Hi Jeremy,
I completely agree with you on all points. The language being used has absolutely nothing to do with how good or bad a game is and what features it has. There may be some technical limitations, but it has more to do with the developer not the tools.
For instance, Time of Conflict, written by GMA Games, is probably the most safisticated audio strategy game ever developed. We could sit here and point out its short comings like its written in Visual Basic 6, it uses DirectX 8, and so on but none of that has any effect on weather or not Time of Conflict is a great game. Which it most certainly is. Rewriting it in C++ or any other language won't make the game any better or worse as a fun and enjoyable game.
Fact of the matter is if I wanted to do it I could sit down and rewrite the game in Python 2.7 with Pygame and end up with essentually the very same game. There might be some advantages to writing it in Python such as being Mac OS and Linux compatible, but that doesn't effect how the game plays or weather or not someone gets any enjoyment out of it. For a Windows user there wouldn't be any advantage for him/her. So needless to say its not the language but the developer that makes a game good or bad.
Cheers! On 3/27/2012 1:23 PM, Jeremy Kaldobsky wrote:
I'd like to disagree with the idea that mainstream side scrollers just improve their graphics. As I've played side scrollers across the past few decades, I've never stopped and thought that one was the same as another, simply with improved graphics. From the early days until now, puzzle and features of these games have continued to advance at a steady pace. I desperately feel the need to jump in to refute the statement about legacy langauges. I'm sure my statement here will be ignored by some because they see me as bias based on the current language I've been releasing games in, but I feel this is important to say. Mainstream games are superior to audio games because of content, features, and perhaps sound quality. None of those are based on the language someone uses. More times than I can count I have seen people in the community blame programming languages for the simplistic nature of their own games or for audio games in general. I firmly believe this is just an easy excuse to make... a scape goat. I totally understand why having a scape goat is a nice thing because human beings make excuses all the time, but the problem is when people actually believe the excuses. If even 1 person hears that languages X, Y, and Z are the reason audio games are behind mainstream games, and believes it, then they are going to go forward with a completely backward idea of how programming works. If the programming language can accept key strokes and output sound, then that's really all you need. The developers in this community are sitting on a huge advantage that they don't seem to understand! Audio games don't require graphics, and graphics are at least 90% of the work mainstream games have to do! The question of CPU and memory usage is completely thrown out in this community.
--- Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected]. You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to [email protected].
