We all have experience with other engines ( myself included ) so on this occasion lets compare notes.
I do not think Max will ever have Unity or Unreal status but should compete very well with other engines like S2-HD or Leadwerks for example.
So what aspects in your opinion make Max more attractive to us users than these other engines available.
Is Max in a league of its own in its creation process and if so what is so unique about it that makes it that way.
Any thoughts ?

I have 0 experience with a game engine other than a TGC product, call it FPSC, Reloaded, GG, or GGMax.
It has nothing to do with me being a fanboy, it is only due to lack of time, I only have time to dedicate to a game engine, if possible the simplest game engine to understand, and in this case, its simplicity and its capabilities make it an ideal game engine, even for those who are just starting out.

Obviously, like almost everything in life, it has a learning curve, the difference is that you can determine where that curve ends.

In any case, it is still too early to highlight positive or negative things that are decisive, since what is negative today may be positive tomorrow, and the opposite.

I believe I have demonstrated as far as possible and almost daily, for a long time, many things that can be done with GGMax atm, this may serve as a reference. imho

Ye your right i dont think the title fits the post.
I may edit that

I have s2-hd and it's a real pain, yes it looks great, but no-way is it as easy to use as Classic or Max ( so far ) and the way Lee is steering Max in seems the right way, I like the pictograms for entity behaviours and the ability to add your own is very, very nice to have. Can't wait to see what the new terrain system is going to look like either.... How much longer do we have to wait So far Max is looking amazing.

"We all have experience with other engines..."
"what is so unique about [MAX] that makes it that way [competitive]."
Grand Theft Auto 5 started with Lemmings as in DOS PC Lemmings.

Sorry not to oblige, but we do not have any information for that question right now.
MAX is not released, is not available to work in, and therefore not purchased!

Also, I have none of the other engines. (S2, Leadwerks, etc.) They don't look as active on their Steam Pages or forums as GG, and the reviews are a bit weaker overall. I almost bought Leadwerks on sale a while back -- might wish I had, but I just did not feel like experimenting in a brand new engine (ie 3com). But Ultra App Kit (Leadwerks 5) is touting promising performance. (Also not fully released yet! )
So if I was to be nice, I would say MAX (and just VERY RECENTLY) portrays a higher tier user UI to feature ratio-- but nothing else can be ascertained yet.

Funnily enough, even GGClassic competes with those engines on Steam -- until the user puts them to use. GG Steam games get the worst reviews on Steam, but "mostly positive" reviews for the engine itself. What does this tell us? Maybe that barely anyone seriously uses the software to completion- but reviews it anyhow because it was easy to build a rudimentary shooter level to click "test button" and run?!? Who knows the real results of game developers experience between them?? IDK

Then why even answer
The question is really aimed at those using Max right now.
Its functional enough to make some good comparisons if you have used other engines.

I haven't used any other game engines but I'm more drawn to Unreal than Max right now, that's just where I am as an artist these days, and as a developer. TGC's software has done its job in teaching me about game development, but sadly it always lacked the legs to allow me to bring my visions to fruition. If I ever finish Ignite, it'll be the last game I ever make in Game Guru (famous last words!).

My two biggest fears with Max are firstly that by relying on DNA that dates back almost 20 years to DBPro, Max at its core will not allow users to create the kinds of experiences modern players have grown accustomed to, and secondly that Max will not be adequately QA tested, leading to an endless stream of bugs and performance issues in both the editor and our standalones that will take half a decade to fix.

I will say I am pleased to see the progress being made with Max, but it's not been quite enough yet to make me buy it.

AE

@Avenging Eagle MAX has gone through some 'genome' therapy all DBpro code was removed its all C++ DBpro was 32Bit

As far as the original question, i have used every engine out their but always come back, for me it is about the Community and Friends, and i can say without doubt GG has the best Community.
Its a hobby for me but one that i love why else would i have stuck around for 17 years MAX is the new kid on the block but does look very promising.

There is very little dbo code left and most of it has all been converted/dropped or entirely rewritten every thing is now under C# dbo code is left is mostly there for legacy support. GUI is almost an entirely rewritten, terrain system is a complete rewrite, rendering engine is of course 3rd party code.

So no, even with classic dbo has very little to do with the software.

Max literally changes every thing you are accustom to with regards to designing assets, lua, as well as physics and VR. You might actually not be aware but there will be physics related interactions with doors and objects especially in VR. Doors will be opened with the player and quite possibly the AI by pushing the doors like a swing door.

Max has multi mesh and multi material support now, I am not talking about having one or two objects in a level having multi materials I mean literally an entire level could be made out of multi material entities. Don't even get me started on polygons, restrictions on polygon count have essentially been lifted and you can add a 250k polygon model if you wanted to no problem.

Most model related restrictions have either been lifted or vastly improved. With the new rendering engine and asset support you could literally remake a commercial game like Doom 3, quake 4, half-life ect without much issue and even somewhat better with the new rendering and higher polygon support.

You definitely need an entirely different mindset with max as most restrictions you have been accustom to have been lifted and then some, and I didn't even mention the entire engine is not 64bit with proper multi core support, as result a lot less GPU reliant.

The major problem I found with both classic and that of max is that the development of a game is geared towards the assets. Assets with the exception of props and other models isn't industry standard design and use. Assets are designed with max reuse in mind in a wide range of scenarios and use. More often then not is how you approach the software and implement your game.

No doubt there is an entirely new rendering system that will/is bringing great benefits. And 64 bit will of course help.

The jury is completely out on the rest of it - until/if we see the source code there can be no assurances that GG Max isn't based on the GGC underpinning software constructs and structure and if it is then that is architected around DB Pro code even though refactored into C++ - I think is what AE is getting at - not whether DBO as a model format is still there but if the GG Max engine will suffer some of the same underlying issues as GGC because of the base it is built from.

Adding the expected terrain solution will be a huge update, I know this is being built from the ground up by an amazing talented technical expert, but it is still a major undertaking that is and will take time to be implemented and tuned to work well.

All of this brings us back to the other AE point about QA - the testing has consistently been poor for GGC, especially since the beta testing board and group was abandoned and updates are just pushed out after what can only be rudimentary dev testing given the knock-on issues each update seem to give. There is definitely very little regression testing happening - it can be seen. Is there a deliberate regression test process in play for GG Max? I don't think there is, and there should be at some point or each update may break something else that isn't trapped and is then pushed out to users.

In comparison to other engines re the OP - there is absolutely no way GG Max will ever be as capable as the two 'UN' engines - it is just not feasible, but then that is not the goal as I understand it. Can it be a pretty good alternative for game development - yes up to a point, assuming continued development for all of the genres people want to do beyond FPS.

However, there is a clear risk that the 'ease of use' that GGC carries off really well will be lost with GG Max. It's very difficult to marry up ease of use with complicated features that modern game development requires. I assume this is what is behind the 'developer modes' and 'genre buttons' - to try and hide this complexity to many or new users, whilst letting people who want to do more get access to more tuning and controls. But this is very very difficult to do successfully and despite all of the time spent on the UI, you can still see TGC wrestling with how best to do this still and it's not there yet.

So the risk (I'm not saying it has happened) is that GG Max can never be an Unreal or Unity (but may be good enough for many uses), but will also lose it's easy intro to game development, and to be frank, if you have to put as much energy into learning how to use GG Max as you do initial use of Unity or Unreal, why would you? Unless of course you are already invested in it like I am and most of this community is.

And I agree with Graphix - community and friends made here are what bring me back - it is a nice hobby isn't it ?

Just some thoughts

Cheers.

I realise that and stated it myself in my original post
But S2-HD, Leadwerks, or Coppercube not so much.

From what I have experienced of Max, terrain building aside, it's nothing that really stands above other FPS modern creators. .

It has a graphics capability that greatly surpasses other game creators like Cyberix3D and Raycasting Gamemaker, but the functionality and usability is far below what someone would get using an FPS or RPG template for Unity or Unreal.

I wasn't necessarily just meaning the code. I mean the entire design philosophy behind the way games and levels work in Game Guru is from the turn of the century. Example: You run the game, you press new game and are loaded into level 1, there is no way to select which level you load into from the menu screen a la HL2 (2004). You play the game, you pick up a gun, Game Guru displays a HUD.x model where the arms and weapon are one model, animated to move together. You see an enemy, the enemy has basic AI and goes one thing. It sees you, does a roll, and fires a hit-scan weapon, damaging you instantly. You fend off the enemy, you pick up a key for...something. You load level 2, all your stats reset because it's a brand new LUA environment and no globals were carried over, your key is gone.

Some of these drawbacks can be overcome if you have LUA expertise. But this is an engine marketed at beginners and children, it does not have to be that difficult.

So my concern is valid. It's less about the code itself, and more about the thought-process behind it. And the lack of testing, that's a right pain.

To summarise my points in a way that's more relevant to the thrust of this thread, I would rather invest 200 hours in Unreal because it offers me more versatility in terms of game design, whereas Max will be more prescriptive, limiting from a gameplay perspective, and have a ton more bugs in it. An unfair comparison given the relative team sizes of both companies, and the fact Max isn't anywhere near finished yet, but this exactly the dialogue happening in many a prospective game developer's head right now.

The community here though is second to none

AE

Unity and unreal do offer templates as well that allows creating some thing with little or no coding at all does it not ? Same applies to gameguru it offers the basic experience, you have to get your hands dirty if you want any thing more. Gameguru standardizes animation of AI and weapons so that all media follows a specific protocol for the end user to use.

You can create your own weapon hud, your own AI animations and custom scripts associated with it, not every one is clued up with the animation of objects.Same applies to unity and unreal it offers the same default experience to every one, you have to get your hands dirty if you want any thing more.

It offers the basics of what a FPS game is. Because it isn't the next john wick doesn't make it bad, I don't know why it needs to conform to what every one else is doing. Why should it ? Why can't it do it's own thing ? Why does it have to.?

Why is it a difficult concept to understand, I mean seriously I haven't conformed to assets creation defaults for gameguru EVER, there is two steam DLC's based on that specific style of assets creation, both the death valley DLC and Cold war pack doesn't conform to standard gameguru asset creation defaults. I am working on a 3rd steam DLC as we speak and this one conforms even less to the standard and default assets creation protocols of gameguru.

It is all about the mind set with creating the game, the scripts, the assets and various other things.It does what the basic FPS needs to do, if a game comes out in the FPS genre that allows using a grappling hook as a game mechanic doesn't make it industry standard, there is still plenty of games released right no that uses the traditional FPS formula or if you want to call it old school FPS shooter game mechanics.

It is called FPS, and there isn't a set industry standard of how a FPS game should work and be. Sure there is limitations surrounding it, with certain things no carrying over between levels, but surely you could devise a plan, a story or game design around what you have to play with.

Honestly I don't care what you can do in doom 50 or tomb raider 100th year edition. I care about what gameguru can do and what I have to work with, if you want to be able to have that level of customization then use what ever engine it was created in. Still don't understand why some thing needs to conform to everyone else, I really, really , really really don't. It boggles my mind, why there is a constant arguement and bickering and shouting matches about what can be done in unity or unreal or whatever engine x.

I really don't care what they can and can't do, really don't I use gameguru and I am loyal to the gameguru community. Sure it is nice to imagine creating some thing similar to borderlands in gameguru, and different game mechanics and new game mechanics.

Do you think gameguru will ever be completed if it follows every new game mechanic related to the FPS genre out there.

I just cringe and grit my teeth when it is the same old argument in the same old circle going around and around.

Then go already nothing forces you or obligates you to stay.It is like standing in line at krispy kreme and complaining about Dunkin doughnuts. It doesn't compute, mental breakdown in coming in 3.....2......1.

Who said old school FPS is dead ?

I dont think anyone was arguing too much about themselves or you. Clearly people already invested in these products can stay and see what happens or not - and many are enjoying the game engine development ride and rightly so. Don’t think that is really the point in comparing or discussing so no need to get so defensive?

If engine capabilities are not available to implement the game ideas you have then frustration sets in rapidly. I really don’t understand why you don’t understand this. But anyway as those features haven’t been built or at least released yet, it’s just a potential problem now not a definite.

Getting your hands dirty in the other engines means exploring tons of documentation and configuring long established features through a UI. And the result works and is stable.

As a model/asset example - the material/shader manipulation that can be done in other engines makes a huge difference to the visual result of assets. Presently this is largely a closed pipeline in Max and so getting hands dirty in that aspect won’t be possible or extremely difficult for most. Many of the assets for other engines rely on really great materials to make them visually even more impressive. This is where Max will not be able to compete - but it seems a conscious decision not to. So asset providers and users don’t need to worry about complex materials but it is a missing piece of game development capability in Max.

So again if it’s not possible to implement game ideas you have or so very difficult to do so - like the example above - you would be better off going elsewhere from the start where you can. This is more for new users who go in ‘eyes open’.

It comes down to what demographic is Max trying to reach - casual hobby developers ? People wanting to build some reasonably simple good looking virtual fun for themselves and friends? If so it’s going the right way - though the updates to the UI for ease of use need to be carefully done or that demographic will not find it much fun - especially new users rather than us. If it’s that group plus people wanting to do much more then that seems a stretch for it at the moment - but until it’s fully built difficult to say for sure.

Cheers.

Because it is the same old argument over again. You don't choose a game idea and randomly select a game engine for that idea.

Won't be able to create a borderlands clone in unity engine as an example, while it is possible unity does have some limitations with regards to culling and a few minor things related to open world games, however the engine isn't suited to as well to the genre as is unreal or crytek or the dunia engine, which has FPS open world games in mind.

Same applies to gameguru, it is intended to create a specific style of game and it does pretty well in that regards.Gameguru is not a open world game engine were was and will never be one.But it is not to say you can't create some thing to that effect either it will be limited in what can be done overall.

Now if we actually look at the game borderlands, the assumption is that it a open world game. It isn't really a open world game, it has carefully constructed levels that are linked to one another changing from one level to the next will result in some character AI to re-spawn in some cases even bosses, while the base level objectives have been achieved it often resulted in resetting certain things with in that level.

Why because of memory constraints trying to remember every thing that has happened in a level takes a huge amount of resources and objectively it is just cheaper memory wise to remember the main conditions of the particular level and pretty much discard the rest, however it doesn't discard every thing in memory, it does so after some progression has been made in the game and has new things to put in memory.

So it kinda provides a quite convincingly rendition of what a open world game should be. Now if you look at skyrim, as an example of a open world game, that has it's own specialty engine in this regard it is what is considered a true open world game engine. Skyrim is like an elephant it NEVER forgets, every single interaction or animal or AI you have killed is remembered.

You placed a sword in a cave at the start of the game and 50 levels later you return to the area the sword is going to be exactly where you placed it.Skyrim was so good at mirco managing their environment bears and wolves would some times come down from the mountains and wipe out an entire town, which for example forced soldiers guarding certain areas having to go a next town over to get food and would get in trouble for abandoning its post.

The point is each individual engine has specific features and points that assist in creation of certain genre or game type better then others.Gameguru is not different it is really strong in the quick game creation aspect and better in this regard to most engine this allows for the creation of specific game type in this game the standard FPS shooter type game.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, trying some thing entirely different outside of the scope of gameguru and then complaining about it failing to do so, is what grinds my gears endlessly and get pretty annoyed with that.

But that is not to say you can't get gameguru to do your bidding to some extend, but it is about realistic expectations and goals when designing some with. Most just start creating a game without planing, with goals and expectations without actually looking at what the limitations are and if their goals can be met in this regard. This usually ends up in complaints and arguments about how this and that is wrong with the engine because it won't allow me to create this and that game or the end result isn't what the user intended the game to be.

This is game development it requires skill and lots of experience, unfortunately this it runs true for unreal, unity and even gameguru and any other game engine out on the market. Because the low learning curve and being far easier then most game engines and making the skill level requirement pretty low doesn't automatically mean no skill is required or understanding of game development isn't needed. You need to start some where and skill is acquired by experience in using the product.

You can do amazing things in gameguru, and it in no way diminishes what it can do because this game in unreal or this game in unity did more or less. Assumption that unreal or unity has no bugs, it has plenty of bugs as with all software in life, nothing is ever 100% foolproof just not how the world works there is just too many instances and derivatives to compute or account for.

So yeah I get annoyed, when I am equally entitled to complain about how I think gameguru is a pretty great engine and not actually caring about the negative aspects it has never really bothered me and it seems the people complaining about the negatives can't handle that. I really don't care, I am quite happy with what I have and what I can do, I am more then happy to continue enjoying gameguru as is.

If you feel gameguru isn't suited for you, then good luck with whatever you choose in future to work with, but don't be a pest and expect warm fuzzy touchy feelings and reception complaining about what unreal can do and gameguru can't, this is gameguru forum not unreal forum. Additionally I am going to say it as it is, I have no intention of being PC or woke I am straight as a arrow and have no issue being blunt and being opinionated.

With that said I don't have time for threads like this, it is counterproductive achieves nothing, so enjoy, have fun and happy game creation.

many applications out there have a normal mode and an [i]expert mode, I suppose TGC wants to achieve something similar with GGMax, this could satisfy both worlds.

Though newcomers don't know this of course, it isn't marketed that way somewhat understandably, so we agree here, sort of . And Max has aspirations to go beyond FPS and also introduce huge terrain space.



Of course you are entitled, though beating down other people who don't agree and are bothered? Likely you're not that bothered because you don't appear to be making games as far as I know - 'just' well crafted environments through great modelling skills?



I don't view myself as a pest and it certainly isn't for you to call me or anyone one for expressing an opinion just like you do. I'm not complaining as you state - comparing and caring about GG's future is what I'm doing.

Yeah but it is common argument '' I can do so much more in unreal'' that gets me every time. I mean seriously you can, so what ? Go do more in unreal then. You don't need to tell me about your exploits, Iam well aware unreal being better I don't need to be told that. What is the point telling me.

It is as if people want it to be more like unreal, kinda defeats the purpose on gameguru, I might as well just go use unreal then.

You may actually not be aware but Lee asked me a couple of months back how would be the best way to deal with painting dirt maps on entities and pointed out that wicked engine already has vertex painting support and pointed him to an article as well as additional info considering the vertex painting on terrain and having that down to a T it isnt some thing that can't be done.

I have actually come to the realization Lee isnt a god to end all gods he has his own programming skills and associated limitations he is human after all there might actually be things he simply can't do or understand him self.

That's what they did with The 3DGameMaker, and it was done exceptionally well. A person that wants to click a few buttons to make a game can, and the person that wants to use more advanced features can throw a switch and have them all available to them.

"come to the realization Lee isnt a god to end all gods"
Close enough though.

WARNING! Spoiler alerts: <--- The Tesseract / <--- infinity stones!
TVA nabbed Loki without much hassle. They are the real ultimate authority in the universe it seems.
But then Loki learned a thing or two and got a break, now these two powerful entities (TVA and Loki)
seem to be negotiating to strike an accord -- to eradicate Loki. Wait-- WHAT?!
Are we in for the worse trouble imaginable or the best action every devised? Only time will tell.

I don't think there's any harm in looking to industry standard engines like Unreal and Unity and seeing what they do well or don't. It's only be capitalising on your competition's shortcomings that you find your niche. And Game Guru's niche is speed. It's just so damn easy to throw together a mock-up of something in a few hours, and that's really addictive. The problem is, once you attempt to dive a little deeper, you're invariably met with frustration.

Let's also not forget Game Guru is marketed as a game engine for people with no coding knowledge, and yet to do almost anything beyond the defaults, you'll need to get your hands dirty with lua.

I suspect the reason you don't find the shortcomings of Game Guru so infuriating is that you'd rather peddle your model packs than develop a game. That's fair enough, I enjoy modelling too. But I've also tried making games in Game Guru and come to understand that, graphically, Game Guru is roughly at the level of Far Cry 2 (2008), but functionality and gameplay-wise, it's about as sophisticated as Quake 2 (1997). It's the dissonance between alright graphics but poor functionality that generates the frustration.

That's a personal opinion, I don't expect you to agree and it certainly doesn't preclude you from having an equally strong opinion in the opposite direction. I just wish you'd express yours in a more succinct way that doesn't seek to strongarm others into changing their minds.


No, just time to write thousand-word rants bashing other users with different opinions to you...

AE

Lol unless he is thor But given that the new thor will be a woman......I think not

I think that most of this discussion is not particularly constructive as everyone will have a different point of view on it that may or may not be partially correct.

My 2 cents to the debate is that whatever max does, it should be as accessible as possible so people can modify it. GG classic had a lot of hard coded stuff which was a show stopper for quite a few more ambitious users. No matter how bare bones a feature is implemented, if the end user can muck around with it himself, some magic can happen. Now I know I basically ask for an open source engine and this will likely not happen... would be cool if it did though

Its kind of lost its way.
I was simply asking what makes Max more attractive to us users than other similar engines available or what makes similar engines more attractive that Max does not have perhaps. Obviously i was referring to those that have already purchased and why with so much choice out there. As always it just never seems to go the way you expect.

#1
UI Ease - @ AE
#2
Community - @ ya'all
#3
Familiarity - @ GG Lua
#4
... ? Hope?

< Gotta plug 4 Wolf;
Hope things are full open. But scripting can fill in if they ADD it.
Small examples: Text and Video Sound surely can be better than Classic.

Yeah but you were kinda asking for it If nothing else I prefer to be brutally honest.

Look the thing is gameguru is build around the asset it uses and the requirement for assets automatically applies some restrictions to what you can create gameplay wise. Outdoor games isn't impacted that massively, but indoor game has specific requirements. In a way it is a mindset and some thing you need to break in order to achieve some goals.

Gameguru is massively impacted by the lack of primitive creation and it shows. Now I know I keep on talking about assets this and assets that, but it is the most essential part of the game and it can make or break your game, so it is extremely important to me where as it might not be to someone else.

How can gameguru improve and rid it self of the stigma it can do so with assets and more open ended game design practices, modern game engine rely on a mixture of primitive creation and imported assets to construct environments for the player. Lee's general response to this is that he isn't going to create a 3d editor. Well then there should be now complaints coming from the TGC camp with why they are getting less then stellar reviews.

It certainly has the potential to allow creating stellar environments but the obvious limitations with regards to editing your game level posses a massive mountain to climb. However it can be done with some good old elbow grease. You can create a look alike level of any popular FPS game to some extend but require skill, patience and lots of free time. Personally some thing I have been dying to do, but simply don't have the 2-3 months needed to create a singular level to showcase that.

But what it essentially boils down to is skill level, lee could give us the next unreal engine and people will still end up complaining, and game will likely still end up looking "gameguru" like. I have been lobbying since early gameguru days to have more control over level designing aspects especially with regards to primitive creation and bringing back the FPS segments I spend 99% of time outside gameguru creating assets to use within gameguru and spend very little time inside the engine, if we can get that split 50/50 I would be happy.

But alas it has fallen mostly of deaf ears and when I lobbied for the segments again there were user resistance in thread about the building creator, with users wanting to keep it for whatever reason.

Of course its all my fault.
It went from the original Question to Classic and DB0 code then on assets and finally to Thor and the Avengers.
I can see my error clearly now