3 ms·

Having read https://github.com/raysan5/raylib/wiki https://github.com/raysan5/raylib/wiki, it seems entirely likely it will take longer to get the environment s

Having read https://github.com/raysan5/raylib/wiki https://github.com/raysan5/raylib/wiki, it seems entirely likely it will take longer to get the environment setup than OP spent on his game in total.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
Ok but where can the OP go from here with 24a2? They can make a few more dot games and maybe share them but they won't be able to improve upon the initial design much. Eventually they'll have to make the jump to something that can handle rendering images, sound, building an executable etc. I guess if your goal is to just make a game and then be done with it 24a2 is fine but if you wanted to progress further and make games that people will play you'd be stuck.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  I don't understand this line of reasoning. This wasn't a suitable technology to make this game in because it's only good for this game and a few others? So it was good for this game?
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    The point I was trying to make is that doing game development in a toy framework like this is only good for making trivial games like the one in the article. That may be fine in the author's case since he states that he doesn't have any interest in sound or graphics (or at least feels they are a hindrance to his purpose) and just wanted to try making a game. I didn't really mean to address my comment to the author, it was moreso speaking to the audience of the post and the hypothetical reader who may want to do more than what the author did. Basically I meant to say that using such a framework is a bad starting point for someone who wants to progress in game development. If the author doesn't want to do that, that's great, job done, story over, they can move on with their life.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      You haven't explained why it's a bad starting point, though. What does making some initial games in this way prevent you from doing in the future?

throwaway4aday 4y ago

Ok but where can the OP go from here with 24a2? They can make a few more dot games and maybe share them but they won't be able to improve upon the initial design much. Eventually they'll have to make the jump to something that can handle rendering images, sound, building an executable etc. I guess if your goal is to just make a game and then be done with it 24a2 is fine but if you wanted to progress further and make games that people will play you'd be stuck.

robertlagrant 4y ago
I don't understand this line of reasoning. This wasn't a suitable technology to make this game in because it's only good for this game and a few others? So it was good for this game?
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  The point I was trying to make is that doing game development in a toy framework like this is only good for making trivial games like the one in the article. That may be fine in the author's case since he states that he doesn't have any interest in sound or graphics (or at least feels they are a hindrance to his purpose) and just wanted to try making a game. I didn't really mean to address my comment to the author, it was moreso speaking to the audience of the post and the hypothetical reader who may want to do more than what the author did. Basically I meant to say that using such a framework is a bad starting point for someone who wants to progress in game development. If the author doesn't want to do that, that's great, job done, story over, they can move on with their life.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    You haven't explained why it's a bad starting point, though. What does making some initial games in this way prevent you from doing in the future?