Adventure Forums

Adventure Forums (https://adventuregamers.com/archive/forums/)
-   AG Underground - Freeware Adventures (https://adventuregamers.com/archive/forums/ag-underground-freeware-adventures/)
-   -   AGS vs SLUDGE (https://adventuregamers.com/archive/forums/ag-underground-freeware-adventures/7411-ags-vs-sludge.html)

Golan 03-20-2005 01:28 PM

AGS vs SLUDGE
 
I'm looking for some information on these two engines from people who have used them. A lot more people have used AGS but hopefully some people that have used the SLUDGE engine will also come forward.

Let's remove the issue of any registration fees. I'll also state that I have proficient photoshop skills. I'll also assume everyone else does so we can remove that variable from argument.

To start off I've noticed that fonts (spoken text) looks better in the two SLUDGE games I've played.

I hope this starts a useful dialogue that highlights the pros and cons of both engines.

SLUDGE link
http://www.hungrysoftware.com/#/tools/sludge/

AGS link
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/

Erwin_Br 03-20-2005 01:44 PM

The fonts look good in SLUDGE because the engine allows you to create an anti-aliasing effect. The letters are just ordinary bitmaps, which allows you to easily create your own fonts.

--Erwin

custard 03-20-2005 01:57 PM

I personally don't think that the fonts are either a pro or con, as long as the font is readable, suits the general theme of the game and not some outrageous colour, it's fine.

Golan 03-20-2005 02:17 PM

I've been looking forward to your game. I hope it comes out soon. Are you still making it with your own engine?

-Jeff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br
The fonts look good in SLUDGE because the engine allows you to create an anti-aliasing effect. The letters are just ordinary bitmaps, which allows you to easily create your own fonts.

--Erwin


Squinky 03-20-2005 10:54 PM

Damn, I haven't posted here in ages, but here goes...

As most of you know, my experience consists exclusively of SLUDGE, considering that the last time I tried AGS, it was DOS-based and ugly.

Why I use SLUDGE:
- The games tend to have a more professional quality to them in appearance, mainly due to the prettier fonts, higher resolutions (though AGS has apparently progressed in that regard, methinks), the fact that less people use it, etc.
- I like the scripting language. Being a computer science student learning Java and C/C++, the fact that the language is very similar to Java/C/C++ is definitely a plus.
- I generally like coding to begin with, since it gives a lot more flexibility than a GUI interface would. The huge diversity in the interfaces of SLUDGE games should speak for itself.
- The engine is pretty much complete and needs very little, if any, improvements. (that is, if all you want to do is make a classic 2D adventure game. If you want to create the next Grim Fandango or whatever, you'd be better off looking elsewhere...)
- The logo is cute, and the name of the engine closely resembles SCUMM. (hence me being able to include a SLUDGE Bar in my upcoming game)
- It runs quite well in Linux using WINE.
- I got to beta-test it.
- After registering, you're basically free to sell your games without having to pay anything extra. (especially since the FMOD licencing has been taken care of and all)
- I've already paid the registration fees, and still have half a game left to finish in it!

Things that bug me about SLUDGE:
- The sprite bank editor only allows you to add one sprite at a time, which is NOT good if you have many frames for a sprite.
- You can't switch between full-screen and windowed mode within the game itself. (in other words, you have to set the mode before the game starts, from a menu of sorts, meaning more work for little old me)
- The edges of sprites can't be anti-aliased.
- I'm just a picky person. Overall, SLUDGE is an excellent engine for my needs.

Jake 03-20-2005 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squinky
The games tend to have a more professional quality to them in appearance, mainly due to [...] the fact that less people use it

Eh? I don't follow that logic...

Wormsie 03-21-2005 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake
Eh? I don't follow that logic...

Those few games that are made with Agast, WME and Sludge really tend to have better graphics than your average AGS game. Maybe it is because Agast, WME and Sludge attract more serious developers because the engines are more coding-oriented. AGS is a "free happy happy joy joy for everybody!!" -kind of engine. You can make good games with it, but it is easy to make bad games with it due to the fact that very little programming is required to create a very basic game. Agast, WME and Sludge all require some programming knowledge before you can create even a two-room thingy.

AGA 03-21-2005 03:15 AM

I'm not really gonna enter this discussion in an 'OMG AGS rules. U all suxxx' manner, mainly because I've only ever used AGS and can't really compare it to other engines. However, squinky, every single good thing you listed about SLUDGE applies also to AGS.

The games also run natively in Linux, although the editor doesn't. Dunno how well it would work under Wine though.
The AGS IDE has come on in leaps and bounds since the DOS days, and is no longer DOS-based and ugly. It's purty now. The scripting language has also recently been overhauled (although the old style still works for those unwilling to change) to be far more object oriented, a la Java and C++.
You're free to sell your AGS games, for free (free to you, not the buyer :P), as long as you use a special MP3-free version of the engine. This is due to the MP3 people wanting huge fees to use their codecs in your product, rather than any restriction imposed by AGS's creator. The other-codecs-only version is fine for you to sell games made using (as evidenced by the relative success of The Adventures of Fatman.

So uh yeah, AGS does stuff too!

From a games-playing perspective, the fact that other engines may be harder to use, even if that does breed a better class of game in the long-run, is not really that good of a thing... There have been two good games made with SLUDGE I can think of off the top of my head, two with AGAST, 1 with Wintermute. All those games were high quality (yours was one, Squinky :)), but two games in what, 3 years of engine development in some cases, is kinda slow going. AGS may have a lot of dross released, but it does have tens, if not approaching hundreds of excellent games.

Wormsie 03-21-2005 03:57 AM

I don't think other engines are that much harder to use if it is a professional-quality game you are wanting to develop. I've tried AGS and my first impressions weren't that good. I dislike the separation of setting the game up and learning to code. These days I find a good GUI almost essential, but I still prefer mainly programming-based things. For example GUIs and events (LookAt, TalkTo) I'd prefer to code rathert than to partly design graphically and partly as code. Setting up a scene in the game is of course easier graphically, as is setting up the game animations. When it comes to other kind of content, though, it's so much easier to just start tinkering with the code than to go through an extensive tutorial to learn the UI, because eventually you need to learn to code anyway... The less programming-oriented you want your engine to be, the more you have to develop the IDE system, but no IDE is comprehensive enough to replace code altogether.

AGA 03-21-2005 04:50 AM

Oh well, different strokes...

Personally I prefer being able to set up visual things, such as room objects and GUIs using a GUI, it allows for more precision, and lets you see how stuff will appear in game. Of course the actual functionality of the GUI and objects is all done in code, which gives you greater control over what stuff does. Events are entirely codeable if that's what you want, btw, all you HAVE to use the editor for is to set up the initial 'interact with object x' thing. Everything after that you can specifiy yourself. This is to ensure that you don't mess up the coding and have 50 different objects with the same name, and have your game crash, I think.

You can make do with an absolute minimum usage of the GUIs - just use it for setting up rooms and importing sprites/character views. If you so desire (and I do), you can script everything else by hand.

Of course you're entitled to prefer another engine because of the way it works, but I find AGS has the perfect blend - you could theoretically create entire games with a minimum of coding if programming scares you, or you could make it almost entirely using programming, adding far more advanced features the GUI doesn't handle. Depends what you want...

If you do prefer coding more though, you might like to try one of the latest betas of AGS, with the new scripting style. Things have been overhauled quite substantially.

Wormsie 03-21-2005 07:10 AM

Perhaps the reason for my dislike of AGS lies in its IDE. The programming interface almost seemed like an afterthought, and almost every aspect of the game had its own edit-screen, which I think is a bit too much. It also seems unflexible, although I'm sure it isn't. It's been a while, though - I will give AGS another try in the future and see how it has developed.

But to make a comment that will help the guy who started this thread: it doesn't matter which engine you choose. You will most probably like it. I liked both Agast and WME (eventually).

The AGS community is a LOT more active than the Sludge community, though, if you care about that kind of stuff. I understand if you do.

AGA 03-21-2005 08:11 AM

Yeah, well, like I said. There IS an IDE screen for pretty much everything, which is good for people who want that kind of thing. However, there is pretty much no aspect of the game you cannot control yourself through scripting if you so desire.

But yeah, like deadworm said, everyone chooses an engine for whatever reason, all of them are capable of making games, it's just some do it in different ways, and have more features.

Golan 03-21-2005 11:20 AM

This is just the kind of constructive discourse I intended. Thanks to everyone who took the time to post.

-Jeff

Erwin_Br 03-21-2005 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGA
as long as you use a special MP3-free version of the engine. This is due to the MP3 people wanting huge fees to use their codecs in your product, rather than any restriction imposed by AGS's creator. The other-codecs-only version is fine for you to sell games made using (as evidenced by the relative success of The Adventures of Fatman.

Does AGS support OGG? It's the format I'm using since it's, as you probably know, open source.

I think AGS's community is its strongest point over SLUDGE, although the people on the SLUDGE forums are very helpful and respond to your questions very quickly as well.

The many windows and options in AGS are a little too much for me. I think the UI should be made more efficient and user-friendly. Perhaps by grouping things together, instead of the many windows for all these different options.

Also, and I'm not too sure about this, but I think I read somewhere that AGS has certain limitations, for example a maximum amount of objects, strings, etc...

--Erwin

Wormsie 03-21-2005 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br
Also, and I'm not too sure about this, but I think I read somewhere that AGS has certain limitations, for example a maximum amount of objects, strings, etc...

...rooms.

It's very unlikely that you would ever need more of those, but MAN, that tells something of the way the engine has been programmed. Sounds... DOSsy. Also, the highest supported resolution is 800*600. 256 colors mode has a strange palette system.

AGS does support OGG.

Also, AGS is WAY slower on high resolutions than WME, Agast or Sludge. Well, I don't know about Sludge, but I'd think so, because AGS isn't optimized for speed at all the last I tested.

I don't know if Sludge supports hardware acceleration (AGS doesn't), but WME and Agast do, and it shows. Those engines are fast.

Can the conversation system in AGS be rewritten? LucasArts mode is very bad.

AGA 03-21-2005 02:08 PM

AGS does support OGG, yeah.

As for limitations, yes, there are a number, but I don't think it's much of an issue. Some people have come close, and asked CJ (engine's creator) to raise them. So he did :) I suspect all the engines have some virtual limitations, they just don't tell you what they are. Infinite numbers would bog the system down majorly I reckon.

As for the speeds at which AGS runs compared to other engines, I dunno, I have a fast processor... However, AGS is always been enhanced (the latest version has reached about 20 betas, each of them adding and fine-tuning features), so it may be much faster than the last time you checked. Dunno.

The 'strange palette system' is for customisable palettes, something I think 8-bit artists want (don't ask me though, I'm no artist)

Conversation systems, like all GUI aspects, can be customised, yes.

As for speed at higher reses, pff, who needs anything above 640x400 anyway?! :P

Wormsie 03-21-2005 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGA
As for speed at higher reses, pff, who needs anything above 640x400 anyway?! :P

Hand drawn at 1024*768 with 32-bit colors looks VERY pretty. Project Joe proves this, I think.

EDIT: Then again, those who go for that resolution also tend to make extensive use of animations, alpha blending and animations and have such a high frame rate that the game slows down anyway. *thinks of the Curves of Danger* :shifty:

Kazmodan 03-21-2005 02:48 PM

Actually, speed at higher res is a downside of AGS that I hope to see improved. Saying "who needs more than 640x480 anyway" is like Bill Gates saying, "640K should be enough for everyone" (or something like that). Even with anti-aliased backgrounds and characters, the "jaggies" are still more noticable than at higher resolutions. And on CRT monitors (yes, they're still alive, preffered by many gamers, and cost less than LCDs) higher resolutions look much sharper than lower.

That being said, you can't beat free. Wintermute has its "whatever the engine's author deems necessary" royaltee amount if you make a commercial game, SLUDGE requires a registration fee, and a general vibe I got about AGAST is "well, it's got these bad bugs but some people have found work-arounds" and its slow update and bug-fix pace. Somehow those choices don't sound too apealing to me. For now, AGS seems like a lesser of the "evils". :devil: This may sound a bit extreme but I would either go for AGS for something casual or a classic 2D style of old days because the engine is free OR if I wanted to do a lot of coding, I would move onto something like CrystalSpace, which is what's being used for the upcoming "Keepsake" game. Perhaps "Blender" (also free for commercial stuff) for making pre-rendered backgrounds and characters if I wanted a 3D'ish look. But that's just IMO.

Also, I do have a bit of a worry about whether AGS continues to stay free or not. While CJ often jokes about it becoming non-free on April 1st(s), as soon as someone steers the conversation in a serious direction, he doesn't give a clear answer and says that he can't promise anything. I wouldn't want him to suddenly switch it to require fees in the middle of a game development. Also, when it comes to commercial projects with AGS, doesn't the license say (or used to) that you're pretty much required to send a free copy of your game to Chris? Which is actually ok. The use of the full engine is still free.

AGA 03-21-2005 02:54 PM

There is not a chance in hell of AGS ever becoming commercial. I've met CJ 4 or 5 times now, and every time the question has come up. People have suggested he take donations and such, but he says until the day comes he loses his job and becomes completely penniless he wouldn't ever consider it. So no :P

As for the free copy thing, it's not a must-do thing, it's just a cheeky little suggestion. I doubt very much CJ would ever block a game's release just because he didn't get his free copy.

Kazmodan 03-21-2005 03:11 PM

I would be much more inclined to send him a free copy and maybe make a donation if AGS, indeed, was still free at a time of my game release than if he required something upfront. That's why I think AGS would be the least risky to go with. I have to admit though that if Wintermute didn't have its commercial license the way it is now, it would've been my engine of choice. :P But for now, if it's 2D, it's AGS, even if I'm making a non-commercial game (because free is free!). Also, when I said "old style", I didn't mean to make it sound "outdated". I meant the hand-drawn style that adventures used to be in. I would very much enjoy playing a 2D adventure game with the level of skill in drawings and illustrations that were used in "Lord of the Rings" movie (and DVD menus). Heck, even if they were kept pencil-only drawings without coloring, it would still be a great feeling to play something with that style.

Erwin_Br 03-21-2005 03:47 PM

Yeah, the licenses in AGAST and Wintermute made me decide to pick SLUDGE. If AGAST and Wintermute had a fixed price, it might've been less easy to choose. SLUDGE commercial license costs 50 bucks for unlimited distribution, which is a very good deal, IMHO. I paid double that amount for tools like Dark Basic, MultiMedia Fusion and Jamagic.

--Erwin

Brushguy 03-21-2005 06:50 PM

I found AGS to be slow at high resolutions and difficult to run the program itself. However, I found SLUDGE to be much more flexible, easy to use, and capable of making much more satisfying results. I'm not saying either engine is better than the other overall - I'm just saying that I like SLUDGE better. The downside of SLUDGE is its lack of compatibility with anything but TGAs, and the fact that it costs $50 to register.

Toefur 03-22-2005 12:28 AM

That's the only thing I don't like about AGS. It's too slow with high res and high colour graphics.

I couldn't figure out Sludge.

custard 03-22-2005 01:39 AM

AGS is perfect for what i need to do - 320x200, none of the alpha blending, hardly no need for 32bit. I tried SLUDGE and didn't really, well 'get' it. That's the good thing about have a few programs to choose from it's likely that they can all do pretty much the same things, so you can choose what interface you like working with etc.

Quote:

Hand drawn at 1024*768 with 32-bit colors looks VERY pretty. Project Joe proves this, I think.
All very nice indeed, but really how often do you see these projects finished by an amateur group?

Wormsie 03-22-2005 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by custard
All very nice indeed, but really how often do you see these projects finished by an amateur group?

Graphics aren't everything, sure. It might be better to give in at some point in the development process - if the project benefits from low-res graphics, making the development process easier, go for it.

Dragonrose 03-22-2005 07:42 AM

I tried really really hard to use SLUDGE. It was just WAY too open ended for me. I'm not a programmer, I'm a writer and an artist. If I want to make a game, I need an engine that will tell me exactly what to do at all times; one that will take care of all the coding garbage and let me focus on all my right brained fluff. AGS does that. SLUDGE didn't.

To be honest, I don't care about game speed, or resolution, or anything like that. I didn't even know what resolution was until I started working on my second game. I don't care if it has anti-aliasing or what speed it runs at. I just have an idea for a game that I think would be cool, and AGS is a quick and easy program to make the game with. If I was making my game in SLUDGE, I'd have to have a firm grasp on every tiny aspect of my game. AGS does most of the nitpicky things for me.

Translation: I like AGS because I'm lazy.

If you want to make a high resolution, full colour game and have complete control over every bit of data, than SLUDGE might be for you. If you just want to be able to tell your story through an Adventure game, maybe you should look at AGS.

Golan 03-22-2005 11:04 AM

from the Sludge FAQ #6
6: Why not 24-bit colour? Simply because SLUDGE was developed in 16-bit colour mode, so it stuck. Maybe, if there's enough call for it, 24-bit colour will be available as an option later... but increasing the size of data files so much for the sake of smoother gradients seems like too high a price to pay for the moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonrose
If you want to make a high resolution, full colour game and have complete control over every bit of data, than SLUDGE might be for you.


Kazmodan 03-22-2005 11:19 AM

Dragonrose,

Even though I understand what you said, I would like to comment on some of the things but please don't take them as anything offensive. I just wanted to say that in this day and age, "just artists and writers" aren't always what they used to be. For example, people working in film and game industries that do exclussively 3D rendering, animation work or various special effects are also artists, and I've seen several forum posts where some people complained about having to know various 3D rendering programs scripts, such as Maya's MEL scripts. Well, this is normal and is often necessary in this age. An artist who works with computers is also a little bit of a programmer or a scripter. On the other hand, big companies usually have dedicated programmers and scripters to help alleviate artists' work. But at least basic scripting knowledge for an artist is often a big plus. And the code or scripts is definitely not garbage. I feel bad for the programmers that have to stay up late, eat bad, live on coffee just to get a project done in time. I appreciate their work. Not saying you don't. But just wanted to point out that a little scripting or programming shouldn't scare an artist or a writer. :)

Dragonrose 03-22-2005 11:57 AM

Kazmodan: No offence taken, and I completely agree. If artists/writers don't want to have anything to do with programming, then working with computers is probably not the best idea. You need at least a basic idea of how a game must be put together if you're going to write it, and if you're creating 3D art, you're as much a programmer as an artist.

In my case, I've got just enough knowledge of programming that I can use a graphical engine like AGS. However, a scripting only engine is beyond me.

And saying "coding garbage" was a poor word choice on my part. "Garbage" was just a filler word. I could just as easily have used "stuff" or something.

Golan: I'm sorry if I got my facts muddled. Deadworm mentioned 32-bit colour being used in a game. It didn't click at the time that he was talking about Wintermute, not SLUDGE.

Kazmodan 03-22-2005 12:26 PM

No worries. :) I had a feeling you just meant "mess". Which is true, code and scripts can become a mess and a pain to sort through.

Wormsie 03-22-2005 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonrose
Golan: I'm sorry if I got my facts muddled. Deadworm mentioned 32-bit colour being used in a game. It didn't click at the time that he was talking about Wintermute, not SLUDGE.

I'm too lazy to check what I actually said, but I had no idea Sludge only supports 16-bit graphics.

Erwin_Br 03-22-2005 02:02 PM

My code isn't that neat either. I'm not a very good programmer either. Graphics and animation are more my thing. But putting comments in my code makes it easier to follow.

--Erwin

Golan 03-23-2005 11:02 AM

There is something that has happened in the realm of media and film that I would like to touch on. I'll get to that later.

Artistically Strong, Technically week:
Within this topic of underground adventure games where usually one person is doing the work it seems that if that individual has strong skills in writing, composition (design, as in making things look good to the eye), and general artistic ability (the ability to output finely crafted work) that the resulting game would most likely be enjoyable. One of the side effects of having a skill in composition is that you also get a compulsion correctly implement composition and design into all your work. My point is that if learning how to work with code/scripting is an integral part of having a good design a person with the above skills would naturally force themselves to learn at least the minimum needed or find some way of getting it done.

Technically Strong, Artistically week:
Now I will get back to the topic I hinted to at the beginning. There is a reverse to the skills previously mentioned. There are some people who are very very good at coding and scripting but don't really have the artistic background or writing skills needed to make the resulting game enjoyable. There is no compulsion to learn the artistic skills simply by having the technical skills as the former skill set has. So for the person with this skill set to make a good game the compulsion to bring it all together and actually make an enjoyable must come from within the individual. This may be more common then you would think as most people I know who do well with the technical end of computing got that way from the compulsion and desire to learn it. So with the right self motivation in place a person artistically week can still make a good game it will just take more work.

Oh, media and film... right... There are some well known schools out there that train people in the technical end of the graphic arts. These schools don't teach design and composition but never the less their graduates call themselves graphic artist.

There are other skill sets out there that I did not touch on. There are some people that are good at both artistic and technical skills and as far as the mostly solo hobby of underground adventure gaming goes also most likely to produce the best output.

-- Rant Start --
The Professionals:
All this gets me thinking how a bad professional level adventure game ever gets made. If you get a team together of people who are very good at a few things and you have the right designer to orchestrate them and top it off with a good story you would think that a good game would be a no brainer. After hearing the horrible voice acting in the Black Mirror while my girlfriend played it I could not force myself to sit through it and play the game myself. Why go through all the work and drop the ball like that.
Just look at how a pixar movie gets made. Everyone is specialized to the extreme. Even if you don't like their films you have to admit that they do nice work. You know something goes wrong when you get a good team that makes something that is below them. A film like Star Wars Episode I can have the best people working on it and still be bad because of the week plot of just the person in charge.
-- Rant End --

There are also people like myself that fit into another group altogether. I'll call the group learners for lack of a better term. I'm not a great artist but I know good design when I see it. I have the technical skills of photoshop but lack previous knowledge of coding/scripting. I can learn how to script, I've just not been exposed to it before. If I was on a team I guess I would be a facilitator / coordinator. I have enough general knowledge to effectively bridge the gap in communication between a genetic engineer an auto mechanic and an astronomer. As far as my own work in adventure gaming is concerned I hope to produce something worth spending at least five minutes on.

Links and definitions: (not in order)

Artist (as related to this topic) - Someone who can command artistic ability, composition and design. Death is optional but a necessary long term goal for optimal results.

Artistic Ability (as related to this topic) - the ability to output finely crafted work.

Artistic skill set (clarification) - Writing and any of the separate skills it takes to be an Artist (see Artist). For this topic photoshop or some other paint software is required to completely express Artistic Ability (see Artistic Ability) and so is under this skill set.

Technical skill set (clarification) - Anything not in the Artistic skill set. Easy enough. I'll throw in character animation software here assuming that the original work was generated using some artistic skill. If you paint into the software directly it would be a form of paint software and then should be listed under the Artistic skill set.

http://www.markryden.com/ artist ( still alive), be inspired by his odd work.
http://www.fullsailsucks.com/ site still down story below
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2...prweb89175.htm

Kazmodan 03-23-2005 11:43 AM

Just like many things in life, the definition of an "artist" has evolved over time as well, IMO. Even one of the definitions of an artist at www.webster.com is "One who is adept at something". And you've probably seen books and/or articles with titles like "The Art of Programming". Simply put, a result of combined effort at giants like Pixar would not have been possible without all the people involved, especially considering the time it was accomplished at. Can an artist paint a photorealistic-looking ocean that is also fully animated and realistically reacts to some sort of physical action that is happening on it? Not without proper tools like Maya. That is why there are research teams for products like Maya that study the fluid formulas, then translate them into code, which allows people to play around with how different things would react on ocean waves, for example. Half the fun is to experiment with the physics rather than have a "pre-drawn" plan on how the waves would act in your specific scenario.

Let's take "Lord of the Rings", for example. It involved a team of programmers, 3D artists, pencil artists, sculptors and more to archieve many results you see in the movie. Could a sculptor or a painter make the same incredible looking battles scenes with computer AI that acts on its own? Could the 3D rendering and animation team easily have such detailed models without first having an actual sculpture that was later laser-scanned into Maya? Sure, something like ZBrush might come close but if you have an option for a real sculptor, that would probably be preferrable. Could the crew easily envision what the Shire would look like without the amazing pencil drawings on-the-spot first? Probably not as easily. The point is that all of them depend on each other for big projects like that. I personally like this balance. It's true that in big teams, even with 3D animation and rendering, you'd probably do only a small part. You may just be asked to make a face model, then the next guy will animate it, the next will make textures for it, and so on. But it is always preferred that you know a little extra than your specialty, be it programming/scripting or arts and design.

Look at webdesigners, for example. If you post at webdesign forums that you're looking for a graphics artist for your sites, and that you will share the profits, you will be laughed at because as a webdesigner you are expected to know Photoshop and at least basic 3D. Not to mention all the coding of the pages and latest web technologies. On the other hand, once you're no longer a one-man team, there probably will be dedicated people for various tasks. In order to get a job for just one task, however, you're still required to know much more.

Anyway, the point is that I like that balance and that cooperation is often needed for truely talented projects. :)

Why do some big game or film projects fail? Time constraints and pressure, bad actors, bad directors, bad management, bad vision of what a particular story should look like in a game of film medium, narrow-minded view in a story or even too much propaganda. Then there are budget issues too. If you can't hire best people for a job, or if you can't afford all the needed resources, you have to cut corners and it shows in a final project.

Just IMO. :)

netmonkey 03-23-2005 12:48 PM

I think these adventure game creation utilities are more like consoles like Super Nintendo and Genesis or GameCube, XBOX, and Playstation 2. I'm sure they all have their strength and weakneses, but it's about what you can make out and what you want to do with them and not what they can actually do! You look at what they offer, and then make something good out of them.

From personal experience, high-resolution games cost a lot more time to make because of all the hand drawn and detail work that has to be put on them. I think this is another reason why people working with AGS choose low resolutions, other than the fact that they want the old-school look. But that's why people can make more great and stupid games with AGS, because they can pull out a game a lot quicker that way.

I really never tried out SLUDGE, so I can't compare them both. Though I think I'll download it and look around it, though!

Wormsie 03-23-2005 01:28 PM

Good scripting isn't necessarily important. "The Breakdown" is apparently very badly scripted. In the Curves of Danger -team, we have one professional programmer, and me. The professional programmer makes so much better code I can't believe it.

Kazmodan 03-23-2005 05:58 PM

Heh, bad scripting knowledge is still a bit better than none at all. :)

omloflump 03-24-2005 05:06 AM

Hey, at least you PC users can have this discussion. It's like people arguing over whether to buy a Porche® or Mercedes™ in front of a hobo - which, in this case, is us poor Mac users.

Trumgottist 03-26-2005 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br
although the people on the SLUDGE forums are very helpful and respond to your questions very quickly as well.

I agree. :)

As a side note, I'd also like to add that I've found the scripting-based style of Sludge interesting in itself. Sludge itself has no concept of a room, it's all done in the scripting. The implementing of some of the more strange ideas I've had have required some creative thinking, but as a side effect that also inspired me to come up with the best and most interesing puzzles in my game. It suits me very well.

Enter the Story 03-28-2005 05:12 AM

I have twice seriously investigated AGS, and both times was nearly converted, but both times chose to use/stay with Sludge.

First let me say that I am highly impressed with AGS. If you want to make a game quickly and easily, you can't beat AGS.

However...

I choose Sludge because I am making a very big game (several thousand rooms - though so far it only has a few hundred - I am only a couple of years into it). Sludge for me has the following advantages:

1. Speed at high resolutions, as others have noted.

2. Flexibility - I did not like some of the ways that AGS does things. That is just a personal preference - I think AGS is great. But Sludge basically gives you a blank sheet to work with.I like that.

3. Limits. Sludge allows 65,500 of anything (objects, strings, etc.) In my game I will be pushing against that limit in the strings department, and possibly in the functions department as well. Both times I checked, AGS had much lower limits, so it just wasn't an option for a very big game.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Design & Logo Copyright ©1998 - 2017, Adventure Gamers®.
All posts by users and Adventure Gamers staff members are property of their original author and don't necessarily represent the opinion or editorial stance of Adventure Gamers.