Slashdot Mirror


BlitzMax released for Mac OS X

Junks Jerzey writes "The long awaited long suspected-to-be-vaporware BlitzMax game programming language has been released for Mac OS X. Linux and Windows versions are set to follow "soon," making this a truly cross-platform, OpenGL-based game development system. Don't be scared by the BASIC monicker: this is a modular programming language that lets you get under the hood if you want, but also includes OOP support and higher-level features. But of course C++ game programmers will still shake their heads in a puzzled fashion, ignoring all the amazing games written by hobbyist programmers. If nothing else, write a cross-platform OpenGL demo in ten lines of code!"

70 comments

  1. Why by JavaLord · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why would anyone need this when there is Java!

    1. Re:Why by PhilippeT · · Score: 0

      If they feel like programming on something useful? I don't know but OpenGl is cpu intensive as it is if had had to run it in Emulation for a fictitious cpu my computer might blow up

      --
      A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care.
    2. Re:Why by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      You mean other than byte compiling and being able to code OpenGL in something that resembles the OpenGL API?

    3. Re:Why by presearch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would anyone need Java when there is C!

    4. Re:Why by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Why would anybody need C when there are hundreds of assembly languages?

      Oh.

      But yea, I know you might be joking, but there is a solid point in what you said (my statement was a joke). Java is overused.

    5. Re:Why by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      And Java is completely unsuited for game development.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    6. Re:Why by shigelojoe · · Score: 1

      Saying Java is great because it's compatible with a large variety of platforms is like saying animal fucking is great because it's compatible with a large variety of livestock.

      --Me

    7. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why is that exactly?

      Always google before posting.

    8. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you know that a byte-code is exactly what Java compiles to, right?

      And as to something that resembles the OpenGL API, you've seen JOGL, right?

      Your entire post was 100% crap. Impressive, even by Slashdot standards!

    9. Re:Why by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      Why isn't any major 3D game written in Java? I suppose it could work for simpler 2d games.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    10. Re:Why by MendicantMonkey · · Score: 1

      Vampire Redemption (from a few years back) used Java as a scripting engine.

    11. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SDL is completely unsuitable for game development. I mean, why isn't any major 3D game written in it?

      Is Java the best platform for cutting edge games? Certainly not, but that doesn't mean it's completely unsuitable. Look at Jake2 a http://www.bytonic.de/html/jake2.html. It has near native speed, and I think the Quake2 engine is pretty nice.

    12. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got it backwards. Actually, Java is quite inefficient in 2D, particularly on the Mac. But (through JOGL) Java is very efficient in 3D.

    13. Re:Why by damicatz · · Score: 1

      Java isn't so much a slow bulky language anymore despite what people seem to think from their experiences years ago. However it lacks low-level hardware access in order to remain cross-platform so if you want to do some of the more advanced 3D grapics or sound effects or any operating system specific functions, then you'll need to start using JNIs. JNIs are code written in another language that teaches Java how to do low-level and/or operating system specific functions. JNIs can also be quite messy and can introduce additional platform specific bugs.

    14. Re:Why by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1
      And Java is completely unsuited for game development.

      That depends on the type of game you are thinking of. If the game doesn't demant killer killer FPS, like civilization clones, it can be quite suited for the purpose.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    15. Re:Why by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but 'near native speed' just isn't gonna gut it.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    16. Re:Why by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      What about the fact that JAVA doesn't even use the Intel FPU, rather it does it in software for full IEEE compatability and is sloth slow as a consequence?

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    17. Re:Why by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      Shit python would be better suited for a scripting engine, but the graphics engine is certianly not going to be written in it. According to the Jake2 website the Java version of the Quake2 engine runs about 75% of the C version. To me this is unnaceptable as it means I have to spend 25% more on hardware to get the same performance. Quite wasteful

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    18. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To me this is unnaceptable as it means I have to spend 25% more on hardware to get the same performance. Quite wasteful"

      Of course, that's assuming that 25% beefier hardware costs only 25% more, which sadly isn't true; those last few bits get expensive.

      These aren't comprehensive numbers, but just checking really quickly with pricegrabber, a 3.0 ghz p4 costs ~$180, while a 3.06 ghz one costs ~$227. Granted, those are bad numbers, since the 3.0 is actually an 800mhz, has twice as much cache, etc. But pretending to compare raw mhz to mhz, we can see that:

      3.06ghz/3.0ghz = 2% more muscle
      $227/$180 = 26% more money

      I know this isn't a perfect example, but the concept generally holds; it's not a linear relationship between price & performance, and especially when you're already near top-of-the-line, those last few mhz cost a LOT.

    19. Re:Why by chrish · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate Java, that's not entirely true. You wouldn't want to write a game that needs to be fast in Java, but it's fine for turn-based games and even some MMOGs.

      --
      - chrish
    20. Re:Why by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      I am well aware of the highly non-linear price to performance curve of computer hardware. I guess I was just oversimplifying, but this only enhances my point that any game language really needs to be as efficient as possible because we all spend a lot of dollars for the hardware.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    21. Re:Why by qw(name) · · Score: 1
      If the game doesn't demant killer killer FPS
      You mean there are other types of games?
    22. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally false.

      Java has the *option* of using strict math, but does not do it by default. Even when using strict math -- which no game is gonna require -- only a few things need be done outside the FPU (notably sin and cos). Everything else is on the FPU fine.

      Plus, you do know that Java isn't an acronym ("JAVA"), right? And that Java never had IEEE compatability: it doesn't have floating-point exceptions and rounding options.

      Come to think of it, you know rather little about this language, do you?

    23. Re:Why by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      Other than its a bloated and wastefull mess, I guess so.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    24. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap.

      Nobody can ever post a rhetorical question on Slashdot for the sake of making us laugh a little without a bunch of pedantic nerds coming out of the woodwork to answer it and trample all over the joke, can they?

    25. Re:Why by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I believe that Unreal Tournament and Neverwinter Nights use SDL for the Linux ports, and that's just off the top of my head. The list of commercial 2D games using SDL is probably a lot larger - remember that this is a library which provides more for 2D games than it does for 3D (ie, it provides a 2D graphics API, but 3D has to be done through OpenGL, and AFAIK can't be used with Direct3D).

      So what are the Java commercial games, 3D or otherwise?

      (Note, I think Java is a great language for some purposes, but it's wrong to cite SDL as an example lacking commercial games written in it).

  2. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy makes a valid point. Don't mod him down just because you want to defend Java.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy makes a valid point. Don't mod him down just because you want to defend Java.

      Why not, they modded down the grandparent just because he made a valid point and was modded down just because they wanted to defend their obscure mac osx lifestyle language.

    2. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) It's not an OSX language, rtfa.
      2) The grandparent didn't make a valid point. That's like saying 'why would you need LISP when you have C?"

    3. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying 'why would you need LISP when you have C?

      It's obvious you aren't a real programmer, because the contrast between Java and this shithole basic is different than the contrast between LISP and C. Stop posting to Slashdot until you get out of your CSC 101 class homo.

  3. Python by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Doesn't python do all this and more already?

    1. Re:Python by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes but Python is freaking slow. if you want an engine that runs at more than slideshow speed with a decent amount of stuff onscreen (and not going by PS1 standards) you have to implement it as a C module. Python is nice for the game logic but writing an engine in it results in framerates worse than Doom 3 with graphics worse than a Playstation One game.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:Python by rb4havoc · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you've never implemented psyco. The psyco module speeds up Python and gives it a whole lot better speeds, close to that of C++.

      --
      "There are 10 types of people in this world--Those that understand binary, and those that do not..."
    3. Re:Python by Fahrenheit+450 · · Score: 1

      Really?

      Psycho appears to be closer to old slow Python than to C++.

      I know that these benchmarks aren't the end all/be all of the issue, but where there's smoke...

      --
      -30-
    4. Re:Python by EnglishTim · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be fair to python, you can get a lot of stuff onscreen at excellent framerates, but you do have to be careful how you do it. Extensive use of vertex arrays, or at least display lists is essential, but to be honest that's the kind of thing you'd really want to be doing with C/C++ anyway, it's just that it hurts even more if you don't do it in python.

      One of the other replies mentions pysco, but to be honest I think that pyrex would be more useful, as it for most intents and purposes allows you to compile sections of speed-critical python code in C.

    5. Re:Python by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Thing is, I've already been using psyco and drawlists don't seem to be of much use for objects that change shape (i.e. animation). A few thousands of polies that cannot be put into a drawlist because they are animated already kill Python.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  4. Linux version by deep_magic · · Score: 1
    According to the website, a linux version is in the works. Anyone have any idea when/if such a thing will be released?

    I would buy it just to be able to play around with it (its only $80), but won't install windows for it.

    1. Re:Linux version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "soon" RTFP

  5. it's the same guys who made Blitz Basic... by nickos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...on the Amiga which was the first language I really got my teeth into. The original version of Worms and Worms: The Director's Cut were also made using using that language, so don't be put off these languages just because they're forms of Basic.

    1. Re:it's the same guys who made Blitz Basic... by Joff_NZ · · Score: 1

      It was also used to make the very excellent racing game: Skidmarks and Skidmarks 2

      I too, dabbled a bit in BlitzBasic, and I was very impressed - it produced very fast code, due to the fact it was actually compiled as opposed to interpreted.

      http://www.blitzbasic.com/
      for more info, and screenshots of what is possible in this language

      --
      The revolution will not be televised. It won't be on a friggin blog either
  6. Blitz Basic on the Amiga by Xian97 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember the Amiga version of Blitz Basic. With just a few lines of code you could have a rudimentary game with sprites moving on the screen. It was a Basic language variant with specialized commands for game creation, such as sprite manipulation and collision detection. I prefered it's competitior, AMOS, but Blitz was not bad at all for a hobbyist game programmer.

  7. AMOS = A Mound Of S**T. by Viewsonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There was a reason it was called that! But to be serious, these "BASIC" languages are VERY specialized to the point of coding in them pumped out really great performance with very little work. It probably wont be the next language to create Duke Nukem Forever (Well, maybe it will!!), but for one man teams/hobbiests who want to make simple games, shareware or otherwise, they would be very happy with these types of compilers.

  8. What we really need... by 47Ronin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...is a revived, modern version of the ancient Adventure Construction Set. Now THAT was an easy-to-use game making system which allowed you to create/edit sprites, NPC scripting, sound effects, maps, triggers, etc without writing any code at all.

    --
    Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
    1. Re:What we really need... by kenthorvath · · Score: 4, Funny

      They do. It's called Never Winter Nights.... (It sounds similar anyway....)

    2. Re:What we really need... by spir0 · · Score: 1

      I had something similar for the C64.

      In fact, I probably still have my amiga copy of the Shoot-em-up Construction Kit somewhere. you want to buy it?? ;)

      --
      The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
    3. Re:What we really need... by Mieckowski · · Score: 1

      You might want to check out Coldstone by Ambrosia. It seems to be basically what you describe, and its games are playable on MacOS 9/X and Windows. They made a fairly large commercial game using it, so it can't be that bad.

  9. Perfect! by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I wrote version 1 of Jardinains in BlitzBasic for Windows. For version 2, I want to expand to the Big 3 desktop platforms and use modern 2D techniques (realtime scaling/rotations, transparency effects, etc,) among other things. Until just seconds ago, I was pretty much locked into using Torque for this. I checked out SDL, but it was a little lacking in OS X support (for example, double buffering wasn't supported (!).) BlitzBasic was hella-easy to write in, but it didn't have cross-platform support and had limited 2D capabilities--that is, it was 'old school' 2D, not the nice, smooth 3D-in-2D that most modern 2D games use. Torque is wicked slick, but it's overkill for my needs.

    If you want to make games and not focus on programming geekery and coding arcana, Blitz is a great little toolset. With the cross-platform support and in the 2D graphics using OpenGL and you've got a very happy little package here.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  10. It has an intelligent build-system! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BlitzMax allows you to split a project up into multiple source files which can be pre-compiled to massively reduce development time. This process is handled automatically by the included BMK ('Blitz make') utility and is completely transparent to the developer.

    Gosh, I throw away my lousy C++ development environment!

  11. Manual? by MrHops · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This seems interesting, but I'm not happy with their online, web-based manual. No real searching, the layout is torturous, and I want to be able to use a manual when not online. Is there a single file (pdf preferably) manual that I can study?

  12. Great News by podperson · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Speaking as a fan of Blitz3D (and yes, I've used AMOS and Blitz leaves it for dead), this is great news for hobby and semi-pro game developers.

    Note that while Blitz3D has extensive Windows functionality, BlitzMax does not yet match this. It is the beginning of a more modern architecture for the Blitz product line.

    The online documentation is a little bit ugly, but it's all html so (a) producing your own printed version shouldn't be too difficult, and (b) if you want to reformat it to your own taste, you can and it's easy.

  13. What about network games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Aside from graphics, probably the most tedious aspect of programming a good game is the networking. Tons of issues to deal with, since you never really know what the other end is doing. And why should I have to bother with all the piddly details of setting up a TCP/IP connection (or spewing UDP packets) and monitoring it, designing a communication protocol, etc, when I want to focus on programming the logic to make a great game? I'd rather have the game building/programming system do all the gruntwork for me.

    Does this have any provisions for networking? Does it make it easy? From looking at the webpage, I see nothing about network, so I'm not too optimistic.

    Unfortunately the only system I've found with great, seamless and inherent network support seems to have other issues. 1, it's Windows only for clients (they do have unix servers though). 2, the graphics are like from the early 90s. No 3d here. Other than that, they have a neat language and transparent networking, but the two limitations above have kept me from doing anything substantial with it.

    I'm still looking for a game development system that:

    (a) is truly cross platform
    (b) supports good graphics without making me do all the opengl gruntwork
    (c) supports good networking again without gruntwork for me
    (d) powerful language (oo preferred)
    (e) lets me concentrate on making the GAME!

    I haven't found anything that satisfies all of the above. Some do well on some of the points, but nobody has gotten them all. Could this be it, or just another letdown?

    1. Re:What about network games? by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of networking stuff in there but i have no idea how efficient it is, it's not truly cross-platform(yet) supports "good graphics" without making you do all the grunt-work (You'll still need a good grasp of 3d maths, but i shouldn't have to tell you that) it's pretty powerful and i'm not sure to what extent it's oo, in older versions the answer was "Not very"

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    2. Re:What about network games? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you need a good grasp of the math then you're doing at least the majority of the work. I ought to be able to plop down some models, specify something about how they interact, and sit back and watch. I shouldn't have to do any math. Computers help us do stupid things faster.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:What about network games? by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      Heh, there is a LOT of work here, being able to move an object around in 3d space is bloody easy compared to, say, rendering a quake2 map file. If you think doing that much is the "Majority" of the work then you're on crack. If you can't even manage that, mebee you should not be looking for a programming language, just wait till someone makes a point and click tool to do this stuff in another 10 years

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    4. Re:What about network games? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      rendering a quake2 map file, however, is a lot easier with a 3d accelerator than without, and writing games is a lot easier with an already-written engine than without... et cetera. Of course, people still write new engines, or rewrite parts of them, for reasons of function or performance, and this is likely to be true for the forseeable future... but now I have no idea how this got started and since I have to type sinisterly because my right hand is broken I will stop here :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. this is a boon by spir0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    this is a boon to hobbyist developers everywhere. I used to be a big fan of AMOS on the amiga before BlitzBASIC hit big, so I understand the grounding.

    I have recently found, however, a C library which makes game coding as easy as Blitz and AMOS. Perhaps simpler. Even better, it's cross platform. So for those looking at something a little different, check out Allegro.

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  15. Rolls eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    But of course C++ game programmers will still shake their heads in a puzzled fashion, ignoring all the amazing games written by hobbyist programmers.

    Please. Hobbyist programmers are more than capable of learning C++. If the platform has merit, fine, it's just another tool in the box. If it doesn't, don't write off criticism as snobbery.

  16. Still waiting... by agent+dero · · Score: 2, Funny

    for a cross-platform Hypercard :)

    Then we'll see who has the coolest games!

    --
    Error 407 - No creative sig found
  17. Old School '64 days revisited by HonkyLips · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I loved Blitz Basic on the Amiga.
    To me, programming languages like this remind me of the Commodore 64, where you were in a BASIC environment from the moment you switched it on. I was writing games on the Commodore 64 in primary school. I loved learning to write simple programs and the ease with which you could do stuff like scroll the screen or set up sprites fed a huge culture of bedroom programemrs.
    When I upgraded to an Amiga, although it was a more sophisticated computer with more powerful hardware, the GUI and OS made it difficult for an average schoolkid (ie me) to access and program in the same manner I had with the '64. Amiga Basic was shit, and lacked the immediacy and flexibility of C64 basic.
    BlitzMax, for me, is a chance to have fun with my machines again. Just reading through the website reminds me of the thrill I used to get on the '64 when I figured out raster interrupts and other hacks.
    I hope applications like Blitz can interest a new generation of bedroom games programmers, as the large companies move games-production into a more Hollywood-level industry.

    --
    Putting syrup in coffee is some form of blasphemy.
  18. C++ Programmer Shaking Head? by wasabifan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Maybe I am the programmer that isn't getting it. True I didn't look to see what (if any) game specific APIs this has. However, from their OpenGL example, why wouldn't somebody just do that in GLUT (the cross platform GL utility)? If there really is a big interest in an open OpenGL game API, why not get one started that is modeled roughly on GLUT? Isn't that the basic idea behind OpenGL anyway?

    1. Re:C++ Programmer Shaking Head? by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The big draw for the Blitz* languages is that you can drastically reduce the amount of time you spend pfutzing around with the code itself. I'm perfectly capable of writing code in C++, but I've found that I really prefer spending my game-making time on other aspects of the task--such as audio, graphics design, and playability twaeaking. Sure, my code isn't as bombproof or fast as it could be if I were to use C++, but these there's little need to squeeze those last few drops of performance out of your system for your typical 2D game. Barring insane sprite-count overkill, you're not going to be stressing modern machines out with a reasonably well-designed Blitz* game. Even a 100% boost in efficiency isn't going to be that big of a deal if the game already runs smoothly on a three-year-old machine. Like any other programming task, the biggest factor is going to be whether or not you know how to program--that is, if you can select efficient algorithms, avoid wasting cycles, and design your app in a streamlined fashion.

      Look at it this way: programming is but one of many, many facets of building a game. If the programming aspect is what you most enjoy, then by all means, you should use C++. If, on the other hand, you just want the code to be done so you can focus on other aspects, Blitz* is an excellent way to get there.

      I've got the coding background, but to be honest, I'm becoming less and less interested in the code itself. Or rather, I've lost interest in the minutae; I still enjoy the broader matters of overall application design, but I don't really get a kick out of churning out line after line of code. I've come to realize that I'm more than happy to take a loss on performance and flexibility to be able to just churn things out; I've ceased caring about the ins-and-outs of initializing the graphics driver. It's interesting and important stuff, but it isn't what interests me. That's where Blitz* comes in handy--it's a happy medium between mindless click 'n' drool RAD game construction kits and hardcore C++.

      It's not just about the right tool for the job--it's also about the right tool for the worker, especially when you're writing games as a hobby.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    2. Re:C++ Programmer Shaking Head? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I'd rather have it as a C++ library, eliminating some of the problems with readablity.

    3. Re:C++ Programmer Shaking Head? by wasabifan · · Score: 0

      Maybe I wasn't clear. I am not saying BASIC doesn't have its place. However, using BASIC and OpenGL just doesn't seem to make sense. If know OpenGL, your language of choice doesn't matter much. You can do the same 10 line demo the original post was so proud of in C++ in the same 10 lines of code using GLUT. If you understand 3D OpenGL, C++ will be a breeze. XCode and GLUT are free, so if you are an aspiring 3D game developer, I would say C++ is the way to start. If you just want to make a simplistic 2D game and concentrate more on art and sound, feel free to pay to use BASIC (though I don't find it any easier...and I find debugging it harder), HyperCard, or whatever programming environment you want.

  19. Are you kidding me? Blitz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this some kind of joke?

    Blitz a great game programming tool.
    I guess you never have programmed any good games.

    I guess if you want to make a multiplatform version of the Atari 2600 of ET it would be fine
    anything else then forget about it.

    It's a waste of time and money if you ask me. On to much bigger things.

  20. Oh, good. by quamaretto · · Score: 3, Funny
    BlitzMax is BASIC...but with a few twists, including:
    • Function pointers
    Oh, good. Finally, a Basic-style language that combines the power of C with the readability of C. (I'm kidding. I love function pointers.)
    --
    *is run over by rotten tomatoes*
  21. Crossplatform Hypercard Replacements by sagefire.org · · Score: 2, Informative
    http://www.runrev.com/

    http://www.metacard.com/
    (although sold to runrev for commercial development, getting the old metacard IDE and heading over to yahoo groups, you will find some nice geeks continuing development of the free version)

    http://www.hyperstudio.com/
    It's been forever since they released a new version, and there is no Linux version of the software.

    http://www.squeak.org/

  22. Avoiding the gruntwork by elh_inny · · Score: 1

    If I were really going to make a good game and had a great concept for the game: storyline, environment, logic etc, I'd probably just make a mod for Half-Life 2.
    You certainly can't beat the features it offers, the best network code there is, stunning graphics, and great physics.

    An average Joe can't probably buy a license to have his own standalone game based on HL2, but as you can with CS people who made greats mods for fun are not so bad off after all.
    1. Start with the mod.
    2. After the first beta ask for donations.
    3. Profit.
    4. grow big.
    5. Profit.

    Mind you I have the IP and the patent for this scheme so should you choose to use you have to pay $100 otherwise it'd be too easy :D

  23. that's more difficult by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



    I agree with you. Mods are very attractive. But to do something really different or value-added than the original Half Life, a programmer needs to know a lot more about programming (C++ especially). I think the point here is that Blitz Basic is a bit more accessible to the common pedestrian.

    But as a final analysis, is the common pedestrian likely to make something very dramatic? Probably not.

  24. On Basic and Graphics... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    So I work in the field of 3D graphics with both experience of game and visual effects 3D. It's hell trying to hire people who are any good. But one thing comes up again and again: when we find someone who's really good they often grew up programming in BASIC, often on machines like Atari 800s or BBC Micros. The fact is that these machines were delivered to customers with BASIC built in lowering the entry level to programming. These people had a great headstart. Today the barrier to enter graphics programming is much higher and kids are put off discovering programming for themselves. Products like BlitzMax can only open up opportunities for kids to actually try their hand at creating games rather than just accepting the products corporations throw at them. Like the previous generation who grew up on BASIC these kids will have a headstart. (Oh and screw the crap Dijkstra says about BASIC, that was merely the squealing of someone who felt his priesthood was threatened by the opening up of computing.)

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  25. BlitzMax is pretty cool... by TommyBear · · Score: 1

    I've always had a facination with Basic. Don't know why. Maybe because it was the first language I ever touched on a Commodore 16 of all things!

    Anyway I bought a copy of BlitzMax to give it a spin on my Win32 box and Mac. Pretty cool. It can actually import c or c++ code directly and compile it.

    I've already written a LUA scripting and Zip module and I'm currently working on an ODE module! :) Did I mention that it is compiled? It's C quick.