Gameguru will never have multiplayer cause other features are added more and more to the "Feature Vote", so MP will go down and down for years!

Im now using S2Engine. They have a Gamelogic editor and multiplayer will be come in Septembre.

That would be the problem with a voting system. Lots of users not necessarily wanting the same features as you.
We all have things we are waiting for to move to the top of the results for addition.

Unfortunately for you this is a democratic community development, we vote on which features to add next, and at the moment the votes simply aren't swinging your way, I can understand the frustration, and if that's how you feel then good luck with S2.

Watch out for that door on the way out .. :p

I can understand the frustration. Main fundamental problem with the democratic system Gameguru handles is that most of the features being upvoted are mainly things that, with a bit of effort and some learning, one can do themself. GameGuru advertises itself as 'The Easy Game Maker', and that means the new generation of teens and kids who want to make their own Battlefield or Call of Duty will flock to it because they read the title, and only the title.

And it only makes sense for features like 'Vehicles' and 'Turrets' are top voted because that's simply what that mass group wants. They do care for graphics, but not in a sense the more experienced and serious ones do. For myself, I value the things like SAO and the other graphical overhauls in the voting system, however I will patiently wait for them to be implemented. Lee is doing the best he can, and that's all we can expect. We can't have a "We want this and we want it now." mentality.

I understand your point Peke, and most of it I agree with, however personally I don't agree that graphics is important at all, to me graphics improvements are the icing on the cake, finishing touches, you can have all the flashy graphics in the world if you want, but they're no good at all without a working engine with core features in place.

There are a metric ton of things that I would add before adding graphical improvements, especially considering as some of the community have proven time and time again you can get an extremely good level of graphics out of GameGuru in its current form with a bit of effort and some good models and textures anyway.

To me saying graphics are high priority is like a builder saying hey guys let's get these walls nicely painted and put the carpet down, don't worry about putting the roof on yet, nothing bad could happen.

My priority would be things like 3rd person control, player camera control, better editing tools such as more texture slots, different shaped sculpting tools, terrain cutting tools, more precise widget control, wysiwyg lua and fpe editors, improved AI, tools like road and path building tools, the ability to create water at any level and make it flow or fall, day/night cycles, weather controls and so on.

And I do actually agree with the OP that TGC should at least throw them a bone and give them a couple of multiplayer bits every update, even if they're only small minor things. They may be only a small part of our community at the moment, but they're still part of the community and it's unfair that they're getting left out.

Ah. Yes. let me revise myself on that point. You are correct, graphics are probably not the most important features that must be implemented. Instead, I believe the focus should be on performance. It is nice having turrets and vehicles, but like you said, why should be considder putting in decorations instead of finishing the roof?

I'm merely pointing out, that I believe there is a gap between those who pick it up to make their next CoD and those who are interested, want to support the software and make it better.

Very true, the line "easy game creator" may actually be a detriment to GamGuru rather than a positive focus point, it does tend to attract the "want it all want it now" crowd which has become prevalent in the gaming community in recent years.



Personally I'd put performance probably in the second line of priority myself, and follow it up later after each level of priority, having good performance for lower end machines and high end machines alike is nice to have, but again what's the point of a game that runs smoothly if it doesn't have core features?

My personal order of priority would be:

1. Core Features
2. First performance pass and bug fixes
3. Graphics enhancements, tweaks and fixes
4. Second performance pass and bug fixes
5. Additional content

I said my share on this topic and just wanted to say that Belidos nailed it on the priority list.

I must say I believe performance is vital for GG. Way ahead of all other features. I also consider the performance of the engine to be fairly core as well. No point having great AI if it runs at 12 fps... Not much point of any feature at 12 fps. I also don't consider my system to be low end. Yeah it's old, yes there are way better machines available. However it runs GTA 5 at 2K resolution no problem. GTA looks somewhat superior to GG in every area. I'm not saying GG should be as good as the GTA 5 engine of course, but if my machine can run that really well, then it should handle a few trees at a lower res with no lighting to speak of. I have yet to find a game that this machine doesn't run fairly well to be honest, apart from GG. I only say this because on what I consider a low spec machine GG doesn't run at all, or at maybe but at a very, very low fps. Many people out there don't even have a machine as fast as mine, and that is 10 years old or more now. Most people here by contrast, probably DO have a faster machine than mine.

I'm liking the current system that has been adopted this year. I've asked for several lua features to be added and guess what? They have. We will soon have more control over fog and such as well because I happened to mention it in the live Twitch stream If you do not ask or mention some of these things they won't get added till someone else does. Obviously, I didn't ask for BIG features, just simple to add lua commands that give us far better control of some of GG's current features. But these little things make many things possible, not just one thing. That's the fastest way to add more functionality into GG.

More multi-player stuff would be good, but many of us are not that interested. It isn't any use whatsoever for an actual game you might want to release. Not until stand-alone's can have some way of using it.

I agree! Your system should run a game guru game just fine, there is still some improvment that needs to be done in that area.

To be honest i don't understand why GG haven't added standalone multiplayer (Not standalone player app, since that looks extremly amateurish if you wish to sell a game). Just make it like WC3 who did it with 12 players 15 years ago. I think they use peer-to-peer where the host acts as the server.
If people want to create MMO or something that requires more than 16 users, then they would have to provide own server obviously.

My argument for multiplayer is that today there's some really high quality single player games out there, TES, Witcher etc. It's almost imposible to make something unique and fun in singleplayer. Lets be honest who's gonna buy a singleplayer shooter made in Gameguru. I have however seen some great looking RPG in WIP sections, obviously great work on them but that's what 2-3 games?

With multiplayer you can get the unpredictedness of other players which means every game potentially will be different and unique, that way it's more important you create a fun and enjoyable game, which then can be much simpler compared to the high standards of single player games.

I however also agree with the other post about performance before graphics, features etc. No way being able to make a perfect looking game either singleplayer or multiplayer if it runs with 10 fps.

Even with my specs if i make a full map i will get under 75 fps which my screen runs at. And my specs are the following

Nvidia Geforce 980m
16 gb Ram
i7 4720 2.6

And yes it's a laptop but it runs every other game on 75 fps on highest graphics.

I see your point but this is just plain wrong. The human imagination is nearly limitless... and even if you don't have any, its still very easy to make something unique. Lets try it with fantasy: Almost all fantasy games use european mythology...make one using indian mythology and you have something unique. That easy.

Thing is, there are just as many fun multiplayer games out there...most even free to play... I've been in this hobby for 8 years + now and most of these indie multiplayer games have a lifespan of a single weekend while the singleplayer games find a few thousands of players.



Shooters always sell. If you compare yourself to the AAA titles, of course, you can only lose, but the gaming market is far more widespread. There is not only "The Witcher" ... there are also the shovelware ww2 shooters from dwarf-studios. Where there is Call of Duty, there is also "Scorpion Disfigured" or "You are Empty".

Its like telling people not to make movies because they can never get close to the Lord of the Rings trilogy (or whatever).

Our own Ertlov has made and sold games made in FPSCreator... so why not make something in Game Guru?

Game Guru games will only reach a niche market... maybe the last page in a magazine with a very small article about it, but people will buy it. This is great however because we aren't studios, we don't have budgets and we don't have employees....except for Ertlov of course.

I've had somewhat succesfull free games and projects...
...and honestly most of the times I don't even know what I am doing and will likely never have anything published in a store...but someone more diligent and talented than I am can very well do that. ...and the magic of GG is that its quite fast and easy...provided we have the core features.

If you like multiplayer games, thats cool with me, but I do want other features to have more priority in GG... not just because I don't like multiplayer games (I really don't) but also because the core should be done first as you agree with as well before we have a discussion about multiplayer.



-Wolf

I think my post came out wrong, sorry english is not my first language so my expressions can sometimes be a bit off.
But i don't think it's imposible to make a succesfull singleplayer game, i'm just saying that in my opinion there's a higher quality of standard expected in singleplayer games compared to multiplayer. Lets take simple shooter games, they sell mainly from the multiplayer aspect, may it be CS, CoD, Battlefield etc. Imagine playing only these games with bots. None of them would ever had got a sequel. GG main focus mostly is these shooter FPS games, which is why i whine about non-existing multiplayer.

More so all other genres than the RPG, Adventure, Horror are dominated by multiplayer. Which is why i could understand if GG then focused mostly on this, but that's not the case.

Sure i can make a single player first person moba but i wouldn't even play that myself.

So sum it up: Yes you can make good singleplayer games with Gameguru, but it requires lua scripting knowledge at first, tweaking of a lot of shaders etc. custom models.
Multiplayer: With multiplayer you just need some store scripts and a good idea and you can make a fun game. (Of course graphics are important but not as much). Also with multiplayer it's easier to sell unless you're a big studio with a huge marketing department. People like to play with their friends and "semi-force" them to buy a game they want to play together, i would never push any of my friends to buy a single player game because i like it. But if it was a multiplayer one for sure i have done that.

Oooh! Yes, of course. Sorry for my rant, I did indeed misunderstand you. (Your english is very good by the way, not my first language either.)