LÖVE

Xcmd wrote:There are plenty of 3D applications out there that seamlessly blend 2D and 3D easily enough. Let them be the ones you use. I like Love because it's just a 2D engine.

I like LÖVE because it has style. Any game platform recommendations in light of this?

I may not be a real developer, but my opinion is that LÖVE is awesome because it's simple, has grate style and is powerful enough to make epic things in. Opening the gate to let in the dogs of 3D would just overcomplicate things and shift development focus away from 2D. What would you prefer? A 2D engine that is AWESOME and does all it needs to do with pin-point percision and the flair of a 40-year old cross dressing German? Or a game engine that tries to do both 2D and 3D and will probably do a mediocre job of both?

CHOOSE YOUR DESTINY

mike wrote:Opening the gate to let in the dogs of 3D would just overcomplicate things and shift development focus away from 2D.

I've responded to this several times, and people keep reiterating this idea that it will complicate LÖVE.

Does anyone here actually care to respond to my orthogonal API thesis?

Guess not

hdon wrote:

mike wrote:Opening the gate to let in the dogs of 3D would just overcomplicate things and shift development focus away from 2D.

I've responded to this several times, and people keep reiterating this idea that it will complicate LÖVE.

Does anyone here actually care to respond to my orthogonal API thesis?

sigh ... Love is what it is, and there is plenty of open gl based bindings / engines for lua, including a direct open gl binding to lua

I use different flavors of lua all the time with their strengths and weaknesses

and when it comes to it, if i need to do 2D on a pc love is a most favorable option, if I want to write an app, I go elsewhere, if I get into 3d ill choose something else, its no big thing

heres the "big list" of game engine things, see what suits your fancy

PS: no I do not give a FF about your thesis

osgeld wrote:when it comes to it, if i need to do 2D on a pc love is a most favorable option, if I want to write an app, I go elsewhere, if I get into 3d ill choose something else, its no big thing

I'm glad you're so satisfied without the graphical features other 2D game programmers want from LÖVE. It's very commendable of you to express such noble feelings.

osgeld wrote:PS: no I do not give a FF about your thesis

You didn't claim 3D would complicate things, therefore your rebuttal to the orthogonal APIs thesis was never requested.

hdon wrote:Does anyone here actually care to respond to my orthogonal API thesis?

Nobody likes you. Go away. (Just kidding )

hdon wrote:

mike wrote:Opening the gate to let in the dogs of 3D would just overcomplicate things and shift development focus away from 2D.

I've responded to this several times, and people keep reiterating this idea that it will complicate LÖVE.

Does anyone here actually care to respond to my orthogonal API thesis?

It was very long and I have a very short attention span, sorry.

I don't see why "sprite distortion" should not be implemented.
If someone decides to use it for 3d, then that's their problem.
Distorting sprites like this only requires that you can move individual vertices of a quad around freely. It could be used for special effects. It could be used to make textured polygonal "terrain" for a platformer. It can be used for all kinds of weird stuff that crazy people can come up with.
This has nothing to do with 3D, and it still doesn't just because someone thought of using it for 3D. I think freely moving sprite vertices should be possible, but I don't see why all of OpenGL should be exposed.

And hdon, I don't think there has been much talk of the DS, but there's been a bit of talk about porting it to the Wii, which does have an OpenGL wrapper (although I have not explored how complete it is, it does have 3D). Abstraction is a good reason not to expose OpenGL though, as then you can easily get bound to one graphics library. And porting huge amounts of 3D functionality to make an abstraction layer for 3D graphics is not a good idea in my opinion, at least not until after the big crunch and the big bang re-iteration has come about.

I second to this, there's a lot of neat tricks you can do with distorted sprites.

I can imagine using it for snes mode 7-esque flat textured terrain, water waves and splashes (with or without physics), jello physics (squishy jello effect), etc. This would be really cool.

The function might not be pretty, as in requiring more than 10 parameters, (x1, y1, x2, y2...etc.) but that can be compensated on however the user needs to use it through wrapper functions.

Anyhow, this feature would be like a Christmas present to me