Talk:Game Maker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Version 7

I added in a development section to highlight the facts about the upcoming GM7. Feel free to edit it. --DizzyTech 13:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

there is no version 7 coming up, but there might be a version 6.2, mark overmars hasn't even mentioned version 7 and the site that clams to have pictures of version 7 is a fake. mark overmars is most likly to make v6 go up to v6.3/4. greg(unreg)

I hereby declare Greg(unreg) the most stupid person on Wikipedia. Can't you just freaking read? --=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 08:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"The full posts from Mark Overmars himself at the Game Maker Forums can be viewed here, here, and here. The topic itself is currently here."
All the links from the line above are now broken; all return "Cannot find topic". Sicanjal 15:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
...Hmm. I don't know where the topic went. Somebody must have run a pruning; the topic was locked. Somebody removed the reference section. Although, that bug fixes list should suffice for valid GM7 proof. DizzyTech 02:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I feel that criticism section for this article is necessary. It should contain common complaints such as:

1. GM's performance issues.

2. GM's lack of native 3d support.

3. The large binaries GM creates.

4. GM's poor error checking (thus it gives runtime errors).

5. The forced logo displayed when loading games created by unregistred versions.

There are definately more criticisms, but I'd like to hear the feedback of others before me or someone else creates this new section.

Point #5 is nonsense. Of course unregistered versions of shareware programs have limited functionality. That's part of the whole model.
As to the rest, find some citations for these "common" complaints and you're good to go. -Stellmach 19:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
To give a complete view of the program, limitations should be mentioned, but they should not be noted as "criticisms". The point of any article is to give facts in a neutral way. This is almost impossible with so many contributors, but you can limit it by not using certain words. "Benefits of..." is better than "Positive points about...". "Limitations of..." is better than "Criticisms about...". -- CobraWiki 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Which are the performance issues? It seems like alot of open-ended game creation tools will have an issue or two without proper coding and for neutrality we could say "free version limitions" or "advanced version extra features"--Old Guard 01:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Umm... #2 isn't really fair, it's not meant to be a 3d engine. It states that on their website. As for the others, this is an educational tool. I find the other crits irrelevant to the article. GearType2 08:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. My experience is that Game Maker rarley offers poor performance. The only time I have seen that happening is in a beta RPG and a example my friend made the made like 30 objects shake and blow up in 3D mode. Blah2

[edit] Member number at the Game Maker Community

Please do not change the member number without knowing what you are doing. I don't want to change it back all the time. The fact that some members have a member number of over 36 000 does not mean that there that many members. To see the correct number of members, scroll down to the bottom of the board index and look under "board statistics".

[edit] The Game Maker/GameMaker despute

I made an attempt at solving this dispute. Game Maker gets its own article, and the two programs called GameMaker can share an article, and both articles will link to each other. That should solve the problem, right? --gakon5 12:05, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

You should probably make a disambiguation page. (It would be a cleaner solution.) --Figs 21:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Huge images like the user interface shot are rarely a good idea. That's why we have thumbs. Formatting using large amounts of empty lines is never a good idea. Use something like <br clear=all> if you must. I made some changes that demonstrate what I mean. Rl 09:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The DLL list looks stupid.

We need to get rid of it. Also, The Tuc screen is very bad quality.

Added a few relevant articles,-E-Magination.

    • I removed the DLL list, it doesn't belong in this article

[edit] Created for...

AFAIK Mark Overmars didn't create GM for educational use but began using it in his course after writing the first version. I remember reading Mark's version of this somewhere, but I cam't remember where. Any ideas?

[edit] Links

Re 09:56, 2 December 2005 Haeleth (rv linkspam and remove several other links (WP:NOT a web directory)) Can we have the educational links back? Is there some other way to accomodate them if not suitable here?

Well nobody objected so an educational link is back.

[edit] GM-Made Games WP Category

Well, I decided it was high time that someone made a GM-made games category, so here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Game_Maker-made_games

Just use this tag in your article to add your game to the list:

[[Category:Game Maker-made games]]

Somebody still needs to edit the article itself and ramble about GM-made games and stuff. I'm too lazy, not to mention supposed to be doing schoolwork, to do this myself. Be aware that I'm a WP n00b so IDK if I'm doing everything correctly. Takua108 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double screenshot

Why is the GM GUI screenshot shown twice in the article? That's a bit messy... --Quadduc 05:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

oops, my mistake. It was mostly that somebody else changed the text of the image an I just wanted to create a start.Good you notice --E-Magination 15:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Ok for all of you that say that my link is "spam" while every other link is to other sites that relate just as much as my site. I want to see some talk about this. My site has every much of a right to post a link in the external links as every one else, my site relates to game maker. It is not a spam site, it is for helping users. I see nothing in the rules that says I can't post a link that relates to the page in the external link list. Every other site can but my site, they all deal with the same stuff and they all deal with Game Maker. I would like to ask you all to give me a reason why the link is spam (a real reason, just because), or stop this right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WordWiz (talk • contribs) 01:23, Apr 9, 2006 (UTC).

You are putting up a link to a forum with 24 members, which is considerably less than any of the sites listed. Take for example the Russian GM community with more than 2000 members, or the official GMC with more than 27000 members. There are dozens of Game Maker related forums the same size as yours. Should we add all these too? I don't think so. --Quadduc 10:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The Russian GM community is the only external link to nothing but a small forum. This forum is three times as big as yours (counting the members), it is a whole lot more active than your forum, and it is not just a tiny copy of the official GMC with 1/1000 the amount of members and different admins. If I were to decide, it would probably not have been listed here either. Other reasons why I don't think your link should be added, is that you own the site yourself. It is against the guidelines to add such links. --Quadduc 16:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


Ok now, you just did that after I showed you the facts, that not all the forums on there are big, and ect. My forum is very active, also, we have about 72 registered members, 2712 posts, and about 600 unique hits in a day. The forum is faster, has more tools, and gives power to the users then any other forum. We are in no way a tiny copy of the GMC, or any other forum. If you look at any of the froums, you will see this is clear. I own the site myself, and a team of other game maker users, yes I am the root admin. But that dose not prove a real point. I do no see any guideline that says I can't post a link that relates to the topic. Show me the rule, or is it you are making up your own "rules". There is no real point for me to "spam", with one link that is just like all the others. There is no realy a plus for me with page rank of any of that jazz people seem to talk about. I am just giving away free help to the community. The site unlike others has lots of hits, users and a lot of unique stuff that no other site has.

You are taking a power play with me, there is no need to do that.--31337 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

63 Registered members and 600 hits a day? Please don't take this harshly, but that's pretty tiny for a forum. As the link adds nothing of value to the article (and is blatant advertising), I've removed it. I'm probably going to be doing a purge of a bunch of the other links... I don't see how they benefit the article and they're adding clutter. The article is about the program and not the amount of people who use it, so a link to the official community should be enough. Lankybugger 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"blatant advertising" is harsh, and it is not really very blatant or really even advertising. If this was an advert, I would have just as easily made it in huge font added a banner ad and went to town. I posted a link, with a small description about what it was, the whole thing took up one line in plain text. I use advertising companies when ever I use ads. The only real reason I did this was to help out users and have a little fun coding a up-to-date site that people could use.

The "official community" is not enough, because they never update it. They don't really moderate it right, and they don't allow much freedom to users. Also, we have solved a large number of problems that the GMC could not solve, we also have a lot of articles on Game Maker that users can use. The link is fully related to the topic at hand.

We have 72 Registered members at this time, and 700+ unique hits a day. This is not a small forum, I am not saying it is huge, but it about it the 80% to 90% of forums for game maker. It is not "clutter" it is one line, and there is lots of help for users on it. It is not like there is some limit to the page size and it was put in the correct format. Also, the links are on the end of the page in the first place, there is nothing there to "clutter".--31337 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is blatant advertising. You've admitted a very blatant bias: You somehow feel your own self-created community is superior to the official community despite a vast disparity in the amount of members and posts, and you're admitting you've added this link because YOU own it. I'd have a bunch less problems with this if it weren't you, the creator of these forums, adding the link.
My problem also stems from the fact that your own site doesn't add anything new or unique: The Dutch, German, and Russian forums have their place because not everyone speaks English as a primary language and people reading this article might be able to more easily acquire help or additional information from one of these sources. The only thing you're offering is the idea that your forums are somehow better because you disagree with the administrative practices of the official community.
While in theory these articles have no size limit, part of a good article is that it contains pertinent information regarding the topic at hand and does so in the most concise manner possible. Lankybugger 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that the russian forum is listed with 321 members and a little under 7000 posts may I suggest the unofficial Dutch GMC to be added, http://www.game-maker.nl/, 55348 posts and 845 members? --Simon Donkers 12:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, as long as the link relates, and is not dead. I see nothing wrong with it, also just a note to the user that thought my link was dead, it did not die we are just making an upgrade to the full copy of IPB 2.1.6 Thank you for taking it off the list, I was going to do it anyways at least untill the update is done.

Also, for any of you that post links don't make them wrap over use one line only! Thanks.

Seeing that nobody disagrees, could somebody add the link to http://www.game-maker.nl/. WP:NPOV does not allow me to do so myself. Thanks. --Simon Donkers 22:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GM Date

While reading the Game Maker article, I noticed the quote, "Overmars released the original version in 2000," but on his website he says the first version was released on November 15th, 1999. Before I make the change, could some one confirm this for me, please? 216.171.246.30 15:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. I changed it for you as well. --Tyranic Moron 16:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up?

Am I the only one who feels that the article needs a bit of clean up? Some of the points could stand to be clarified a little more (the differences between the Free and the Licensed versions could definitely be expanded) and the External Links and See Also could also use a good overhaul. Lankybugger 20:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of links

I'm going to remove the TZ corporation and the Vertigo Games link because I feel that the "See also" section should be reserved for major articles dealing with Game Maker. The two game companies listed are just advertising. Also, should the TZ corporation article even be there? It seems a lot like a "garage company." Vertigo games, however, looks to be a little more major.

I also revised the "mininum system requirements" section, making it a bit more clearer.

I'm also going to remove "Coldgearz" from the list as it's a direct link to a ZIP file. This is not usually safe. I'm also going to remove Confilct: Online as the game has not been released as of June 4 2006.

Please don't advertise on Wikipedia, this is meant to be a reliable source of information, not anything else. --Coolbho3000 23:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The TZ corporation and Vertigo Games are both garage companies, neither are run by more than 2 or three people. In fact, almost all Game Maker based devolopment companies are run out of people's bedrooms, I don't think it's appropriate to include links to any of them. TheFearedMachina 10:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed a link or two from the Creation's section, it seams to have been added by it's creator. A single person made then entire article and linked to it. TheFearedMachina 19:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed one link that was for an apparently dead site. Also, the "Unofficial Game Maker Community" doesn't look very active, and it seems to be nothing but a copy of the official GMC but with fewer members and other moderators. -- Quadduc TM 15:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extend Drag-and-Drop?

The third paragraph states:

"To extend the drag-and-drop functionality of Game Maker, users can use files called Libraries to add new drag-and-drop items known as Actions to the lists. These can be created with a special library builder."

Before we even know that Game Maker uses drag-and-drop, Actions and lists (a term I have never heard although I have used GM for several years), the article says that we can extend them. This is too technical for the third paragraph. Drag-and-drop functionallity should be introduced in the third paragraph, but Libraries should be left for much later.--Dougall 21:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It now reads as follows...

"Game Maker is a game development software application written by Mark Overmars in the Delphi programming language. Overmars released the original version on November the 15th, 1999. The features of Game Maker can be extended by registering it and paying a fee of $20.00 USD or €15.00.

The primary interface for the creation of games is via an object-oriented drag-and-drop system, allowing users unfamiliar with traditional programming to intuitively create their game simply by organizing things visually on the screen. Users select objects they've created themselves and drop instances of these objects in the area of the game they are working on, and Game Maker automatically applies any global effects to that instance of the object. To extend the drag-and-drop functionality of Game Maker, users can use files called Libraries to add new drag-and-drop items known as Actions to the lists. These can be created with a special library builder.

The program is designed to allow its users to easily develop computer games without having to learn a complex programming language such as C++ or Java. For experienced users, Game Maker contains a built-in scripting programming language called "GML", or "Game Maker Language". Games can be distributed under any license (including no license), as non-editable executable ".exe" files or as the .gm6/.gmd (Source Code) file itself."

Is that a little better? Lankybugger 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freeware

You guys know that this program used to be freeware, right? RocketMaster

  • You guys know that this program still is freeware, right? --67.142.130.26 03:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut a swath through Syntax

That section was really cluttered and unnecessary. That level of detail should probably be reserved for either the Game Maker Language page or the Game Maker wikibooks entry. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Added a bit more on GML. If anyone knows which version featured the switch from GML and the object-oriented parts being seperate to GML being the base on which the object-oriented parts ran, feel free to add it. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Current Version" section needs cleanup

I don't think that the DLL list is essential to the article at all, and should be removed. I don't think anything in the section is relevant, because it doesn't say anything about the "Current Version", but talks about features of Game Maker. Does anyone else think the section should be renamed "Features" and the DLL list should be removed? Edit: the part about the book doesn't belong in there either.

I think the DLL list needs to be curtailed, certainly... Though perhaps leaving a few in to demonstrate the versatility of Game Maker would be a good solution. As for the book, I believe it definately belongs since it was written by the author of the program and relates to it specifically. It certainly something worth mentioning.
I think the main part of this article which needs reworking is not necessarily the content, but the structure. It's currently disjointed and jumps around quite a bit. Lankybugger 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so I removed a couple of repeated DLLs (we only need an example of ONE 3D DLL and ONE Networking DLL, guys) and I've renamed "Current Version" to "Features", expanding a bit and removing the repeat information about the book. I've done a couple other things as well, like rewriting some sentences. Lankybugger 16:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GMWiki

Just a warning to any trigger-happy editors out there, I'm adding the GMWiki to the links list. It has a lot of Game Maker related material on it, so it should go here. --Workman161 03:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) via Direcway (67.142.130.26 03:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Removing Sections

  • I am removing the two sections on the GM Apprentice book and the GM forums. As I see it, things like these should only be refrenced in the External links section, and no where else. Though they may have been created by the same creator of Game Maker, the relevancy is almost equal to those in the External links section.
  • Not really, the External links give a very small statement about the link, while a full section will explain things a lot better about the link.
  • Sorry, when I meant relevency, I meant the topics in the two past sections and the links of the External links were of the same importance. ChadyWady|Talk 16:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TIRED of ADVERTISING

Seriously, every time I look up this article on Wikipedia, there's ADVERTISING going on. I just removed some website ads. Should we lock this article to prevent it from any more damage?? --Coolbho3000 23:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree While I think that there can be some worthwhile contributions from unregistered members (as that's how every editor gets hooked into Wikipedia), the External Links section seems to be getting changed the most. We don't need links to every single Game Maker website out there and this article definately isn't improved by all the reversions and warring over the External Links. Lankybugger 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, it would appear that some people really like to spam about Game Maker, locking it is probably the best idea, and even if it is locked, non-members can just as easily request an edit on the talk page --Tyriel 09:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Most Game Maker users are between the ages of 8-17. No need to get hasty and say they like to spam. Protecting it so only registered wikipedians can edit would be a good idea, but I'd rather just watch the article and manually remove the drivel. Protecting seems a little harsh for the audience of Game Maker. --workman161 2006-28-08 03:17 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

and if no one minds i'm going to -cut- a few of the external links out.. they seem to be ads again Tyriel

Agree Seeing what goes on on the Game Maker Community, this does not seem to harsh. I also looked at the history of this page, and about 75% of the edits made from new users and unregistered users are made on the sections of Games made with Game Maker and External Links. ChadyWady|Talk 08:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagree Perhaps we should just include a link to Game Maker forum's Website Announcements board? This way, the websites there get recognition and people don't put it here. --Arcalyth 02:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreeish. It should really be the link to the official site, and none of the games or related unofficial forums, unless they are notable forums in themselves.

Agree I dont know what locking is on wikipedia pages but i am in favor of just REGISTERED users can edit it. I mean, who needs a Danish community and all the other rubbish appearing down there! And the used to be a spelling mistake (Hungry to Hungary). Just kidding So yes! Ban editing from unregistered users CoolChris|Talk 07:48, 15 October 2006

[edit] New External Links section "Alternate Language Communities"

I figured it'd help, if we ever decide to cull a bunch of the unofficial links, especially because I consider the alternate languages a far more useful resource than yet another English community link. Lankybugger 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I've toned down the descriptions for both ALC Links and Unofficial Links. Terms like "Better" are POV. I also removed some of the link spam.
At the rate this is going, I'm beginning to think that the Unofficial External Links section is becoming more hassle than it's worth. Lankybugger 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Games made with Game Maker

I think the list should be removed, and move the link to GMWiki to External Links. It's a bit unfair (not to mention NPOV) to put certain games in that list. ~iNVERTED | Rob (Talk) 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. This article is about GM not about games created with it. I took the liberty of removing the section. If anyone thinks the list belongs in Wikipedia please create a new article, but quite frankly I don't think a list belongs in a seperate article either as it would be to spammish.
  • Agreed, sort of. There should definately be a Category created for Game Maker created games (as there are some notable ones), but until that happens I've restored the games list for now. Especially since a lot of other editors seem to like the list and slashing an entire section of the article without warning is probably a little more bold than need be. Lankybugger 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
As an addition to the above, I couldn't find any log of the previous Game Maker Games-type Category being deleted, so it looks like it just fell in a black hole of some sort. Lankybugger 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New category for games...

So, I've made the following: Category:Games_made_with_Game_Maker

We can now remove the list and just put this on the end of the article. We can (and should!) expand this list to include every game made with Game Maker on wikipedia. Cheers, 74.116.128.135 01:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but we don't need to add everygame made in GM. Just have the users add to the category. But making a seperate category was a good idea. [User:soten355]

Indeed. This is a major reason why I created the GMWiki. Perhaps a notice comment in the page telling people they should put their 'advertisements' there instead? --workman161 2006-9-09 17:37 17:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind: if WP ends up with a flood of weak game stubs for the category, the stubs and the category could both come up for discussion and all be deleted. A similar topic was deleted in the past (archived discussion). Learn from this instead of allowing the same to happen again. -- CobraWiki 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Update - All games currently listed in Category:Games made with Game Maker have recently come up as AfD(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) with the exception of Seiklus which was nominated at an earlier time and kept(6)). First and foremost, I do not encourage going into the AfD topics to flame, beg, or gang up to try and force a topic to remain. AfD topics are not a vote; they are a discussion of correct action. Considering some of the most popular games created with Game Maker are not considered WP-worthy due to a lack of notability and verifiability through reliable sources, it is possible the category will also come up for deletion discussion. I am certain that if other games created with Game Maker(7) had been in the category, they would have been listed AfD as well. I would suggest no longer creating any Game Maker game articles and placing them only in GMWiki as suggested above. -- CobraWiki 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] System Requirements

I had to make some changes to the system requirements. After making them, they were changed again to unofficial specifications. I changed them once again to reflect those shown on the official Game Maker website and in the Game Maker manual and also sent a message to the user about the issue via PM.

The user was trying to indicate Game Maker 6 can run smoothly (with not definition of "smooth", I'm assuming this means 30 FPS or more, atleast it should) with as little as 4MB of video memory, despite the fact the Game Maker page clearly states 16MB or more is an absolute requirement to run the program effectively. As I told the user via PM, although it may be possible to run GM under those minimal conditions, it is not ideal and will not run all features correctly and effectively, and this is why it is important to use the official requirements; both to keep it consistant as well as providing the correct information (obviously a 4mb video card is not going to support such features as 3D game making or large images/backgrouds).

As I told the user, the Wikipedia isn't a place to post information which you cant verify from another source that is aknowledgeable and trustworthy such as the Game Maker site. To simply conduct private uncontrolled testing and then trying to use these results as the listed GM System Requirements is unacceptable.

I also removed the paragraph about Game Maker 6 requiring more resources than version 5. This is obvious, firstly most programs follow this pattern, secondly its obvious by looking at the requirements that Game Maker 6.x needs a higher performance computer. It was also not needed becase it didn't provide any useful information it simply stated something to the effect of 'Game Maker 6 uses more resources so people with old computers use version 5'

I also removed another paragraph which apart from using incorrect diction, didn't need its own paragraph. It simply said the requirements include the actual game you create with Game Maker, I moved that statement up to the top paragraph of the System Requirements section.

Another paragraph was then added to inform users about the issue with Game Maker and Windows Vista, specifically how versions 6.x and 5.x do not work on Vista currently but in response to the problem Mark is making a new version 7 which will be compatible with the OS (as stated by Mark on the Game Maker Community forum)

- pythonpoole

[edit] Incompatibility with Windows Vista

If I'm reading properly, the article says that both Game Maker 5 and 6 are incompatible with Windows Vista. What about games made with Game Maker 5 and 6? Will they work?

  • GM5 and 6 do not always work on Vista(and their games too) GM7 will.--=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/m/Talk%7EGame_Maker_e3c5.html"