Game Development Community

How far can i get with scripts?

by Heiko Irrgang · in Torque Game Engine · 05/27/2004 (8:47 am) · 9 replies

Hello,

i ordered the license quite a time ago and startet to get into programming it with c++. i managed to compile a bare project, but since then i havent done anything. This is because a) my free time is very limited and b) i dont like c++ much, i am more into c.

So im now on the point to decide how to continue... should i continue my efforts getting into programming torque with c++ or should i rather go into the scripting thingy.

the question i have is how far can i get with scripting... so lets say i dont want to do the 18 millionth 1st person shooter. do i have a chance to do, lets say a realtime strategy game or a adventure ala monkey island via scripting? or do i have to use c++ as soon as i leave the "anything which is in the demo game" area?

thanx.

#1
05/27/2004 (9:09 am)
I think you could probably do just about anything with scripting some how or another, but, if you want any new features to be added to your engine, then you will most likely be going into c++. To make a game different from the rest you are going to need both scripting and c++.
#2
05/27/2004 (11:11 am)
After studying torque for just over a year, I have a game plan (sorry). It is a puzzle-type game, where you run between different locations and deliver things. It is still fps-type, though no shooting people, just running through obstacles, and delivering things to special buildings. I will not need to touch c++ code once to do the whole thing, from what I can tell.

An adventure game ala monkey island should be totally possible without engine changes. RTS is also possible, though you might need some changes to move the camera around differently (and I'm sure other things that I can't think of).

One of the big dogs might be able to give you a more detailed view of what can't be done in script.
#3
05/27/2004 (11:22 am)
You will most likely need to touch the engine code at some point. Camera stuff? Mutating Instances' variables? IMHO I find the engine code a bit easier to work with and I think its more like what you said, "i have to use c++ as soon as i leave the "anything which is in the demo game"

Maybe not quite that extreme, but close me thinks.


-s
#4
05/27/2004 (12:32 pm)
It all depends on ingenuity. If you really want to you can do a LOT of interesting stuff in script. But it's often easier to build C++ components and then connect them with script glue. It's all up to you and your personal style.

I suggest the latter choice, but that's because I'm a pretty good at both C++ and script. The most important thing is doing what works to let you make your game.
#5
05/27/2004 (9:26 pm)
Well, thanx for all the answers.

i think i ll go through a few scripting tutorials now an give it a chance.

just one thing i wanted to mention to the programmers of torque. you may have heard similar suggestions already, but the biggest trouble i went into, when trying to compile a empty project with c++ was finding all the class dependencies within the engine and the necessary .o files to link in. Some kind of static library file which you simple add to your linker - like almost all other programming librarys provide it - would ease things up a lot. I know that this would be a major change in the build system, but maybe you could think about it.

... and yeah, john: theres no need to excuse for having a game plan, you are one step further than most professional game programmers nowaday :-D
#6
05/27/2004 (11:45 pm)
If its a hobby project and you don't mind some bugs etc you can probably get away with scripting only. I really don't see a commercial game happening with Torque without touching the C++. Unless its a simple shoot em up ala Torque demo.
#7
05/28/2004 (10:10 am)
I have written complete applications and tools using nothing but TorqueScript. Push it and it will suprise you every time.
#8
06/02/2004 (1:15 pm)
You can do a ton with scripts. Some of John's stuff offer awesome examples of how far you can go with it.
#9
06/03/2004 (7:15 am)
Just to clarify... that would be John Vanderbeck... not me :) I don't have any awesome stuff _yet_.