A while back Lee made a request asking us for some advice about how we could deal with certain negative views. These reviews specifically mention time and again the fact that GameGuru to many feels like just a level editor, and Lee wanted some suggestions on how we would fix that.

Unfortunately i can't find that post now, and i didn't want to just email Lee directly because it would be nice to get some community views on it too.

I've been speaking to quite a few of the people on Steam about why they find GameGuru feels like just a level editor, and one of the recurring themes is that while it does do multiple level games, the process feels disconnected, it's not intuitive how to achieve this, and a lot of people don't realize that it can be done.

The biggest reason for this is that the maps are created, edited, and saved separately, and you have to add a winzone and place the name of the new map in the ifused field. This is not very intuitive and can be easily overlooked.

My idea would be to instead of having to handle all maps seperately, make it so that when you start creating a game, you create a Project, this would create a project folder in which the maps for the game would be stored in the mapbank.

There would then be a "Map" tab on the toolbar, in which much the same as adding entities you can click a button to add a new map, a box would come up where you can enter the name of the new map and choose random or flat etc. all maps would be listed the same as entities, and you could switch between them by clicking their icons (it would prompt a save each time you switch the same as normal), you would also have on the pop up an option to import a map from another project.

So the process would be:

1. File > New Project
2. In the Pop up name your project and click OK
3. In the side bar, click the add new map icon
4. in the pop up choose import map, new flat map, or new random map, fill out the name field, and click OK
5. create your level as normal, and if you want more levels repeat step 3 and 4.

As to the winzone, it could be changed so that instead of having to type the name of the map into the ifused field, it has a "Map" drop down that lists all the maps in the project folder.

While this wouldn't change much in the way of functionality, and yes would add a few steps, it would give the appearance of a "larger project" to those who are seeing GameGuru for the first time, and i believe would help reduce the number of people complaining that it's just a level editor.

An added bonus is that with it being based off of a project rather than each individual map, there is scope to have your standalone game name as the project name and not the first map name, plus for future updates there would be a UI available (the new map pop up) if someone could open up the setup.ini settings to be able to be selected on map creation for individual maps.

What do you guys think?

I don't think the answer is so complex
Having used Many Game " Editors " in the past .. Radiant , Hammer , Farcry etc I think the reason is far more simple ..
GameGuru looks and works like a Games map editor .. The only real difference is you cannot create a standalone game with any of the above but you can with GameGuru .. I don't consider that a bad thing though .. its the Level Editor style that makes GG so easy to use ..

Imagine if you could make a standalone game with this or similar editors out there … GG is unique in the fact you can

That's true as well, it's one of many reasons people feel this way about GameGuru. However that's something that cannot be changed, as 's an integral part of the engine, and serves an important purpose. However small changes like i outlined, in my opinion, and in the opinion of quite a few negative reviewers that i messaged, could make it feel more like and engine, it's whole perception of a larger project thing. It's not a complete solution, just something simple that could give the illusion that it is more than they think.

I was also thinking along these lines to solve a few issues with one solution. The user would essentially start their journey creating a 'game project' rather than a single level, and from this 'project overview' they could create title menus, loading pages, non-linear multiple levels, endgame screens, etc. The user would then drop down through one of the level items to get to what we have now, editing an individual level. I also like the idea of the WinZone picking up any other levels in the current project!

Before I start sketching out a rough idea of the 'game project UI', feel free to add anything else you feel should be in this section. Perhaps a tab (or something) to show the SAVE STANDALONE feature right there in the project management space, instead of buried in the FILE menu, as I think some new users miss the fact that you can save and sell your finished games as standalone binaries.

I like this Project approach.

Also a possibility.. when we made our first level and move on to the next.. we have the option to load all entities from the first level into the sidebar of the second level.. so we don't have to find/search for entities (again).

I meant to add that in the opening post. It would be assumed that the entities would be loaded into project space for the sake of selection, and be usable between maps. That would be the logical process.



That was something else i was thinking about too. The standalone process is hidden in menus, and I've noticed it's had to be pointed out a few times in the past, creating a button or option somewhere more visible would be a great idea, likewise the character creator, importer, and other less visible features need to be more visible too. Maybe in the top bar to the right, there's plenty of blank space there.

I have to admit the project approach is a good idea ..
Leadwerks uses a similar approach but the projects are stored in Documents \ Leadwerks \ My project \
Along with all the assets, scripts used … Kind of like loading your GG standalone back in .

The main advantage is if you ever have to uninstall GG you can load your map back in assets and all quite easily

This is something i could get behind.

Unity also has you start out creating a new "Project". I think it's an idea worth exploring and building on.

I like the idea. Of course we should be sure what we want before Lee waste his time again on a feature which is broken.

I would like to choose my folder myself Like in any other dev tool.

Also I need an option to work without a project. Sometimes I create a lot of maps for testing and pilots for games. Always open a project for this is not ideal.
The project file should just contain the level path and the setup.ini. Everything else should be stored in the level file. Of course you can save data if you reuse items, but you can also waste a lot of memory and then we are at the ram cap again.

If you want to see that I liked the idea, I copy and pasted a picture how I thought it can look like



The settings are the setup.ini which opens in notepad or anything else

@ Lee, if you're considering a 'Game Project UI', please consider the follow features:
- Per-level loading screens
- Video support, for animated menus and loading screens (.mp4, maybe .wmv)
- Pre-main menu video support for studio idents/logos
- A credits screen where the big lists can scroll, and/or fade in and out
- Buttons that support idle, hover-over, and clicked textures
- A GUI to facilitate the editing of all this in-editor, the LUA commands alone are not enough

That should give you enough to be getting on with

AE

Those of us who also used Dark Basic Pro should remember creating projects. That's how Lee created it. I was somewhat surprised he didn't carry that through to FPSC. But it worked fine for me in having a level (map) editor and combining them. If I remember right Ertlov was one of the master DBP users on the DBP forum a lot. I was excited that he has an interest in Reloaded and then of course GG. It would be nice to have the ability of a project creator to keep you levels available in a project folder -- something of that nature.

I'm glad this has gotten a good response, although it's not something that is necessary for the engine itself, i feel it's something that could be important to the software from a business perspective, it's all about how the software is presented to new users, and if we can present GameGuru in a way that shows it's en engine rather than just a level designer, while retaining he level designer style ease of use, we might be able to retain some of those customers that were put off by it.

I also think that going the project route is a great idea, thanks Belidos for bringing it up, I think if Lee goes for it that he is setting himself up with a lot of work for the future.

Project is a pretty good idea, very standard and easy to grok. Maybe on program load people get greeted with a menu such as:

New Project
Open Project
Open Recent Project
Open Map
Open Recent Map

If nothing else it'll certainly decrease program load time by not immediately loading a map into the editor.

No, that wasn`t me, I was one of the FPSC users roaming the forum - of course we also dipped our toes into DBPro, but there were much more active people around.

Ertlov, sorry. It seems that my demented-mind gets things wrong a lot. I think with me it's the Mandela effect.

I like the idea of projects. Its something I myself and probably many more may be familiar with. It would also help dispel some of the stigmas of Game Guru being just a map editor; since currently there is no obvious way to create your level sequences, since its only handled by Win Zones (or Lua).

A project system would be a good idea I think, as long as it does not cause unnecessary bloat as in some other engines. It would soon start taking a lot of HDD space if all projects copied media into each project folder. If however it could simply reference the objects in their existing directories, that would be a great addition

Another "issue" that comes up a lot in conjunction with the "level designer" argument is something Nomad mentioned in his steam review...



He's right, editing stuff outside of GameGuru is just awkward and clumsy, and (this is where it ties into the idea here) having to mess with the setup.ini for every map you make is just annoying, if these things were added as settings to the project maps individually so we could have different settings per map, it would make a huge difference.

@Lee



Was there ever any movement with this?

Not sure how long something like this would take to implement but it's DEFINITELY a step in the right direction.

Please include a search input box to find entities.

Maybe it is just to big for one man? That and the obvious fact that Game Guru has never really had a clear direction for reaching any kind of goal.

Project Based Approach:
The project idea is - in my mind - the obvious way of creating a game. When built the game would then have the projects name as the title.

Loading Screens:
These should be level specific. This way they can be reflect the level being played, rather than being generic for the whole game. So when you run the standalone the first screen would be the main intro to the game: title, about, save, load etc. Once you select load or play the screen for the level being played would then be used for the loading bar thingy.

Settings FX:
Edits made in settings.fx should be applied per map not the whole engine, and should be editable in the editor. Many of those settings would be a simple checkbox, some with a numeric entry as well. The tabbed menu on the left of the editor could be utilized for this.

Using the project idea, each map could be listed in the hierarchy, and to change the sequence of the maps just move them up or down in the list.

Reliquia....

I agree with what has already been said, If the project
method fixes the biggest issues, Belidos-- The project
idea seems excellent. As long as....

A > Standalones MUST be reliable and contain and perform
just like they do in the test mode. Why are you building a
game with broken trigger points, video links, missing entities,
etc if it's supposed to be a game creator?!

B > Custom Menu Creation MUST be included in the editor.
(I actually would recommend) and support a GG specific
menu creator DLC software. I'd have no problem purchasing
that-- if the quality, and features are there. I don't think relying
on a 3rd party is the best route.

Some secondary features would be nice (copy and past),
widget upgraded, for example, but I won't delve into all
those at the moment.

A > and B > are two very simple and I think very relevant needs
for GG to be more than just a level editor. I almost reviewed
GG on steam recently, and if I did today, that is exactly what I
would have to call it-- a level creator and not easily recommend
it for a "Game Creator". In my opinion it's time to evolve past
the First Person Shooter level maker, and on to new and bigger
things! I would always review the community in the best positive
way though!!

I'm still holding out on a review for a bit though, because I'm
a very honest and straight forward kind of person...

I hope you remember to post all the good points about GG as well then because there is a lot of good to list .. More ups than downs really. But I find many tend to forget those bits in reviews

A whole LOT of good stuff has happened for GG
lately. True. And it's been accomplished by the
great dedicated people of this forum right here!

I still really want to see as listed above...

Oh I want to see more than that hopefully
Copy and Paste is something I have been wanted for a long time now. You can grab an object and extract a duplicate and you can grab multiple objects so why you cannot extract more then one is a mystery . I believe Lee did have the feature in once ( unreleased version ) but it caused a problem so he removed it and hasnt addressed it since .

My game uses 100% custom assets so i cant say i have had any problems with models not copying over so I usually assume this kind of thing is older assets especially old fpe,s which contains most of the info the engine requires to copy to a standalone.

What i would give for a good menu maker .. I spent hours creating mine but at least its it is doable if not awkward . All the other 3D engines i own on steam just have a simple lua script and you have to create your own from scratch which i cannot do

yes x 1000000000000 - i'm too lazy to even attempt a project in GG again until this gets added - cloning objects in lua would be nice too.

Now this has probably been mentioned before but I also find that GG makes it pretty hard for a complete newbie to assume there is anything other than a map editor.

I mean, if you open it up, you see a big green empty terrain and a bunch of navigation tools. Now, older users might intuitively guess that the scripts and media is stored in the many subfolders and can be manipulated with external software as we are used to that BUT I would guess that most people are used to these modern "toolkit" interfaces where you have access to everything straight from the engine's development kit. People want to see slick grey interfaces with values and sliders, importers, modifiers and ad nauseum.
The lack of this might lead a user to believe that placing a few pre-digested objects on the map is indeed all GG is capable of.

I don't really want this to change mind you, I find straight to the point simplicity appealing, just pointing out how someone new might perceive this.

Well, yes. But it's more than the fact the GG does not provide access to this stuff via it's UI. It's the fact that it's a treasure hunt to find various files here, there, and somewhere else, just to make this, that, or the other work the way you want it to. And all this comes with the "easy game maker" tag line.

Not for at least a year now .. Look again

@Synchro ,
GameGuru website...
3rd scrolling intro screen.

"Game Guru is EASY to use."

Unird12b

Yep. Even the tag line, "Game making for everyone" implies ease of use. "Everyone" includes children, non-programmers, inexperienced game makers and game maker wannabes. It also includes the opposite - those that know what they are doing when making a game. Have scattered config files, fx files, and other scripts that all have to be accessed to just get your game working is not for "everyone", especially when the documentation does not tell you where to go to find them and what to adjust. You have to hunt for the info on the internet and most of the information you need comes from other users, not from the creator of GG.

Well like me your still here so I assume you find it easier than other engines.
I only mentioned the tagline had changed and it no longer says " Easy GameMaker "

I'm here because 1) I have a license of GG and wouldn't mind using it for a project and 2) I like game engines (including GG) and have a few of them that I toy with. Having said that, no, I don't find GG easier to use than, say, Godot or S2. Initially, yes. For simple prototyping, yes. But because it is pretty inflexible, has to have so many work-arounds, and because you have to hunt for things to change (scripts, FPE files, etc.), it becomes more difficult to work with than most engines out there. So, no, I personally won't be using GG for any projects ... not unless some things get fixed (memory issues, lighting issues, stability, etc.).

For me that's the challenge .. A blank engine and create a game .. Where there's a will there's a way. A lot of issues can be overcome by simple manipulation and for me that's where the fun is.
But that's just me

@synchromesh - I agree with you there Syncromesh. Anyone can in theory plop down some entities, add a few zombies or soldiers, and create a shooter, but trying to create something original is going to take a lot of work outside of GG.

Protoscope is a fantastic example of what you can do with a little thought and some custom assets, I recently had a look at Lumberyard, yes that is powerful, BUT easy or at least simple to grasp NO.

To create something original always take more effort, and in GG it is just a matter of learning lua, if you dont already know it, and using a few extra apps.

In my latest project, 80% of the scripts are custom, save and load even in test game. Switches, electricity supplies, etc etc.

But your Protoscope really inspired me to learn and get into Gameguru even more than I already was.

Yes the lighting could be better, Yes the stability could be better, and that widget needs sorting out, still getting entities flying off into the sky sometimes. But on the whole Lee is doing a fantastic job.

A few external apps I use are listed below for new users out there.

Notepad++ for lua script creation.
Paint.net for sprites and pixel graphics and texture edits.
Soundforge for simple audio editing.

Yes, of course. But what you just said can be applied to ANY game engine, not just GG. So, that's kind of a mute argument. If other engines have more going for them and you have to jump through the same or similar hoops (i.e. "that's where the fun is"), then why use GG over these other engines?



That would take a lot of work inside of GG, too.



And if you're going to learn LUA, then that opens the door to using several other game engines, too - like Leadwerks (just as an example). Or if you're going to learn a scripting language at all (and it doesn't have to be LUA), then that opens up the door to using most game engines out there. So, why put up with GG's lackluster, feature poor editor, GG's broken lightmapping, and more?

GG has potential (else I would not be posting here), so I am not completely knocking the engine. But it's not simple to use beyond a certain point, is broken in some areas, and requires the end-user to learn about things that it never addresses in its documentation.

How to fix the negative reviews? Addressing some of the over 100 issues posted on github might be a good start...

Because I can actually make the game I want to with what GG is currently capable of.
I decided to look at all the positive side of GameGuru and forget what It couldn't do ... So far so good.

I dabble a little in leadwerks as well which also has its ups and downs so for me a new engine is just new set of problems to work around and they all have their own little issues.

I use gameguru because, it does what I need it to and quickly. Simple to use. Lots of free assets and I have bought a lot too.

Let's not forget about the community here. We can moan and groan about GG's problems, but there are a lot of good people here who can help.

I'm sure Lee is working hard behind the scenes to fix all the bugs and glitches, but I agree that a little more news about the progress would be good to hear.

I use Game Guru because I absolutely love it.

The whole approach to game dev in this tool just feels natural. There are of course issues but that is to be expected with any development project.

The suggestions in this thread would greatly improve this engine, but those of us here since GG's birth know that they are very unlikely to be implemented any time soon, if ever.

Negative reviews on Steam rarely amount to any kind of effort put in by the reviewer - I mean some may actually have a serious go at it, but more than likely the old - 'oh, I have to put some effort into this' - scenario is probably the case.

That said you won't address negative reviews by simply doing nothing, or by keeping quiet about what is being done behind the scenes.

Any tool in development needs to be accompanied by input from the developers. And requires direction and focus.

I feel the biggest negatives for Game Guru are simple:
1) No news from top brass: What is being worked on? What has been fixed?
2) Lacks any real focus: We are well into to 2019, and we still have no idea what is on the agenda.
3) Things that are clearly bells and whistles keep getting the focus of development while real issues are not being tackled.
4) Silence, when coupled with the above makes one think nothing is happening.

What disappoints me the most is that Game Guru is UNIQUE and has a huge potential to be truly awesome, but I get the impression than only the community here feels that way.

And when there is a new born baby - AGK-S - all the above makes one think it has ALL the attention.

Reliquia....

Just a couple cents here. I think there are so many things that could easily be put into the properties panels of entities (by those who know how to do such things of course) that they might offer some greater ease-of -use of the product. Just a thought.

If we really want to compete with other engines we need a lot more. Look at the bugs quantity from godot:
https://github.com/godotengine/godot/labels/bug

Wow I just looked at the comparison between the two

With over 400 issues fixed in the span of only month:
https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pulse/monthly

Compared to 4 issues fixed in the same span of time:
https://github.com/TheGameCreators/GameGuruRepo/pulse/monthly

But understandable given the team size difference. 75 authors vs 2.

A large team of devs certainly will speed up bug fixes and many improvements.

I have Godot but I find it nowhere near as easy or intuitive as GG, once you get used to GG's way of working I enjoy it, having to jump out of GG and edit a lua script or design some sprites or textures and music, breaks up the monotony of working solely on one engines screen.

I can get things working in GG that would take a heck of a lot of extra effort in Godot, or lumberyard etc.

So come on everyone keep the flag flying. (Any news from the top man would be amazing too)

GG has it's issues, we all know. It's for certain bettered by many, many engines. But, it is still one of the easiest to use. Many leave for Unreal or Unity and end up coming back with no mention of how they fared with them. At a guess too fiddly, time consuming and difficult. With far less support from other users. Certainly GG must have something for people to return at all.

The problem is it's such a low price steam item now that unless TGC are selling a shed load everyday they aren't making much cash. I think the idea was put GG out cheap and rely on store and DLC revenue as the main money area. That obviously didn't quite go as planned, but DLC is still GG's key area for making any cash I would imagine.

So no surprise AGK is getting the attention at the moment. I always thought GG should have been coded in AGK so as to get the benefits of a modern language. I got AGK before GG, so it's been around awhile although, as an aside for people here, be aware AGK is now on it's 3rd iteration. I can't speak for the new version, but AGK2 is pretty powerful and would run GG way better. Not that that is an option now. But why it was not used I am unsure (well apart wanting to use old FPSC source code). It would have been ideal as it also would have opened the door for mult-platform at some point.

This is definitely the quietest start of the year I have seen for some time with GG, it normally having several updates before settling down again for the end of the year. I think we will have to be patient for a long time to come

For anyone thinking GG is really hard to get into (it really isn't too bad) take a look at this.

I was playing about with this just yesterday. I'm sure some of you programmers will recognise this language This code doesn't do too much, (people are free to guess!) but is what I would call on the harder side of coding. I have very little understanding of it as yet and probably never will, unless I can find a decent book on it. This is very simple stuff I imagine and to make a game would be quite the task! It boggles my mind. I mostly understood what the code above does, but it is very weird compared to normal languages and the only book I purchased about it put me off for 30+ years lol. Typically it was the only book I could find online either!

Still I digress. I just thought I'd show an example of something not for everyone! Consider yourselves lucky At one point this sort of thing was your only option to make a decent game or application. That's why not that many did! Although I blame the book I purchased now, as it was just poor and made me think it was much harder than it actually is! All those wasted years Well, perhaps not but you never know, I was for certain more committed back in those days.

wow, yes, I remember doing assembly language back in the 80s with my Vic-20 and typing in assembly from weekly magazines and hoping it wouldn't crash (saving beforehand-otherwise you lost the lot and had to reboot and start over). Not a language for the faint-hearted
thank goodness for higher level languages.

This reminds me of an IBM codebook that came into my hands accidentally while working in an abandoned factory.
Trying to understand what it was doing, I only got a headache. LOL

75 authors, sure. But working on a OpenSource project. So, not all working all the time (depending on contributions) and not attempting to build a viable, profitable company, but to produce a viable, OpenSource project ... which they are doing.

Godot, in some ways, is very different than GG. It is both a true 2D and a true 3D game engine. Sure, technically you can create 2D games in 3D engines (I've seen some prototypes even in engines like CopperCube), but Godot has a true 2D engine as well as a very advanced, very modern 3D engine. With the depth and scope of Godot's features and abilities, I would expect a lot of bugs and bug fixes taking place, to be frank. Comparing the number of bugs and fixes one piece of software has to another is, in many cases, comparing apples with oranges. It does not, at the very least, paint a true picture of things. For example, I think I would rather be working with a piece of software that has a hundred minor bugs that need to be fixed (and will probably get fixed within the month) than another piece of software that has one or two major show-stopper(s) that may not get fixed in six months or longer (neither in this example are addressing a specific piece of software, such as either GG or Godot, btw).