giga chad dev

Well, RPG in a Box is also Godot-powered.

It's more "I'm going to make a simplified toolset for this game engine" And it's not a bad thing, PGMMV was actually pretty well done, and had a lot of flexibility even with it's underlying limitations and problems. I think this will turn out pretty good for people with little coding experience, or little time to dedicate to actually learning code that still want to try their hand at making games.

When is an engine an engine? ;)

There's also GoZen, a video editor currently in development being made in Godot

"So I put a game engine in your game engine so you can game dev while you game dev"

There is a port for rpg maker for almost every console snes,pc,play station ,nintendo ds, switch

actually they are both different team. so they have different directors. the reason why they went with godot instead of unity is the lacks of scripting language in godot and they want to provide that + godot is extremelly lightweight.

The lack of visual scripting you mean ? Godot already has a scripting language, it's called GDScript.

@@Zeromus92-y2e They are two completely different thing.

Rpgmaker fes on 3Ds is horrible it constantly crashes, clunky mapping controls and limited event commands. I rather use MV on PC, I have used 2k 3 and passed and touched on Vx ace.

On the brightside, even with Unity and their... recent decisions, not using Unite made so much sense for so many other reasons... Like, well, it was crap.

@@gamefromscratch yea, but I would have still bought it if it wasn't for unity just trying to do the greediest evil anti-developer dance ever. Because I have a love for the Maker series, and adjacent tools (smile game builder, rpg in a box, Bakin, etc) that I like supporting them even in a lot of cases I don't end up using them myself for anything more than a creativity toy. Because they are gateways for people to create things they otherwise wouldn't. Like, there are a million terrible RPG Maker games out there, but mixed through them are little gems of people passions that would have never seen the light of day without something like RPG Maker existing. I know my singular purchase doesn't mean a whole lot in the long run, but I vote with my wallet because sales are the only number corporations care about.

i'm working on it =P

i better relase my prototype before they do =p

@@igorgiuseppe1862 boa sorte =)

Do you have any guthub repo yet for your project ?

@@igorgiuseppe1862 When developers learn , always release soon to get feedback , maybe you developing something that users don't need ?

second this

I mean it has

@@lmelior And after 30 years I still haven't released a game.

It's funny. I tried to suggest this maker be called "Action Game Maker GO" But the liason for gotcha gotcha games gave me reasons why they weren't going with it.

Event sheet is better even if you know how to program. You can make the nodes yourself and then all your pseudo-code is now real code.

wow, maybe we also need an AI assistant that would make games for us? if you understand LOGIC like most human beings you don't really need to simplify scripting even more. You just learn basics of languages suiting your needs you want to program in. It's not that hard, just a matter of couple of evenings in the case of a python-like syntax. Godot is a game engine, not a game generator for every housewife out there. GDScript feels like a pseudocode and it is pretty much restraining already.

@@urod7149 You're don't get it, because it's EASY for you to program. I'm totally AGAINST do it for US, so AI is nice for some tasks but not doing the job (in any subject) that's my opinion. I'm an animator, not a programmer and I can EASILY prototype almost any 2D idea via the Event sheet systems, while "TRYING" to do the same in GDscript I find myself scratching my head WHY IT'S NOT WORKING? what am I missing? why is that command not work and why it's so complicated to make a simple projectile unlike couple of events, etc.. Like I said you won't understand since you are SMARTER, I'm not as smart as you are but I understand LOGIC... CODE is NOT for everyone to get, programmers are SKILLED, as much as ARTISTS can understand VISUAL THINGS better and also program via EVENT SHEET... I don't think you can understand unless you'll try to compare to something your skill is not "amazing" at. As I mentioned on my original comment: Event Sheets are EASIER than any other visual scripting, it's still programming but "VISUAL" and so much faster to LEARN and USE as once! ...unlike me trying to learn GDscript with the tutorial hell and still going lost in such "simple" logic tasks... then go to ANY visual scripting via events and nail it in less than few seconds. I'm still struggling to understand GDscript, Since I'm not a programmer my brain can't understand complicated lines of code, it's VERY hard to read wall of text even with nice comments... Maybe one day I'll get it, maybe not... EVENT SHEET could be as good as Unreal Engine's BLUPRINTS! even AAA using it, it's not a SHAME to use visual scripting. But I DO love Godot, that is why I keep try to learn it (and GDscript) in my opinion Godot is going to be the next "BLENDER" of all game engines, so far it's growing and growing and the feedback is amazing.

@@blossomcherrypink I'm 100% agree, a GREAT example is the way you can make your own Behaviors within GDevelop for example is so easy for RE-USE in any project later on. While I like GDevelop, I don't like it's FREEMIUM model which is getting aggressive on every release (especially if you follow it for many years you notice what I'm talking about) While in GODOT, the model is perfectly free and also it's MUCH more advanced in editor, effects, and so many other aspects.

Can't agree more! I've tried to learn GD Script but there is always a limit where I can't understand or follow the code, also can't remember all the code options even with auto-complete, while in Construct 3 my current game engine which cost too much! I just drag and drop imediatly in the rate of my brain since I'm a designer not a coder, the moment Godot will have an event sheet visual scripting myself and probably many others will move immediatly with no questions! Event sheet visual scripting is the easiest to follow, learn and use as a designer.

No they're all bad they steal things from other game engine and takes the credit and make the engine paid I hope they don't make a copy of unreal even if they did i hope that epic games sue them unlikes godot or unity who is helping them get more greedy

No they're all bad they steal things from other game engine and takes the credit and make the engine paid I hope they don't make a copy of unreal even if they did i hope that epic games sue them unlikes godot or unity who is helping them get more greedy

​@@frosken8889no the fuck they aren't. the lead dev of godot has stated time and time again that they take pride in companies that want to implement any form of software on top of godot as long as godot is credited or they contribute to the development of the engine. People have have built an entire game engine with godot, even godot themselves promote it in their youtube channel as showcase. It seems like missed the entire point of godot's existence.

It will definitely be proprietary

It's not actually that different from their current behavior. They used Cocos2D-x for a previous engine, and I believe PixiJS as well.

Correct pixi is a key part of mv and mz​@@gamefromscratch

They haven't been Enterbrain in years.. they're Gotcha Gotcha Games and Tkool now days.

Only reason to use RPG Maker engines is (1) you're uninterested in learning coding but want a simple way to use assets in a prebuilt 2d engine, (2) you want to skip some of the game engine setup but are comfortable with coding in JS to make RPG Maker's structure your own. As for the noob market, which is surely their biggest share of users, it's possible they can make a very simple/fluid dev experience. Still, they'd have to generate a new pool of users since people can't easily port their projects. I fall in the second camp. As you say, if I were to start from scratch now I'd definitely just use Godot or, better yet, make my own engine in an actually good language like Zig or something. On the very off chance that they manage to make a neat little engine in its own right I'll definitely try it out, though.

@@Dystisis LibSDL is actually pretty easy to use so i never got the appeal either. And if you really want something catering to the hobbyist game creator you could always use something like QB64PE or FreeBASIC, with the latter being able to use any library GCC can use with ease. Heck, you can have one person write in C/C++ and another in FBC and they can call each others code without much problems. Or, if you for some reason like script languages, there is always PyGame or Löve2D or when you want a full blown game dev IDE, and you don't mind retro style, that is easy to use you could use the stuff Lexaloffle releases, namely Pico8 and Picotron.

This is just....plainly false? Lol. Plenty of games exist. Even so, Godot being used as a base for other engines can only strengthen the funding and support that goes to Godot, thereby enhancing it for game developers. Consider Linux and its spinoff OSs.

Aah! You must be living under a rock then

No wonder. Just take a look for companies of main Godot developers: W4 (Juan Linietsky, Remi Verschelde), Ramatak studio (Ariel Manzur), The Mirror. These all companies don't make games, they offer services to this game engine, and developers have direct influence to slow Godot development. E.g. Ramatak studio has custom performance fixes for mobile (which they won't share, of course, that's conflict of interest) or W4 games leader Juan Linietsky exploits volunteers to get DirectX for Xbox consoles instead of polishing Vulkan backend. Or The Mirror is building their own asset store for their own Godot fork.

No wonder, just take a look how lead developers have companies (W4, The Mirror, Ramatak studio) that do not produce games, but services for engine. And these developers slow down Godot development, because it conflicts with idea of selling services. Ramatak has custom performance fixes for mobile, W4 lead Juan Linietsky exploits volunteers to implement DirectX for Xbox instead of polishing Vulkan backend, The Mirror builds their own asset store for their specific Godot fork.

There's only a few game engines built on Godot. There's countless games and apps, on the other hand.

Just to smoothen some rough edges, you can avoid using node system with using game servers. Yet this is not the way the engine was designed about. And you definitely cannot compile it without node system, unless you'll do the hard work of deleting the code without breaking the engine.

@@charlieking7600 thanks for the advice but tbh what good is it if it'll corrupt your scenes when you move resources. Not to be snarky but everyone who advocates for it it pretends that isn't a major issue, and while you can work around opinionated architecture, you can't work around scene corruption! Release notes for 4.3 says it was fixed but I'll wait until trusted, unbiased sources give a better rundown

@@tamerxero well, I got some scene corruption because of rendering backends being unsupported. Then I fixed it with manual editing of project text file. Maybe it'll work for you too.

Why would that ever be an issue if you use version control? Just roll back. It's not like it happens every day.

@@Zeromus92-y2e so yeah, I like this question. It turns out when you set up vc through GitHub or GitLab, the template for the .gitignore (I'm assuming you know what that is if you're talking VC) is set to ignore the .godot folder. And in that lies the problem. Way I understand it is, the engine uses a reference id (called the UID in engine code, if you've done a deep dive on your nodes when you're running the game in debug you've seen it) for every node, scene, custom resource, you name it. The UID isn't just referencing the object's internal ID, though, it also references, among other stuff, where the object is located on your local. You're probably seeing the issue here already, but in case you don't, when you move an item on your local and it's, hypothetically speaking, a custom resource that's referenced by your player character who is also in a scene with a game manager that references your player, there's a chance, albeit small, that Godot will essentially lose the reference. When it does this, it reports the error as multiple scenes being corrupted, since even though the error may come from one custom resource the player references, since the player references it and the GM references the player and the level scene references the GM, Godot editor doesn't really *know* where the problem comes from. So if VC isn't tracking the folder that holds all your references, reverting back to an older snapshot wouldn't help. That would leave you with hours, if not days of work just checking all your UIDs just to determine which item had a faulty local reference. And trust, you don't want to start tracking your .godot folder through git, that's a lot of data that changes constantly. There's a reason it's the only directory listed in the gitignore. In my 12 years of hobbyist gamedev and my 8 years of professional web development have I never seen something so catastrophic happen due to a framework, engine or piece of software. First thing I did when it hit was, well, try to revert to an older commit, but that led me down a rabbit hole thinking my older commits were corrupted as well. When I realised what was the real issue I went back to my original branch and did what I could, even messed with the engine code hoping to squash it for the community, but I just want to work on my project, so off to more stable engines I went. I know that's a long read and anecdotal evidence for some but it's my experience and apparently many others since it keeps getting addressed in the change logs but keeps popping up with each new version of Godot. I pop in every once in a while to play around, of course, and I found the custom resource in that original project that caused my error, but I can't take the engine seriously after that.

Literally no reason to. It's cool and all. But Unity and UE give you an insane amount of infrastructure, assets, tools, templates, exports, learning materials, etc. Can't really beat that. It's the best gamejam engine, nothing more.

​@@DarkDaoas someone who has extensive experience with all three, you are completely wrong.

There are a bunch of games made in godot, you're just ignoring them to make a "funny" comment that's been made 20 times before you

​@@askeladden450How to say that you don't have extensive experience with any of them. KZfaq tutorials aren't experience. Shipped, supported, marketed and commercially viable, or at least popular products are experience. Godot is like 10 years behind Unity alone in terms of its infrastructure. The only reason to use it if you are vehemently against any corporate involvement.

​@@askeladden450you mean, Godot doesn't even suit for game jams? How disappointing, to be honest.

Just tried the same thing and it worked fine. PEBCAK.

If you'll study closer, you'll discover that Godot devs exploit permissive license to sell services for engine. It will never be feature-rich, because Godot devs will lose their business. The only good solution would be forking it.

There has never been a successful GPL game engine. This is perhaps one of the biggest reasons BGE failed. Some, like OGRE have done reasonably well, but those are LGPL and the difference between LGPL and GPL are a mile wide and a mile deep.

@@charlieking7600 Utter drivel.

​@@gamefromscratchfirst of all, you're comparing renderer (OGRE) with game engines, second, it's been permissive license for decade and more.

​@@gamefromscratchI could maybe see a GPL game engine working by using a game's assets as a kind of "product key," like the fan-made enhancements for games with open-sourced code (the ones that require you to have purchased the original game to be able to play, since they don't include files not derived from compiled code). Since those aren't source code, it's technically not under the license, I don't think. It's still more inconvenient than using a more permissive license like the MIT or LGPL license, though, since it means the developer has to put out a public repo with their source code (which might need to be separate from their dev repo since it can't include proprietary assets).

Your face is overrated.