Yet, these people would still benefit from the overall very focused and productive toolset GMS offers to successfully finish their projects. After all, there are many fun games in the market about programming in Assembly.įor artists, non-programmers and inexperienced programmers, I think GML would not be a no-go. However, I think that a programmer can have fun with GameMaker if they see the software itself as a game and the limitations of the language as a challenge. But at such a point, it would be easier, cheaper and even more productive to abandon GMS altogether. It would be more productive for me to write the core of the game in other languages and interface it for GameMaker through an extension. Without community pressure, GML is today about the same as it was in the first version of GM Studio I've tried, many years ago (version 6, before GM belonged to yoyo games).Īs an experienced programmer, I grew very frustrated with GML. A Cave Story fangame about the NICALIS controversy. A tunneling machine finds itself injected into a body resembling a human. A crab goes on a quest to make the ultimate Reubens sandwich. An episodic story about humans and Gods and the cruel world they face. Despite that, a portion of GML community seem to think of such features as useless addendum. Four seasons long tavern management game for Season of RMN V. It's factually easier to write many algorithms in C than in GML.Īlso, there is a reason why more higher-level, industry standard, languages provide more features than low-level languages. pointers and structures) without proper replacements. Overall: While it's true that GML is Turing Complete, and therefore it's technically possible to write any algorithm in it, the language gets rid of more "complicated" stuff from more low level-languages like C (e.g.
0 kommentar(er)
