LÖVE

I do admit, it's got a much bigger learning curve than LOVE does, perhaps because it's in 3D. I will say it was an easier experience than UDK.

Robin wrote:

BlackBulletIV wrote:Ha yeah. I'm not too interested in 3D. Creating a good game in 2D is hard enough, at least on your own.

True. Although it would be cool to have a 3D engine with a lovely API. I've never seen one so far.

I was also looking for one. I ended up with old, plain OpenGL/OpenGLUT using LuaGLUT bindings from here: http://lua-users.org/files/wiki_insecur ... rolKaptan/ (note: I was looking only for linux-compatible solutions). The problem with 3D is that is much more complicated. So for lua you would need access to low-level OpenGL functions anyway, because every "high-level layer" slows things down and usually is not done right - it is either too limited in functionality or too complicated to use. If so, then it is better to use plain OpenGL - you can at least reuse your code/tutorials for OpenGL.

Jasoco wrote: Maybe one day. But not for a loooong time. I would think. We can all dream.

I disagree. I would prefer for Löve to stay 2D. If a 3D Löve were to exist someday, I would hope that it would be a different product, developed separately from this framework.

One of Löve's definitive features (that also gives it alot of charm) is that it is so simple. Even an optional built-in 3D module would take that away to some extent.

Lafolie wrote:

Jasoco wrote: Maybe one day. But not for a loooong time. I would think. We can all dream.

I disagree. I would prefer for Löve to stay 2D. If a 3D Löve were to exist someday, I would hope that it would be a different product, developed separately from this framework.

One of Löve's definitive features (that also gives it alot of charm) is that it is so simple. Even an optional built-in 3D module would take that away to some extent.

That comes from the fact that 2D is much simpler than 3D; and from the fact that LOVE's API is very well crafted. It is possible to create a simple, easy to understand 3D API similar to LOVE's API, but the fact that it's 3D would add another level of inevitable complexity.

BlackBulletIV wrote:but the fact that it's 3D would add another level of inevitable complexity.

This is what I was getting at

Also, you have to remember that there will be alot of people jumping in at the deep end. You know how it is..... having 3D there would amplify this problem, errr.... 'issue'.

I mean, look at the Po2 syndrome, the font creation thingy and even something as simple as using syntax like love.graphics.newImage() in the update loop. These are very basic issues that arise time and time again. Imagine the implications and issues that a 3D engine would bring. This topic alone serves as a point for what I'm trying to say here I guess.

Whatever the case, it's 2D all the way for me

Well that's because 3D is not for newbs... no sir! In fact it's probably not too compatible with me either. My take on the issue is that just because some don't know how to use it, is not a valid reason to not create it. If that logic was used everywhere, there would no internet, or pretty much any invention.

The reason I couldn't be stuffed about 3D is because 3D is tough, even if "Love3D" simplified it all. 2D can get tough enough, and I'm not interested in making a fully fledged game in 3D, I'd only tinker with it. I think it would be awesome if someone created a 3D engine with a LOVEly API, but I wouldn't make a lot of use out of it.

Oh, I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be done. I meant that I would rather still have Love2D and, if given the choice I would use the 2D framework over a 3D one. I'm a pessimist and as such I am quite disillusioned by the general opinion people have towards games. For instance, alot of my peers' first reactions upon seeing a new game has, and always will be "have you seen the graphics?" or if being told about them they ask "what are the graphics like?". Now, this can be interpreted in many ways, but usually they are asking "how good are the graphics?" and they mean this as in 'how shiny/fancy/new/blah' are they? Another point would be that people often see an old game and comment "how bad are the graphics?!". I have a friend who is -at the moment - a huge Final Fantasy fan. But when I speak to him about Final Fantasy games, his reference points lie in.... 8 onwards. I've told him that I personally feel that the older Final Fantasy games are much better than the newer ones, and that he should play them and experience the roots of the series. But he refuses to play them, because they are 2D and "the graphics look crappy".

This is a bit of a specific point/example to make, but I'm sure there are alot of kids out there with a similar opinion to my friend. I guess that's a part of the throwaway culture that exists nowadays. But um, yeah... I don't see what is wrong with 2D games. I mean, if you wanna make a 3D game, go for it. I encourage creativity of any kind. I'm just happy with the 2D medium and I'd hate to see Löve being spoiled with unnecessary built-in 3D components that would not only convolute the framework but also be somewhat of a burden (for devs and users alike).

I have no doubt that the Löve developers have no intention to 'convert' Löve to a 3D platform anyway.

Yep, totally agree there. Although I do love good graphics, it most certainly adds a lot of weight in favour of the game. But graphics don't make the game, the gameplay does. If you don't have any programming (gameplay), all you've got is a bunch of art/sound/other assets.

There's nothing wrong with 2D; 3D is nicer, but much harder to pull off. It's all about the work-to-result ratio.

Lafolie wrote:I have no doubt that the Löve developers have no intention to 'convert' Löve to a 3D platform anyway.

No, that'd be a big head ache.