Are great games confined to those who know GML inside out? Or can a developer with enough dedication and determination still create a fun, addictive game without being able to add all the fancy features that GML allows?

I am not asking which is better to program games with - the answer to that is obvious - but I am asking if not knowing GML can limit your games "fun factor".

I personally think a game using d&d tehnique can still be made great if enough effort has been made to make the features that are possible with d&d well designed and implemented.

Of course it depends on what type of game - arcade style with simple gameplay and controls would be possible in d&d (multiplayer mode would need GML though). A platformer is more difficult, shooters harder still and of course 3D is impossible without a very advanced knowledge of GML.

It would be nice to see your opinions...

EDIT: See post #44 as well: its here

Why does it matter?

If you want to make an extremly cool game, then use GML, but even if you do not want to make an extremly cool game, you should still learn GML, it is alot better than D&D.

Yes, great games can be in D&D. All of Alexitron's games except one are in D&D, I think.

If you couldn't make great games with restricted capabilities, the SNES and Game Boy (and countless other early consoles) would never have become popular. Many games are "great" because the developers considered their boundaries and worked sensibly within them- Cave Story, Portal and Iji spring to mind.

Of course, this isn't specific to D&D. Almost all of my projects have failed because I've aimed a little higher than I'm capable of.

In my opinion...no.

short and simple.

Yes and no.

Yes, you can create a good game with D&D, but you will be extremely limited.
If you have an unique idea planned it will most likely not be possible to do in D&D.
Your game will suffer from that, and will not have the full potential you had planned.
In that case it's a no.

I have to agree here. gml makes things much easier, but d&d actions can be more complex than most of us use. You can use variables, globals, and there are several "test" actions available, so it is not as limited as it could be.

But then, it will be more difficult to manage, as the "code" will be more bulky. Learning gml be the better option, but the OP asked if it was possible to make great games with d&d.

I would have to say the final answer is yes, although in a limited fashion.

Now, we get in the technical battle in what is called a 'great game'. What's great for some, isn't so great for others.

GML, sounds, and indeed, looks really scary from a non-programmers point of view. I know, because I've been there! But GML works exactly the same was as D&D, only it enables you to have more flexibility, and allows you read over what the code is doing, more quickly, and easily. Also, you will have options available to you, which you cannot easily use in D&D.

100 D&D icons, it's gonna be hard to go through it all,and make small changes, while 100 lines of code, are really simple, especially if it's heavily commented. (yes, I know you can do D&D comments, but it isn't half as effective as code comments)

People have said 'no, you can't make great games with D&D', that's untrue. What is true, is that making great games full stop, takes a lot of dedication, and someone who is that dedicated, usually takes the time to learn the languages, because they know that it will help them that much more, in making the game.

GML, once you get the hang of it, is surprisingly very easy, and actually easier to use than D&D. Once you get the hang of it, you will NEVER go back to D&D.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again, it isn't the tool that makes the game, it is the person using the tool. A person can build a house, with 'limiting' tool's, like a hammer, or hand saw, but he can build it much faster, and better, using electric saws, and Nail Guns.

You can make a simple game with D&D.
Simple games can be fun if made well.


So the answer is Yes.


----------

But making a game in GML is easier

Sandbox of God was made with D&D. That was a fun game.

I have answer for you. Figure it out yourself.. XD

But seriously, I've been trying to put Game MAker to the test and see what it's limits are in D&D. D&D isn't all that powerful.

D&D is pretty powerful, it's just that with GML, you can do so much more. However, D&D is not limited, really. As said, a great game can be made using D&D.

It depends what you define a good game to be?

"A poor workman blames his tools..."

I feel that the quote above is relevant to this question. If you define a game to be good only if it is graphically impressive, then sure you can make an excellent game from D&D, it's the same with other aspects of Game Development. If you have the drive and work ethic to create a master piece (or a good game) then you will use what you have. Work ethic, talent or experience? I will go for work ethic.

Everyone seems to say that d&d is just a tool, and blaming it as the cause of failed games is bad practice, but the blame isn't against it doing its job, it's blaming them for doing it poorly. Sure someone can make a house with a hammer and nails as the only tools, without measuring tape the walls won't be as even, without paint it won't look as nice inside, without shingles, the ceiling will leak. You can say that it was the guy wielding the tools that made it a bad house, but its a house nonetheless, and it isn't completely his fault....he only had a hammer and nails.

Can you make a good game with JUST d&d...sure. This is not a fighting argument. The argument was "can you make a GREAT game with just d&d"...the problem with the context of "great" is fuzzy logic, and in my eyes "world of warcraft is great", "starcraft is great", even "halo is great"....but they are great because they pushed the boundaries of every aspect of their time, some broke those boundaries...that's what makes a great game. These weren't made in just 1 language, but rather multiple, scrapped together and made to work, each doing its part integratingly. On this same sense, can you break the boundary using JUST d&d? No....because you are forcing the boundary and refusing to break it. GML however allows you to easily extend out into dll files, which means you break those boundaries pretty quickly.

But if "great" is a low standard, sure, you can make a *cough* "great" game with just d&d with enough patience and time. Although there are a lot of things d&d cannot do...like at least...file management, ds constructions, surfaces, specific collision checking, d3d (as far as i know), and decent multiplayer. You can justify some by saying "there's a 'setvar' and 'testvar' d&d and you can put them in there"...but really that's crossing the line into GML by semi-coding it into a d&d (aka cheating...because on that same notion there is a 'execute code' d&d and you put your GML in that).

So back to my original...plain and simple...no is my opinion. I'm trying not to go against everyone elses opinion on this, don't get me wrong...I just feel I should elaborate like everyone else did on why I chose "no" as my answer.

If you think that you can make a great game with Game Maker, then yes you can make a great game with just Drag-and-drop.

Drag-and-drop is the same thing as GML. There is no difference between the two.

Sabriath: Your comments certainly made me think, although I will partly disagree: you are describing one type of greatness - technical greatness. 'Greatness' goes beyond technical 'greatness' because 'greatness' is described by perceptions.

The boundary can be extended but no game can cover every part. A great game might surpass ALL other games in one area, and 'one area' [whatever that may be] is not limited to being the game engine, which would be developed using software [tools] and would be limited because of the software.

As long as there is something new in the game that has never been done before, that part of the game has extended the boundary. For it to be recognised, the game needs to be considered. If differences are great, this makes sense, because the area within the boundary has fully been covered. Does it matter what pushes the boundary?

Finally; who defines the boundary - or does it exist in its own place?

touche'

In that aspect alone yes, you can I guess. But as it still lies as an opinion topic, I still think that d&d is vastly oversimplified and lacking in many areas. If you can make a pure d&d game that overstretches an area that no one else has, good job!

aww I was hoping you would tear up my argument. I'm very tired you see, and .... ... it took me ages to come up with that. So, I'm begging you, please destroy me.

I might be only joking - I'm not sure.... oh dear oh dear the pointlessness of this.

Yes... err.............................

Of course.

Dr. Suess's publisher once bet him $50 (that seems underwhelming, but it was 1960) that he could not write a book with only fifty different words in it. He did, and Green Eggs and Ham is still an extremely popular book today, 49 years later.

Being limited to the confines of drag & drop is similar, in a way. Even then, you have libraries, which are extra sets of drag & drop modules that execute even more complex commands as required. So you really aren't that limited. So go ahead, make a game with drag & drop. How good it is depends only on your creativity and experience.

*ahem* libraries are cheating.

The core to a good game is a good game concept, and finetuning a concept has nothing to do with coding. I happened to have a very original game idea recently, but it isn't at all hard to make. I use a lot of GML because it makes stuff easier, but one could get the same result without GML. If you have good gameplay, you can do without the fancyness that really requires GML. E.g. surfaces, blending, file functions, etc. are not really needed for the game itself, maybe only to enable "extras" like effects, multiple user accounts, custom controls, etc. But those don't really enhance the game, they only enhance the application that lets you play the game.

But the question is not really clear, because what is GML? As a matter of fact, everythin you put in the text fields of about any D&D action is GML. If you use a create instance action, the positions you enter are GML. Most of the time they're very simple expressions like "x", but they're still GML.

Strictly speaking you can't do anything without GML besides things like creating an effect or change the cursor.

That said, I'm not sure why the question is asked, but learning GML surely positively impacts what you can do with GM.

Of course you can create a great game using only d&d. It would just be more difficult than if you were using GML.

I'd imagine so, but it would probably need to be great in a simple way. If you're aiming to make something that is more complicated and multilayered in it's game play, then it would be much more difficult than it was worth.

You'd just have to think more Tetris, or Jumper 2, than Symphony of the Night or Shenmue, you know?

The real question, is would it be worth it? I'd guess probably not, because I'd imagine the time spent of trying to only use D&D would be longer than learning the basics of GML.

Of course, that brings up another argument, in a similar vein.... For people like me like me that have worked on a hobby Game Maker game for quite a few years of my life... If I had instead decided to learn C++.... And built my entire game myself (building my own level editor, collision system, etc), would I have ultimately made more content using Game Maker's limited room editor and limited features in general?

I dunno, I use Game Maker cause that's what I know how to use and learning C++ was very frustrating for me, being more of an artist type than a programmer. But I think that a lot of things in life, they are easier at first, but get harder later because of limitations. I think Game Maker in general may be that way, but I have so much content already for my game, that I'm sticking with it rather than starting over.

The good thing about D&D, is you can just learn GML at your own pace, and make the switch. For people like me, I'd have to toss years of work away if I wanted to learn C++ and build my game entirely myself.

You don't have to knock GM that much though. I learned to use C++ with OpenGL for making "real" games, though I didn't get very far due to lack of dedication. Believe it or not, I honesly believe that for what it is made for, GM is better than coding C++. I wouldn't code many 2d games in C++ due to that GM is available and better for the job. I'm making my current game in GM, even though I already know C++.

Tell me, what areas is D&D lacking?

GML and D&D are exactly the same. The only difference is the interface.

In Game Maker you work with variables and functions, which D&D is capable of doing. I fail to see the areas that it lacks.

How so? You're only going into the extensions forum, finding a library that does what you need, and loading that up and using it. You never needed to code anything in GML, which fits within the confines of the original question. So... *ahem* libraries are not cheating.



The drag & drop modules for the effects and cursors are also written in GML, are they not? I mean, you can do both using raw GML, so surely the drag & drop modules use the same functions.

Anyway, the question is clear, you're just being pedantic about it. 'GML' here refers to strictly using scripts and code functions to create your game, whereas 'D&D' is referring to using the drag and drop modules which, although they are just scripts, do not require you to generate your own custom code, only enter required variables that the computer cannot generate for you.

It takes a lot longer and a complex game would get very hard to handle as the code blocks would get messy and cluttered.

If you really wanna be serious about game design you should learn GML. It will really help you if you decide to learn a more powerful language later on. And it is very easy to learn so theres no reason not to.

When I say "it's cheating" or "it's lacking" is because if you DO NOT USE GML AT ALL...which makes it 100% d&d, then you cannot perform even the simplest of extended tasks...as I've stated already (and only off the top of my head): file management, dll, ds constructions, multiplayer, etc. etc.

If you code anything as GML, even a 'set variable' drag-n-drop icon with "scr_interpolate(...)", YOU ARE USING GML and not pure 100% d&d. So again, I say...as loud as can be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT D&D is "oversimplified and lacking in many areas."

Finding someone elses libraries to include in your files so that you can stick to d&d is not you creating the game, but rather other people helping you create it....and it's not 100% because those are made in GML (afaik).

Show me a "great game" that is 100% d&d and I will either show you a part that has GML in it, or state I am in the wrong. I'll just go help others with more important things while I wait for a plausible response.

But even the drag & drop modules included in vanilla GM are just blocks of GML made into a little button. Technically, regardless of what you do you STILL USE GML. There is no such thing as pure 100% D&D without any GML, because that'd be a library of empty modules, and that's a little useless. Stop being so pedantic, for purposes of the original question, 100% D&D means you avoid the two D&D modules for code and scripts. Anything else is D&D. Perhaps you type a little bit of code into the box that pops up, you still aren't creating scripts using the code editor, and so it doesn't count.

Sure, I get what you're saying, but through a logical extension on your ideas, there is absolutely nothing you can do in D&D, because it's still GML regardless. Which is true, because the Game Maker Language must be used in any Game Maker Game for any functionality.

But if you don't read the question literally, rather inferring the intended ideas, it is a question on whether one can create a fun game using only drag & drop modules without any custom scripting involved. To that question, the answer is yes, of course, it can be done. To the literal question, the answer is no, that is preposterous, nothing can be done functionally in Game Maker without GML.

So stop being so pedantic, or I'll clobber you over the head with a watermelon. :3

If that is true, then even attempting to use Game Maker is not you creating the game, but rather the person that made it helping you create it.

Even if I don't use Game Maker but rather something else (like C++), if I use a library by someone else it's not me creating the game, but rather the other people helping me create it.

If I use a a D&D library that someone made, I am still using D&D.

Drag-and-drop is the same thing as GML. If you write the library using GML it doesn't matter.... heck let's just not use GML to write the D&D library will that make you happy?


Typical quote from a person that thinks he is an elitist and would rather write something from scratch then use the STL.

>D&D is limited (considering only the default libraries), is there any doubt about that?
>If you use other libraries, then you can't say it to be limited.
>A great game can be made with D&D. It depends on the user.
[/Summation of previous posts]

(But D&D is still a pain to use...)

That isn't a good thing to use here. Some of the posters here don't know what the STL is, and therefore won't understand the meaning of your post.

I don't disagree with you at all, rather I'm just declaring that some won't understand it.

Exactly! Now you're catching on!


I like looking for the details in things, I watch a lot of mystery shows, but meh...anyway, I feel that everyone should continue learning all they can, for knowledge is true happiness (at least that's how I see it). If we just say "hey, you can make a great game with d&d" then you only teach him to only learn d&d and nothing else....what's the point in that? He could be the "most greatest of game makers" but wouldn't be of any use to any of us on the forums to help us in our questions because most of them are questions in GML, or require answers in GML. Sure, he can move out of the community with his knowledge in only d&d, maybe make it in selling a product and never work a day in his life...fine. Now how likely is that in comparison to having him move into GML, C++, PHP, etc. etc.?

As any good programmer knows, once you learn a written language, you pretty much move through the rest fairly quickly....d&d isn't a written language and would make it very difficult for the move. It was a choice I made and was hoping other good programmers would step up and say it as well as "no great games come out of pure d&d"...but everyone is so quick to say "sure, go ahead" and laugh behind his back (don't lie, you know that all great games in GM are made with even the littlest bit of GML). It's a white-lie to get him and others to start learning GML asap and drop the training wheels.


So I overreach to a point, and you break the line, nice! I have no problem using other people's code as long as it is source-based. Throwing code you don't understand into your program is a ludicrous prospect, and in order to understand the libraries requires even the littlest bit of GML knowledge. Sure, you can do it, fine...but you get into a rut where all you do is ask for libraries or ask for bits of script and eventually you'll get someone who gives you a virus and you won't know it because you're too busy thinking everyone owes you something in this world....so why learn it when you can force others to make it for you?


I don't think I am elitist. If I can't make it myself, I don't make it nor use anyone elses to substitute for my inability. I've worked my way up to this point, and any game I make in GM, I could make in assembly....in fact, I've designed and built my own CPU, so really, I've worked from the literal bottom to the top. My only hope is I can pass on the knowledge I have to others before I die...or my brain completely deteriorates. Does that make me elitist? meh, I don't care what label you give me, I just do what I do.

Ok, I'm done ranting, if you want to continue this debate, please feel free, I'll let you have the last words. I have said my peace, and proven my abilities in hundreds of pages of code that I have written for this community from scratch and quicker time than it took you to read this post (if you even did). I have made some bad posts, and apologized for them, but at this time, I do not feel that this is one of them... *rereads before posting* ..yep.

But that wasn't the question. You 'can' make 'great*' games, with pure D&D (and set variables counts as D&D, btw)

Of course, he should learn Gml! In my post, I said (or said words to the effect) that once you know gml, it's easier to use, than D&D, and holds none of the limitations that D&D holds.

From what you just said here, it seems to told a 'white lie', because you felt it was for his own good. And I agree. GML is the way to go.

*I realize that many people, have many different interpretations on the word 'great'.

Catching on to what, that we're right and you're wrong?

Have you heard of this quote? "The fool thinks himself to be wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."

...


For loops.

I can do that in D&D.

Good for you. But there are no for loops in D&D.

sabriath has explained where it lacks. Not necessarily in structure or concepts, but in the amount of GM's library you can access. Surfaces, DLL's, data structures, etc.

Arguing about whether you're using GML or not is stupid. If you use scripts or the action to execute a piece of code, that's using GML. If you use an external library, that's using GML. If you just use the actions besides executing a script or piece of code, that's using D&D.

D&D is limited, so you can't make fancy effects or behaviors as easily, but you can make a fun game with it.

No, but the implementation can still be produce. Arguing that producing the same effect is not the same as "having it" is stupid because then I can say that Game Maker is very limited because it lacks in lots of things (post/pre increment operators, enumerators, namespace definition to name a few). But I don't say that because I am not ignorant.

Using third party drag-and-drop libraries is not using GML. Can someone who does not know GML use a library someone made then say: "Oh, btw... I made this game with GML"?


That is where his argument fails.

A lot of people like to say: "drag-and-drop" is very limited I suggest you learn GML if you want to make anything impressive. Those same people like to defend Game Maker against other people that say it is very limited by stating that it is extensible.

Perhaps the default drag-and-drop libraries are limited in the same way that Game Maker is limited if there were no way to utilize DLLs, but claiming that drag-and-drop is limited is wrong because it is only an interface (the same way GML is to get things like logic and display possible).


If some of Game Maker's functions (like the math functions) vanished, would you agree that Game Maker is limited? Whatabout if hspeed, vspeed, direction, speed was gone. Limitation is only defined by your absence of knowledge.

[Edit:]
I just went back through this topic and looked at every member that stated drag-and-drop is limited and guess what? Apparently my bolded text above holds true.

lol?

Why can't you admit that D&D doesn't have for loops? This is a prime example of how D&D is lacking. Being able to work around this by doing more work than necessary is NOT a good thing.

And having to use libraries for many functions that are easily available in GML is counterproductive.

D&D is lacking, you are grasping at straws. I should mention that GML is also lacking, but not quite so much as D&D.

That isn't even close to a prime example of how drag-and-drop is lacking.


No comprende señor?

I just find it funny how people get so defensive and sugar coat things but then turn around and try to act superior over things more inferior.


The same thing can be said the other way around where lines of GML is counterproductive opposed to a single drag-and-drop library that could have taken care of it.


I still find it unbelievable how hard it is for you to grasp the similarities between D&D and GML.


[Edit:]

Multiplayer can be done without GML but impractical, a platformer was one of the first things I've done with Game Maker which was pure D&D, the first time I did 3D with Game Maker used drag-and-drop, I've done a lot of things without GML before switching to GML only because of how similar they looked. Infact, I noticed that they were exactly the same besides the fact that you code in one and you drag and drop in the other (who knew?). Of course, this is something pounce fails to comprehend.

Thanks for the replies and from the posts in this topic it seems that at the moment the answer to this question is just a matter of personal opinion - opinion on how limited d&d really is.

D&D itself is based on GML, I know this. What I meant by "just d&d" was only using the drag & drop boxes and not complex GML coding or scripts. In this way d&d can be slightly limiting. However, the question is even with these limitations can a develper create a very fun game that is equal to those that are created using all features of GML coding? After all, games that could be considered very limited these days, such as pacman and space invaders can still be just as fun to play as complex modern games, as long as the developer knows how to use what they have got in the best way - do you agree?

The third party library would need to be created with GML. By D&D, I at least am referring to the built-in D&D. If you count libraries, then its a lot less limited and the biggest problems are 1) getting those libraries and 2) the unwieldy interface.


This is where you and everyone else differs. Everyone else is discussing the built-in D&D, while you somehow think that there exist libraries for every single feature that the built-in D&D lacks and that they just magically appear when they're needed.
Also, the idea that D&D is exactly equivalent to GML is wrong as well. The action to change the sprite also changes a number of other properties, as do many other actions. If you used enough of these actions, your game would run more slowly and be less flexible (e.g. you can't change the xscale without setting the mirroring explicitly, you can't change alpha without changing color explicitly). Of course you can use the action to set a variable, but that defeats the purpose of D&D- you can't see what things are doing by the icons anymore.


"You can't make fancy effects or behaviors as easily," I said. Also, if the math functions vanished, I would agree that GM is limited. Try writing an efficient lengthdir_x and/or cos function in D&D or GML.


But it is an example, no matter what your definition of prime is.


That single drag-and-drop library would have to be written first, and what type of situation are you talking about anyway? Besides the inflexible sprite setting functions, most D&D actions are 1:1 with lines of GML.


Nobody's having trouble grasping the similarities. It's you who's having trouble understanding the disadvantages of D&D.


"Multiplayer can be done without GML but impractical." Yeah, that supports your point of view so well.
How'd you do 3D with D&D? Exactly- with a library. Guess where that library came from? GML.
Now, they are not exactly the same. They just aren't. You're the uncomprehending one here- I've already given the example of the sprite actions, there's also the lack of creating resources (you can only replace them), the lack of data structures, collision_* functions, conditional loops, functions to customize message boxes or the high score list, etc.
Yes, you can do some of those things in libraries, but it's still not as flexible. For instance, you can't use actions inside expressions in other actions, no matter how much you want to, not even with a library.

I think D&D can make great simple games without a lot of complicated things.

But if you want to make a great game that is a bit complex that has features like complex physics, a level editor, or AI, GML is recommended.

This is a poor question.

First of all, let's get rid of the silly semantics. For the purposes of this discussion the assumption should be using only the default supplied actions.

Second of all, this question does not make reference to the game creator only the tools. In the hands of a terrific game creator, then most certainly they can create terrific games using only actions.

However, there is something to be said about game creators who only know actions. This speaks volumes about the game creator. In most cases, anyone who knows only actions and no GML, is probably lacking in experience and skill. For the most part these individuals are not capable of making great games.

There are some exceptions.

I don't have trouble understanding the disadvantages of D&D you're simply making a false statement that D&D is very limited. You only assumed that because I am supporting the fact that you can do great things with D&D. I don't even use Game Maker.


You're kidding, right? Do you even know why the library builder was made in the first place? You say it comes from GML, yet you fail to comprehend the similarities between the two. I don't believe how often I come across someone on this forum that just can't grasp a simple concept. I'll just repeat it: They're the same besides the interfaces.

We've already gone through explaining that maybe the default libraries have limited functionality, but I guess people on this forums just can't comprehend the first time around. It still doesn't change the fact that stating drag-and-drop is limited is false.

Let me ask you something. What is C++ without any libraries? What's GML without any functions? What's drag-and-drop that has no functionality?

Everyone stating that you can't make a great game with D&D because it is very limited fail to understand a very important aspect in software/game development.


I wouldn't... if someone asked: "Can Game Maker do <insert very difficult request here>?" I would say yes, but Game Maker is slow as ****. Again, it's just that you're not a very pragmatic thinker (I hope you're not trying to get into the programing industry).

Lol, how ironic. I can tell you're the type who'd program in Assembly because "hell, it can do anything." Hey we might as well code in binary! It's only limited by your imagination.

Seriously now, get real. You are out of touch with reality.



This is an excellent post. "/thread"-worthy.

Yes, you can make great games with D&D. You are just limited to functionality, so your games will end up pretty samey if you know what I mean.