Ok, so I've been searching the web for a few years for a good 3d game development application. I haven't found much and you all say Jamagic was crap. It seems to me that the competent Clickteam uber-programmers could come up with a 3D game creation system that uses the MMF event style of programming. I know that I would snatch this up in a moment. So, the question is, would you donate toward Clickteam if they used their resources to make MMF3D? And I'm not looking for arguments as to why this is dumb, or why clickteam "sucks". A simple "yes" or "no" will do. If we get enough, maybe I'll pose the question to Clickteam...
This way, you'll likely be able to use an existing "level editor" instead of having to code your own(extremely difficult in some cases). It has this advantage even over the "easy" programming languages like Dark Basic - not to mention that it's not like programming in "Real" C++ since everything is a higher level, all the base code has been defined to you and much of your code will be doing stuff like "if (playerHasCollectedAmmo then Ammo++".
Best idea IMO.
I think a 3D MMF would work. While 3D is more complex some things are slightly easier too.
Check out my Telekinesis'em'up Thread and the ALICE Machines -
That's two for yay, two for nay. Using an already made 3d game engine sounds like just as much work to me, not to mention the fact that it wouldn't seem as unique. I would donate money if they would make it... so that's three. They could do it right and well... I think I'll ask them what they think about it... I think donating toward such an awesome product isn't such a bad idea, provided you have the money. Also, partially just everybody's vote of confidence toward it would encourage alot.
If it was just for 3D games I'd love to try it out but would probably stick with MMF2 as I find 2D so much more interesting. But yes MMF3D - I'd love it and I would donate towards it.
The problem is creating models, animating, and texturing them will be too difficult for most people. It's certainly easier than drawing smooth, detailed sprites like a lot of commercial games have had, but most people tend to go for a simplistic oldschool look(since it's a lot more practical). Someone really needs to release a good, simple 3D animation package. It's possible to do. Some of the old tools for Quake and the like were quite easy to use, but couldn't be use for anything much else.
It reminds me of Duke 3D Build - it had the most intuitive interface ever. It's only now I really realise how amazing it was. I wish they'd make a newer version of build that could do "true" 3D by use of additional layers.
Check out my Telekinesis'em'up Thread and the ALICE Machines -
Well, as in my case, people could have others model for them. And of course there'd be the load of games made with library 3d models that n00bs use until they decide to move on, but I think it'd be good for more skilled users. I've often heard the milkshape is easy to use, and google sketchupis out there for the uber-simple. I would really love MMF3D, but the problem is that by the time it would come out, I'd already be in college for game development the "real" way. (Oh and, I agree somewhat with that 2d is more interesting sentiment.)
For a long time I wanted a 3d mmf. It seems mostly pointless now. It takes a lot more work to get something out of a 3D game than 2D. Just look at where we are with 3D games these days. Anything we could make with mmf3D would look like an N64 game in comparison, or an early dreamcast game at best. Not to mention the extra horsepower you'd need on your computer to run the games.
Then there's the need to be able to do 3D modeling which I've tried and. . . hate. I'd assume that anyone who has made enough progress on 3D modeling would be closer to just coding their game from scratch. You could use sprites, but then you're back to your game looking like it's running on playstation 1. Old style 2D just holds up better than 15 year old 3D. Go look at some of the crappier 3D games from 1995-1998. They don't hold up half as well as early snes and genesis games.
I'd rather put my money towards a superpowerful 2D gamemaking program with some 3D capabilities. Give me full screen zooming and rotation (yoshi's touch and go I think it was called) and a Z axis instead of just layers. Take a look at video editing software to see what I mean by Z axis, it would explode the possibilities of what you can do in mmf.
So, a no for you, JustinC? Gamers that would bother downloading a 3d game likely already have fast enough computers. MMF3D would most assuredly be able to suport more polygons than N64, and even if not, that's fine by me. N64 3D always felt extra cool to me, like it was its own little world.
Hey if I could do N64 or dreamcast type 3D I would totally go for it. I don't think there's a wide enough audience for that product though. Most people these days expect 3D games to look lifelike and require them to buy the latest $300 graphics card. People have a certain expectation for 2D, so if a game looks as good as Super Mario or Sonic they're fine with it. Those expectations are completely different for 3D and most would take one look and say "oh that doesn't look anything like metal gear solid 4". Those games cost millions to make look like that. Same problem happening in the film industry. CG has gotten so good that nobody on a home computer is ever going to be able to impress anyone with their CG work or special fx. We're so used to things being photorealistic that if it looks anything less it looks like crap. Nobody expects 2D to look real, just like nobody expects a 2D animated film to look real.
I just think there's a much bigger audience of people wanting to make a game in the vein of Sonic or mario than Crash Bandicoot. And even if the software could produce results on par with playstation 3 or xbox, how many people could produce work like that? How many games on this site get finished that have crap graphics? Now think how many would get finished when someones saying it'll have 50 miles of new york and graphics better than gears of war.
Most people who download click games are clickers anyway. I think people can have fun with something that's not quite cutting edge; but I see your point. And it's a good one-- but I'd still like the opportunity to try it out for myself.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Using an already made 3d game engine sounds like just as much work to me, not to mention the fact that it wouldn't seem as unique. I would donate money if they would make it... so that's three. 
They could do it right and well... I think I'll ask them what they think about it... I think donating toward such an awesome product isn't such a bad idea, provided you have the money. Also, partially just everybody's vote of confidence toward it would encourage alot.
And of course there'd be the load of games made with library 3d models that n00bs use until they decide to move on, but I think it'd be good for more skilled users. I've often heard the milkshape is easy to use, and google sketchupis out there for the uber-simple. I would really love MMF3D, but the problem is that by the time it would come out, I'd already be in college for game development the "real" way. (Oh and, I agree somewhat with that 2d is more interesting sentiment.)
Gamers that would bother downloading a 3d game likely already have fast enough computers. MMF3D would most assuredly be able to suport more polygons than N64, and even if not, that's fine by me. N64 3D always felt extra cool to me, like it was its own little world.