. Unless... Did GameMaker touch you? Was it Scratch? GameSalad! Someone call the FBI! Show me on this doll where they touched you!

I wrote a game in pure Java once: no API's, just everything in Java. I have to say, I had a LOT of fun making it.

I usually use LibGDX and LÖVE for making games.

You have to be trolling or you need to get your facts right, you're not using any APIs ?

You use LibGDX which is a framework doing the "lower level" API calls for you,

and even worse for your argumentation LÖVE is a game engine.

Not using an API would mean you're actually programming against the hardware itself.

So what now?

I dont want to offend you in any way but you seem to be not very experienced.

When doing larger projects you'll need tools anyway, so people tend to skip this part if a ready to use solution fits their needs.

And in my opinion thats totally legit, since it saves months if not years of development time and costs.

EDIT:

I too dont like Unity3D or GameMaker but thats because of the low price point everybody thinks he can be a "game developer" putting some stuff together resulting in rather bad games. Game development is much more than just putting something interactive to the screen.

If you're not going to make a super HD game, why would you not want to fully code a game?

because the point is to build a game, not necessarily write code.

sounds like you feel that coding is the point. its not. coding is just a means to the end, which is to build a game.

So, is coding dying? Is it pointless to code now?

no. the things one can do without coding is limited.

Is Unity a Game Maker?

yes and no.

its a collection of libraries and tools that provide all the capabilities of a game maker, with the flexibility of libraries. so you can use just the bits you need to build a wider variety of games, as opposed to one basic type of game with different content. although i don't use it myself, i'd imagine it has the capability to drag and drop together a basic shooter level and run it, by simply using the tools and with no coding.

I hope it's not just me that is against these programs.

probably what it is, is that you tend to enjoy coding, perhaps more than making games per se, and so the lack of "real game development" (IE coding) involved using a "game maker" or "engine" is distasteful to you. if such is the case, you may have a bright future as a coder, but may not enjoy other aspects of game development as much.

i suffer from this myself. right now i should be making weapon models in TrueSpace, instead i'm thinking about component-entity systems and L2 cache friendly data organization. why? 'cause its more fun! .

No offense OP, but I think you need to research a bit about what you're talking about. For example, what is considered an API, what is considered an engine, what is considered a framework, and so on.

By using "pure Java" you're sitting on the soulders of a 800 pound gorilla already, around 6 million lines of C, C++ and assembly that you didn't code (the JVM). Not even mentioning the 15 million lines of C and assembly that work under that (Linux kernel, as reference because who knows how many lines has a Windows kernel). What about the drivers? The firmware? The electrical engineers that designed a circuit that implements a LRU algorithm for a 10Mb cache in some piece of storage hardware?

Just have a little perspective OP.

I got my entrance into programming through GameMaker. Using drag 'n drop to build some simple games made me want to learn GML to make more complex games. I eventually started exploring making 3d games with GameMaker, and my desire to make bigger and better things led me to learn C++ and Java (actually, it was in that order, believe it or not) as well as a little Python (I've never needed it a whole lot, so I never did a whole lot with it). In other words, GameMaker got me into programming. GameMaker is the reason I'm majoring in computer science.

My brother and I started working on a game a little while back, and we chose Unity to do it. Why? Because he doesn't know coding and I didn't feel like writing an engine that only I would be able to use. I can do all the C# scripting and let him throw the actual game together using the assets and some ready-made components rather than make him draw stuff on graph paper for me to manually input myself.

Game making tools are just that: tools. They don't replace the whole process, they just make it easier. Throwing something together in pure code is a satisfying feeling, but would you rather reinvent the wheel every time you make a game just to get a spinning cube casting a shadow on a plane, or would you rather actually make the game?

I understand the DIY attitude. I'd love to sit down and program a complete game engine with advanced resource management, clever optimizations, an awesome graphics renderer packed with every goodie you could want, a handcoded physics engine designed to offload computations onto the GPU through compute shaders, and an audio system that interacts with the physics engine to simulate how sound actually behaves. Then again, I'd also like to spend my free time making games instead of worrying whether or not my scene graph is efficiently batching my drawing calls or if I can cut down on my CPU overhead by writing my own math library in assembly.

In other words, game makers are just time savers. It's the same thing as using a belt sander instead of a piece of sand paper. It's faster and often does a better job than you could have done alone.

I agree with most points being made by everybody except the OP.

I also want to say that in the case of GameMaker at least, the people on the forums tend to use the GML scripting code way much more than the D&D way, especially when you consider that there are simply some things the D&D can't do, and other things that would get very tedious to do with D&D.

What I don't understand is why not use the tool for the job?? I understand if YOU like coding, and have the time to do it, and you are perfectly fine doing so. But don't down tools just because YOU don't want to use them. I'm sure some older programmers could give you some words to learn from, as in why are you using LibGDX and LÖVE? Couldn't you just replace those with your own code??? Just take that one level above, and you'll see why.

I don't have much time, or any games on sale. But I can guarantee that in the time it takes you to "hardcore code" a game, someone else will have made 3, and likely 3 better games than your one, simply because they are using better tools for the job.

Now don't get me wrong here. Coding has a place in gamedev. There are indeed things that you won't find a tool to do for you, or there will be price constraints, or other barriers. As assume as the UDK is, it doesn't have destructible terrain. So if you need that, you'll have to code your own, or use another engine. But then that other engine may not have as good of shadow/lighting as the UDK can do, and in the end, if you REALLY need all of the above, you'll either have to pay for an even better engine(which does exist I'm sure) or create your own, paying time instead of money. Or, you will have to scale down your project, if you ever hope to finish it. This assumes you don't have a massive budget and lots of people to help you. Most of us are indies or indie wannabes, and even some simple hobbyists, and we don't have big budgets or big teams for the most part, so we make do with what we can, which includes using tools to get things done faster. After all, we no longer have to walk from city to city right???

I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that creating anything with events count as "programming." Because in that regard being in game development or software development doesn't make you a programmer either, to be a programmer you actually have to program. Of course I wouldn't take that as being scientific in every case, people working on boats consider themselves sailors even if they're cooks in the kitchen.

That said, I can point out one thing I don't really understand when people criticize "game maker" software.

If that software is really better, more efficient, produces a better product than straight programming, then why aren't we all using it? People wouldn't pay, often rather decent amounts of money to program if it was worse than a significantly simplified version.

Because it isn't, because for a lot of projects that software does not compare to a programmer or a team of skilled programmers. If someone makes a game with it and enjoy it, why does that hurt anything? If anything I've noticed a pattern of people that criticise them being the ones that don't actually trust their own abilities.

Legend of Fae and Serious Sam: The Random Encounter were created with Game Maker.

Hotline: Miami and Barkley, Shut Up And Jam: Gaiden are two more Game Maker games, and there are doubtless more.

I am aware that GameMaker has GME, but who's going to use that when you can D&D?

Spoken like someone who has no clue what he's talking about.

The simple fact is that pure Drag & Drop in Game Maker is severely limited - to do anything interesting basically requires using GML. (Similarly, in the more recent versions of RPG Maker, to do anything beyond the default engine you have to rewrite large chunks of it in Lua.) At that point, Game Maker is not much different than something like Unity or UE - it frees you to focus on things like AI and game mechanics rather that having to write what is essentially boilerplate code to deal with things like interacting with the OS or putting an image on the screen.

In other words, programs like Game Maker let the user focus more on the actual "game" part.