Hacker News Reader

Comment by rawoke083600 | Hacker News Reader

Honest question.. Is this "just" the way modern gamedev is being done. With these "Editors For Scenes" ?

Like the Unity and Unreal Editors ? Not hating just asking last time I "checked in" on gamedev was prob one or two decades ago and had a lot of fun with IrrLicht and Ogre.

Does this "editor approach" not get in the way ? Just looking in as an outsider with almost zero gamedev experience.. don't you end up fighting the editor to just get things done ?

Again don't flame me I have no idea what I'm talking about :)

PS. GoDot looks great :)

View on HN

Hey software engineer/gamedev here.

I use Godot daily to make games for small businesses, usually around GPS-based games. What I really found is that the editor based approach of Godot actually doesn't get in the way, but is actually way closer to the DSL of a game designer.

Also the way of making nodes/scenes with signals in Godot promotes making systems that are very loosely coupled, so I haven't ran into any big problems with the engine when it comes to maintainability of projects.

And when I want to extend the engine with some native features like Android camera feed (which I'm preparing a PR for somewhere in the future), I can just dig into the code, no need to wait for something like Unity support or something.

Honestly, whether you're using this for hobby purposes or if you're dabbling in professional gamedev, this engine is worth a try.

That has been the way that AAA game development has worked the last 25 years.

Professional games are like movies, programmers are a tiny percentage of people on the set.

They are the ones caring for the lights, that all cables are working properly and special effects go off as they should.

The main role, what dictates what a game is all about, belongs to game designers, producers, artists, those aren't writing C++ code, rather using visual tools.

Naturally you can make a game old style, just like on the 8 and 16 bit days, just like there are people doing movies just with an handy-cam.

The outcome isn't not going to be same though.

Gotcha !

These editors provide instant feedback on the materials, lighting, effects and animations. It’s like live reload for GUI apps.

I was very impressed when I got back into the field by how easy it is now to create and run a nearly-photorealistic scene with Unreal by only using built-in tools and the (now free) collection of assets from Quixel.

Partly it depends on the game but I think both Unity and Unreal, and I assume Godot, expect that the editor is just a framework and you're expected to extend them to whatever special needs your game has.

Godot is particularly good at extending the editor.

https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/misc/runnin...

Having recently decided to bite the bullet and get back to Unreal Engine after not touching it for more than a decade, here's my impression:

1) You can essentially treat these editors as visual REPLs to your game engine. Which is useful in part because almost all gamedev is done in languages that have not seen a proper REPL (and Python doesn't count).

2) Most games these days have high art demands, these editors allow artists and designers without programming background to work on the game directly, in a more comfortable environment.

> don't you end up fighting the editor to just get things done ?

That is often a problem, yes, but not just for the editor but the whole product.

By using such an integrated "game development framework" you basically also buy into all the tradeoffs. You get a lot of stability, robustness, WYSIWYG-editing and ready-to-use features, but you also need to align your whole way of thinking and your workflows to the design principles of the framework.

I like to compare game creation in Unity or UE4 to Photoshop. Sometimes ImageMagick or even MS Paint are the better choice, but if you only know how to use a hammer, every problem looks like a nail ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com