I was wondering, judging from all the great developers here, if you've found it better to create a game from scratch (coding the game on your own - without more than just general libraries) Or if using a "maker" like Klick and Play or GameMaker has resulted in the most satisfying experience? Is an indie game somehow a 2nd class "citizen" if it was created with a maker program vs. hand-coding?

If there is an avalable tool that will reduce your development time without compromising your game's design, it's in your best interest to take advantage of it. Using other people's tools and kits can also be educational, leading to insights and new perspectives on game architecture and design. Finally, using different tools will help increase your visibility among the users of that tool. Easy Advertising.

The biggest problem with using many kits (IMHO) is in predicting how your game's design may evolve as you go, and how well the kit will facilitate/limit such evolution. Then again, getting a tool to do something it wasn't really meant for can often be a fun and rewarding game in itself.

Not to mention that using a tool can mean that when bugs show up, there is nothing you can do about them. :)

No one has emailed me and complained "Hey, your game wasn't made from scratch!" - but a few people have reported weird issues and I just have nothing to say, other than "Sorry."

As an indie, time is your most valuble resource. If you can save 100 hours by using a kit or library instead of writing your own, that's 100 hours you can use on other things, like gameplay or graphics.

Regarding the bug thing, if you're going to use a game building tool of some kind or a code library (graphics, physics, etc.) it's a good idea to either go for an open source solution or one where you know you can get good support from somebody, whether it's the developer of the tool by e-mail, a newsgroups he frequents or something like that. That way, when your customer complains about a bug at least you can do *something* other than apologize.

I've done very little game programming so far but this lesson comes from business programming. If something breaks down you're just screwed if you're using a closed-source component for which you can't get any (good) support.

Usually, when I try out a game, I recognize very soon if it was made using some kind of game maker. Now, I don't even bother to download a game if I know that it was made with such tools (based on the amount of crap I've seen so far).

I usually want to write everything myself. I will generally only use a library if I have the complete source code of it and have studied it enough to know how it works and what it does.

Unfortunately, many interesting libraries that have source code are licenced under the GPL or LGPL, which means that you'ld have to include the source code of your game or of the library with your distribution, making the download size unnecessarily high (pretty useless, since hardly anyone will ever look at it).

Originally posted by Mike Wiering
Unfortunately, many interesting libraries that have source code are licenced under the GPL or LGPL, which means that you'ld have to include the source code of your game or of the library with your distribution, making the download size unnecessarily high (pretty useless, since hardly anyone will ever look at it).

This is not entirely true. You don't have to include the source code in the game download. For example, you can supply a different URL for the source code. You can even charge a (reasonable fee) for providing the source to people who ask for it.

If you use an LGPL'd library (such as SDL) without making any changes to it, you can simply point people to the project's home page (www.libsdl.org in this case) if they ask for the source code.

However, using GPL'd libraries (not LGPL'd) is a bad idea for indies, because that requires you to license your game as GPL also. So if anyone asks for it, you'll be required to provide the source code of your entire game :D

3D Game Maker and Klik & Play are toys for game hobbiest. For serious game development I can recommend MMF 1.5. You can develop your own extensions/objects in C, if you want custom work. Also you got freedom to develop your own advanced movement engines. So you aren't depended (and a victim of) on the default components of the tool (like Game Maker). You can do everything on your own way and freedom. And prevent on that way to get a bug if the default component isn't stable enough or isn't doing exactly what you wanted to do. People (like starters)who can't code locigal and advanced, uses mostly the default components, so that explains a lot about the low quality.

I've used some of the different ones off and on. One of my favorites is Game Maker www.gamemaker.nl (http://www.gamemaker.nl)
The only thing holding it back is the fact that mostly children use it. It has a large community, I couldn't stand it after two visits. There are some advance users there, though. I think one even worked out a way to do reasonable 3d in the program. Too bad it's an interpeter that can be slow at times and relies too heavily on Directx. No portability. :(

If you plan to use a tool like that though, make sure you get one that allows you to use your own code in some way. Be it through DLL's or scripting extensions.

Not to mention that using a tool can mean that when bugs show up, there is nothing you can do about them.

No one has emailed me and complained "Hey, your game wasn't made from scratch!" - but a few people have reported weird issues and I just have nothing to say, other than "Sorry."

This is where QA failed in this scenario.

What ever tool you go with, you must test it thoroughly, and this takes time. If you only run tests for a day or two, week, thinking you've done enough, think again. I believe most indies over look this crucial step.

I've been playing around with 3DBlitz and have found it a thrill; very easy to get something going quickly. Support is good and they have a fairly large community that can be very helpful. And it's hard to complain about the $100 price tag.

There are many tools to choose from, you just need to check them out and make the decision for yourself.

However, using GPL'd libraries (not LGPL'd) is a bad idea for indies, because that requires you to license your game as GPL also. So if anyone asks for it, you'll be required to provide the source code of your entire game


If you dynamically link to a GPL library, do you still have to make your project GPL? Or is that the difference between GPL and LGPL?

Heh, I'm not sure I personally *believe* the person who's giving the bug report, actually, considering the amount of time he'd had the game before suddenly showing up with this "can't play the game at all" bug and wanting a refund, and since none of the thousands of users of the system in the years I have been working with said system have *ever* reported that particular behavior... (Not to mention the "Why did you order the game if the demo wouldn't run playably?" and "Why did you wait so long before reporting this?" questions.) But I'm not going to fight with him about it.

This is not something I looked at for a day or two before making a game in it. I *am* aware of some flaws that it has (just not that one) and preferred to take the chance of knowing I will not be able to accomodate some people (for instance, I can't make a Mac version. At all.) over the timesink and frustration of starting from scratch. I don't say everyone should make the same choice, but for various reasons it seemed like a better idea to me. :)

Originally posted by Siebharinn
If you dynamically link to a GPL library, do you still have to make your project GPL?

As far as I know, yes.

Or is that the difference between GPL and LGPL?

Exactly. The LGPL was created to allow people to link their proprietary projects with open source libraries.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using an off-the-shelf game-making tool as long as you can make your game stand out from the other games being made with it and the tool itself is reasonably robust and flexible. For example, I think the Torque engine is pretty robust and flexible, but most of the games I've seen that are being made with it have a sameness in their appearance. So once you've found the perfect game-making tool, you still have your work cut out for you in making a game that stands out from the rest.

This is not entirely true. You don't have to include the source code in the game download. For example, you can supply a different URL for the source code. You can even charge a (reasonable fee) for providing the source to people who ask for it. Oh yes, I hadn't thought of those options. I've just been reading the LGPL and I was wondering what other people/companies do to comply with this license. I've been looking at several games that include SDL.DLL, but I couldn't find a single one that gives "prominent notice" that a any library was being used, let alone offering to send me the source of them!

Also (if I understand it correctly), if you use a few of these LGPL libraries, you'll have half of your title screen filled up with copyright messages, instead of a simple 'copyright ... by ...'

Does anyone know an example of a (shareware/commercial) game that uses SDL and/or other LGPL libraries and does have all the proper notices?

Originally posted by Mike Wiering
Does anyone know an example of a (shareware/commercial) game that uses SDL and/or other LGPL libraries and does have all the proper notices?

WarCraft 3 uses ZLIB and FreeType. ZLIB is under a public domain license (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html) and FreeType is under LGPL I believe (their license page isn't working, argh). At the end of WarCraft 3 credits it says that the game uses those libraries, that's how I found out about it (hey they have funny stuff at the end of credits! :) ). I think putting something like "uses so and so library" in the credits for each library is sufficient to comply with the LGPL. You can also probably make a readme.txt file with more details for the more tech savvy folks.

I think this question (the original topic) comes up often enough it should be in the developer FAQ. Also, the LGPL/GPL issue as well... and, since I'm on a roll, the thread next to this one too! That one is about installers.

Then, whenever someone brings up this topic again we can scream FAAAAAAAAQ at them.