LÖVE

Hello everyone,

This is not a post on FrameworkA vs. FameworkB holy wars, I just wanted to know what experienced Löve2d programmers think about MonoGame. Is it more low/high level ? What features does it have that Löve2d doesn't have ? Or other way around ?

What are philosophical differences between them ? As far as I can see, MonoGame supports wider range of platform(with Android and iOS), any other non-api-related differences ?

Main reason I'm asking this is because me and a friend will start developing a game and I was wondering if MonoGame would be a better choice.

Thanks in advance.

Well monogame is basically open source XNA. With the news that MS will officially bin XNA very soon it might not be worth investing time in using that framework directly, monogame is a well updated project as far as I know but because its XNA mirror it's still using directx9 which is getting old.

Ask yourself these questions:

- Target Platforms
- Type of game
- Development time

Right tool, right job.

Thanks Pash for your response.

I know MonoGame is basically implementing XNA API. I asked this because I never used XNA so I also don't have any ideas about XNA.

Our game will be 2D platformer but we may also need some shader effects too(we both are starters and never used shaders yet).

No problems.

Well, if youve ever looked at .NET before XNA will seem very approachable. In my opinion, its a great loss for MS to dump this tech because its a fantastic framework. That said, Love is an amazing framework that can be fully scripted via lua. I think the graphics side of love framework is OpenGL (I could be wrong but thats the beauty of frameworks....) and as far as I know there are many shaders being used in Love game dev. Infact, just take a look around the forums and people are showing them off.

All the best.

Xna's No longer Alive!

Pash wrote:No problems.
and as far as I know there are many shaders being used in Love game dev. Infact, just take a look around the forums and people are showing them off.

Just take a look at this awesome thread : share a shader!.
And also this one: Pixel art and GLSL cellshading concept

Pash wrote: Well, if youve ever looked at .NET before XNA will seem very approachable. In my opinion, its a great loss for MS to dump this tech because its a fantastic framework.

Yes, it really is too bad that they're "ceasing support" of XNA...I was actually looking into learning this just a few days ago when I found out the news. I wonder what this means for indie game dev on the next Xbox?

It's also a bit strange that MS is seemingly distancing themselves from DirectX too (saying, in the same memo on discontinuing XNA, that it's no longer "evolving"), especially at a time when DirectX is essentially crushing OpenGL in AAA game dev.

scutheotaku wrote:especially at a time when DirectX is essentially crushing OpenGL in AAA game dev.

These days, AAA games typically use an engine which abstracts the underlying graphics API away enough that it doesn't really matter.

For example, Unreal Engine 3 can deploy games to Xbox 360, PS3, PS Vita, WIi U, Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android. The usable graphics APIs on these platforms include OpenGL (Windows/Mac/Linux), OpenGL ES (iOS/Android), Direct3D (Windows/Xbox 360), and custom APIs (other consoles.)

OpenGL ES is essentially a stripped down version of OpenGL, and considering how much traction it's been gaining both with mobile (all hardware-accelerated mobile games use OpenGL ES) and web-based (WebGL, NaCL, Unity Webplayer) games, it's a little silly to say that DirectX is crushing.

slime wrote:

scutheotaku wrote:especially at a time when DirectX is essentially crushing OpenGL in AAA game dev.

These days, AAA games typically use an engine which abstracts the underlying graphics API away enough that it doesn't really matter.

For example, Unreal Engine 3 can deploy games to Xbox 360, PS3, PS Vita, WIi U, Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android. The usable graphics APIs on these platforms include OpenGL (Windows/Mac/Linux), OpenGL ES (iOS/Android), Direct3D (Windows/Xbox 360), and custom APIs (other consoles.)

OpenGL ES is essentially a stripped down version of OpenGL, and considering how much traction it's been gaining both with mobile (all hardware-accelerated mobile games use OpenGL ES) and web-based (WebGL, NaCL, Unity Webplayer) games, it's a little silly to say that DirectX is crushing.

Yes, perhaps crushing was too strong of a word

But while AAA game engines do abstract the graphics API, it still matters which graphics API they use, especially when it comes to taking advantage of API-specific features. Most AAA developers focus on DX and target DX-capable systems (Unreal Engine 3 and CryEngine being two popular examples), and most of them are pretty vocal about preferring working with DX over working with OpenGL. An obvious example of this would be Carmack. For ages he was waving the OpenGL flag, but has just recently been saying that he now prefers D3D over OpenGL, and that "Direct3D is a rather better API today" and that the only reason that id is sticking with OpenGL right now is because of "inertia." Not to say that Carmack's word is always gold, but I think that, in this case, it signifies the general consensus of the industry. Also, for what it's worth, AMD and Nvidia have been pretty open about their preference for DX/D3D over OpenGL, which is important when you consider driver support and how large an impact that can have on GPU-intensive games.

I do believe that the popularity of graphics APIs like DirectX/D3D and OpenGL will die down in the near future (especially with some big developers saying that they want lower-level alternatives). But my main point is this: DirectX is more popular than OpenGL in the AAA game dev world right now, and most AAA game developers greatly prefer D3D over OpenGL, and things like DX and OpenGL haven't died out yet. With those two things in mind, why would MS pick now to seemingly abandon DX development? And does this mean that MS will have an alternative out in time for the next Xbox (I doubt it), or will games like that rely on a graphics API that will apparently no longer be improved? I doubt that MS will be making the switch to OpenGL

One thing worth mentioning: if, by same strange happening, the next Playstation ends up beating the next Xbox in the upcoming console war, it will be interesting as to how that effects the OpenGL vs DirectX battle...

As far as mobile markets...I wasn't really talking about those. I was more focusing on current-gen and next-gen 3D game development (that's basically what I meant by AAA game dev).

Anyways, this is really off topic

scutheotaku wrote:

Pash wrote: Well, if youve ever looked at .NET before XNA will seem very approachable. In my opinion, its a great loss for MS to dump this tech because its a fantastic framework.

Yes, it really is too bad that they're "ceasing support" of XNA...I was actually looking into learning this just a few days ago when I found out the news. I wonder what this means for indie game dev on the next Xbox?

It's also a bit strange that MS is seemingly distancing themselves from DirectX too (saying, in the same memo on discontinuing XNA, that it's no longer "evolving"), especially at a time when DirectX is essentially crushing OpenGL in AAA game dev.

Do the consoles even sell for profit anymore? I think they don't really care about indie devs now. They want to sell their own dev sdks to make money from the studios.

Pash wrote:

scutheotaku wrote:

Pash wrote: Well, if youve ever looked at .NET before XNA will seem very approachable. In my opinion, its a great loss for MS to dump this tech because its a fantastic framework.

Yes, it really is too bad that they're "ceasing support" of XNA...I was actually looking into learning this just a few days ago when I found out the news. I wonder what this means for indie game dev on the next Xbox?

It's also a bit strange that MS is seemingly distancing themselves from DirectX too (saying, in the same memo on discontinuing XNA, that it's no longer "evolving"), especially at a time when DirectX is essentially crushing OpenGL in AAA game dev.

Do the consoles even sell for profit anymore? I think they don't really care about indie devs now. They want to sell their own dev sdks to make money from the studios.

I don't think most consoles sell for profit for the first couple of years, but I'm pretty sure manufacturing costs are usually eventually lowered enough to make a profit. But this wouldn't be a different situation than the 360 or PS3.

Also, MS clearly cared about indie game dev on the 360, so it'd be strange for them to do a 180 on that unless indie game sales were much lower than it seems.