4 ms·

Unity is not for everyone though. There is a lot of hobbyists who prefer writing games instead of scripting ready-made chunks. Also it has a lot of warts (noth

by CmonDev 13y ago

Unity is not for everyone though. There is a lot of hobbyists who prefer writing games instead of scripting ready-made chunks. Also it has a lot of warts (nothing is ideal): http://t-machine.org/index.php/2013/12/27/2014-entity-systems-what-are-your-unity3d-questions-and-problems/#comments http://t-machine.org/index.php/2013/12/27/2014-entity-system... XNA is a good public image making tool, not just an API. https://twitter.com/search?q=%23becauseofXNA&src=hash https://twitter.com/search?q=%23becauseofXNA&src=hash MonoGame is unfortunately still lacking an own content pipeline.

pjmlp 13y ago
Since I am comfortable with C++, I tend to play around with engines with C++ bindings. I rather use C++ than being stuck in .NET 3.5, without any more modern C# goodies. As for scripting ready-made chunks, I guess one has to decide if they want to make a game or a game engine.
- CmonDev 13y ago
  "I rather use C++ than being stuck in .NET 3.5, without any more modern C# goodies" - I use all modern C# features with XNA - what is the issue (except for async/await maybe)? "I guess one has to decide if they want to make a game or a game engine" - exactly, but there should be a choice. XNA being a framework rather than engine provided such a choice in a high-level way.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    > I use all modern C# features with XNA - what is the issue (except for async/await maybe)? The libraries are also important and they are stuck on .NET 3.5 offerings. Another problem is the old version of Mono they are using, which doesn't not have the JIT and GC improvements of more recent versions. This is what I was able to gather from online sources, when wondering if it was worth the time and space to install it.