Language with Some Decent Game Dev Stuffs?

Like, libraries/namespaces that are already made so that I wouldn't have to make all of my own. >.>

Even if I end up making something less impressive than a Pong game that doesn't work, it's alright with me. I just want a fun way to gain some programming experience in my spare time, and games seem to be it. Just a way to get familiar with thinking abstractly, I guess.

What do I do?

libraries/namespaces that are already made
what

OpenGL with SDL or GLUT in C++

Is that all I need to do? Learn that? I'm a complete idiot about this stuff. >.>

TBH, I have no idea where to start looking, and I saw 4chan had a programming board, so... Yeah. >.>

C++ if you want a huge project.
IMHO I loved my tic tac toe Visual Basic program. But it has a lot of rules on syntax, but it's a good language to know for low level applications.

C++ is the best for medium to huge projects, SDL/GLUT just separate you from a lot of the hardware stuff like input and sound, so they are good for learning how to write games and graphics engines.  For something small like Pong you can really use whatever you feel like, even if its faggotry like Python or Java.

What's the best, free C++ compiler, in your opinion? Is the Bloodshed stuff good?

Bloodshed is decent, but it's effectively dead too. Code::Blocks appears to be the new free one that a lot of Windows coders use, even if their development cycle is a joke.

However, I have to disagree with the above posters if you're new to programming. If you're new, do not use C++.

Why not use C++ if I'm new? What else should I use to get started? I'm not COMPLETELY new. I understand the idea of calling methods and using objects to do stuff. Isn't that all I really need to know to get into any language? Just the syntax, some general concepts and then I'm off to find a way to practice until I'm comfortable with several languages?

>>8
What languages do you know?
C++ can look readable (loosley) if it is carefuly designed and implemented (although there my be large hits to performance).
But a majority of C++ looks like ass (not Perl bad, but close).  And if you arent entirely careful (you want to unit test the crap out of stuff before putting it together) you will get weird errors that can be a pain to debug.
Java & python tend to be much more forgiving (although if you typo alot, stay away from Python as it dosent have an option for static variable checking... runtime only).
And only use C/C++ if you are intemently framiliar with pointers and typecasting, lest you atempt to derefrence a value and end up with a segfault.

"What languages do you know?"

None. >.> I've read some basic stuff about Java and C++. That's pretty much it. By "basic stuff", I mean, how to create classes, functions, declare variables, call functions, that kind of thing. I didn't really understand how to use pointers in C++, but I could just keep reading about them until I understand, I guess.

Look, if you're determined to use C++, all the more power to you, but C++ is definitely an expert language. Frankly, unless you have very good reason to use it (even as an expert), you shouldn't.

The problem with learning C++ as a first language is that you'll get caught up in all the gotchas and fine-print, not having fun making your first <whatever>. Beginners have a low pain threshold, so they should stick to a language that is fun to use and gives results fast.

Shit, some C++ code is painful to me, and I've used a dozen or so languages over 15 years.

>>11

This man speaks truth.

If you want to learn, pick a friendlier "C like" language, like Java.  Its fairly easy to make the transition, and it will be much easier to learn on.  Odds are you wont need all the power of C anyway.

But all I ever see here is that Java is bad, bad, bad, and the worst language anyone could ever use because it's bad, bad, bad. >.>

That's because Java stinks. Thing is, C++ isn't much better (unless  you know damn well what you're doing).

The difference is that it takes expertise to use C++, while such is not the case with Java. I wouldn't teach a beginner Java either, but if it came to Java or C++, definitely Java.

What else is there that can "separate you from a lot of the hardware stuff like input and sound"?

>>15
ocaml

Most mainstream languages.

Java sucks faggits

>>18
no, it sucks for *desktop*

http://www.pygame.org/news.html
Had to do it, sorry.

>>19
It sucks for servers just as bad.

>>21
no, you suck. I hate java just as much as the next guy, but that's mainly because all the desktop apps I've tried almost made me go bananas

>>20
Why "sorry"? Were you not serious? >.>

>>23
I was just bracing for the flames, which apparently did not come.

PyGame - Takes the "Performance" out of "Game Development"

>>25
But it surely can't hurt to start with? It's not like I'll be making serious games. I'm just looking for a fun way to get some experience in general.

>>26
PyGame is quite good to learn and for simple games.

>>27
"simple games" is all you're capable of, you won't make a living out of it sadly...

I used to write simple vertical shooter games in QBasic on a shitty 12mhz 286 (and  GW-BASIC on XT before that). If I could do that, you can bloody well write a very nice simple game in Python on a multi-ghz machine.

If you're new, PyGame is probably a great choice. Even if you're not new, unless you're writing a performance game (where has all the variety gone, dammit?), you should stick to a language like Python anyway.

FreeBASIC. A imperative language (non-OO) that has NAMESPACES.

(Yes, most of your OOP elements such as objects and namespaces exist, but the language is not oriented at objectivity. These are more like optional features than the main objective of the language; see http://www.freebasic.net/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=TutBeginnersGuideToTypesAsObjects2 for a tutorial on objects; see http://www.freebasic.net/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=KeyPgNamespace http://www.freebasic.net/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=KeyPgUsing for information on namespaces

>>29
unless you're writing a performance game
A performance game?  You mean a game with a graphics engine?

>>31
Lol. A game with a graphics engine where performance is very important. Typically, a realtime 3D game. 2D games can very well be written in much higher-level languages and APIs which are slower but much more productive. You can very well write your 2D engine in Python (Pyrex too) and handle hundreds of sprites which is more of what you can be bothered to draw or attend to in the screen.

>>32
If someone is writing a 2D game with sprites in this day and age, it better be fucking awesome with over 9000 sprites on the screen at any one time.

You obviously need absolute performance for this hello world style game. Do it in assembly and write your own graphics library as well because using third party code is for faggots.

>>33

Graphics don't compensate for shitty storyline and gameplay. See majority of games released in the past few years. I'd take an isometric game with a good storyline and 8bit graphics over some shitty bumpfucked graphics and worthless gameplay any day.

I'd take an isometric game with a good storyline and 8bit graphics over some shitty bumpfucked graphics and worthless gameplay any day.
Fucking signed, stamped, and witnessed.

3D just sucked the fun and originality right out of the game community, because it costs so fucking much to do well.

>>35
>3D just sucked the fun and originality right out of the game community, because it costs so fucking much to do well.
No. There were always shitty games companies/designers, for every single platform ever made. 80% of the games that are out there are give or take shit. But no, you only remember the good games for 2D, and keep getting reminders of the shitty 3D ones because they're still coming out.

3D, if anything, has expanded the possibilities of what you can do with a game. Although you do have a point on lack of originality and price, because they go hand in hand.

It's a high monetary risk to make a decent new 3D game, and I even read in a game design book that unless you have some amazing new concept with great feedback and a fuckton of money, you're basically dooming yourself if you think too far out of the box.

Regardless, compare the variety available for 3D games to the variety available for 2D games, it's staggering in favor of 3D.

>>36
I know there were shitty games. There were also a lot of good games. See, there were a simple lot of games all round.

Now? There aren't that many at all, and those that are are usually some low-risk derivative, simply because it costs a lot to make them.

The problem with the leap from 2D to 3D is that 3D is a race to reality, and the returns on effort diminish quickly.

>>34-35
Signed, agreement and acceptance of terms.

It's not like all 3D games suck, but the ratio of meh to good games has increased by 300% since the SNES/MegaDrive times.

>>1

If you want to start with simple games and get stuff on the screen without a lot of fuss, consider Game Maker. You have to program with GM's scripting language to do anything sophisticated, but the backend is there to actually make a low-end commercial-grade presentation(especially if you stick to shmup-type games), and you'll learn some useful programming concepts; GM includes support for some common data structures, and the object/event model can go a long way. You could probably do the assignments of an introductory CS course within GM.

When Game Maker's limitations and bugs aggravate you, and they will, you can try Python or whatever. But the key isn't the language, it's the programmer; learning is just a matter of tackling the "shiny stuff" that seems like it's right in front of you, but takes a little effort to understand. Doesn't matter what the stuff is or if you fail, because you'll learn from each try.

But the key isn't the language, it's the programmer
Truth!

>>1
The Allegro lib may be oldschool 2D (mostly) and for DOS, but it's pretty straight forward. It won't get you in the Win32 programming world, but it will help you learn about graphics APIs. SDL is always mentioned but it's not much more than Allegro + (no dos ugliness) + more multimedia. It still didn't let you add native windows dialogs / menus, AsFarAsIRemember.

Then, again, few others do.

Allegro supports a whole lot more than DOS nowadays, and for a long time now.

So I went with PyGame after reading everything here. Considered GameMaker, but if I'm just going to give up on it a couple of months and have to learn Python anyway, I figured I might as well just start off with PyGame.

I appreciate your advice, everyone.

>>43
Good choice, and best of luck to you!

>>1
I would acually recomend using C/C++ with SDL, using basic C/C++ is quiet easy, and makeing basic games is also quiet easy.
There is no need to understand pointers, typecasting, classes, templates.
As with BASIC, you dont try to learn the most difficult parts at first.
And C/C++ is not going to limmit you WHEN you have learned the basics like BASIC would have.

A method that worked really well for me when I started with C was that i took example programs, ran them, then explored the code, trying to lear what the diffrent commands did.
Eventually i began changeing the code, copypasteing it to new projects and tried to get it to work with other snippes of code.

However if C/C++ is not your way, then you might want to try DarkBasic, a basic style language with some c influence and it as a built-in interface to DirectX.
Another basic compiler would be BlitzBasic, this has even more influences from c/c++ and is a really good language for beginners, and it's mutch more simpler to migrate (if needed) to  other c styled languages later.

Times IS COMING ON   TH SECOND OF   UNIX TIME GOD   WILL DESCEND FROM   HEAVENS AND ALL   COUGH but jeez?

Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy