The parent post has a point. C++ is a difficult language to pick up quickly. My college has 3 C++ courses that are prereqs to just about all the other cs courses, and I still didn't learn it well until my senior year when I had to use it again.
Learning C++ for any practical use will take time and practice to learn all of the nuances, especially the copy constructors, operator overloading, and all of that junk.
Well, I can't recommend a book, since I learned C++ first, but I have a warning...there is no definitive API. I imagine that would be a stumbling block for Java-to-C++ converts. However, might I recommend
this for the STL?
I think that in searching for a book, you should probably look for one that highlights the differences between the languages. That helped me when I was learning Java, and it's probably the quickest way you can pick it up. Have a look at Amazon and just search under books for "java c++". The first few entries are aimed at this. I can't vouch for these books, but hey, that's what I found.
First of all, they must spend more time tweaking - the sheer complexity of games is much higher today. Think about a huge RPG or RTS. There is a lot of balancing that goes on there between unit types, items, etc., not to mention the graphics.
The reason that gamers should care about the ratio is the health of the industry. The ratio of quality games is going up, which means that producers making good, non-buggy games are being rewarded with high sales. There are, of course, exceptions...you mentioned some Keanu Reeves game or something...? Anyway, it's a sign that the industry is becoming more efficient at churning out games that we will want to play.
He makes a good point about the quality of games today versus classic games. I would disagree that the ratio of good to bad games is the same today as then, however. It's probably higher today.
These days, games have to go through a great deal of tweaking and whatnot just to work, much less be playable and fun. So for a game to even be released, there has to be a huge time investment for the corporation.
Bad games back in the day had major bugs, some of which made the games almost impossible to play.
I read this article recently, and it pertains to this topic. (By pertains, I mean proves this guy wrong:) Check it out here. It was written in 1987, but it still rings very true today.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent post has a point. C++ is a difficult language to pick up quickly. My college has 3 C++ courses that are prereqs to just about all the other cs courses, and I still didn't learn it well until my senior year when I had to use it again.
Learning C++ for any practical use will take time and practice to learn all of the nuances, especially the copy constructors, operator overloading, and all of that junk.
Well, I can't recommend a book, since I learned C++ first, but I have a warning...there is no definitive API. I imagine that would be a stumbling block for Java-to-C++ converts.
However, might I recommend this for the STL?
I think that in searching for a book, you should probably look for one that highlights the differences between the languages. That helped me when I was learning Java, and it's probably the quickest way you can pick it up. Have a look at Amazon and just search under books for "java c++". The first few entries are aimed at this. I can't vouch for these books, but hey, that's what I found.
First of all, they must spend more time tweaking - the sheer complexity of games is much higher today. Think about a huge RPG or RTS. There is a lot of balancing that goes on there between unit types, items, etc., not to mention the graphics.
The reason that gamers should care about the ratio is the health of the industry. The ratio of quality games is going up, which means that producers making good, non-buggy games are being rewarded with high sales. There are, of course, exceptions...you mentioned some Keanu Reeves game or something...? Anyway, it's a sign that the industry is becoming more efficient at churning out games that we will want to play.
He makes a good point about the quality of games today versus classic games. I would disagree that the ratio of good to bad games is the same today as then, however. It's probably higher today.
These days, games have to go through a great deal of tweaking and whatnot just to work, much less be playable and fun. So for a game to even be released, there has to be a huge time investment for the corporation.
Bad games back in the day had major bugs, some of which made the games almost impossible to play.
I read this article recently, and it pertains to this topic. (By pertains, I mean proves this guy wrong :) Check it out here. It was written in 1987, but it still rings very true today.