Microsoft XNA

He-Man · Wed 10/01/2007 09:51:55

Has anyone tried XNA?
And is it any good?
I am currently installing it and thinking about giving it a try. But I won't waste my time if it's crap...

deadsuperhero · Wed 10/01/2007 11:38:36

What is it, exactly?

DGMacphee · Wed 10/01/2007 11:58:39

It's how you speak Pig Latin.

He-Man · Wed 10/01/2007 12:31:00

It's a game creation tool that exports to both PC and Xbox 360.
I know it can make both 2D and 3D games, it'd free and I think it's based on C++ scripting.
I don't know much more than that. That's why I started this thread in the first place...

More info here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/directx/XNA/default.aspx

scotch · Thu 11/01/2007 08:15:09

It's a game programming platform for the 360, with ability to compile the same source for PC too. It is based on C#. No, it's not worth trying unless you're desperate to make a game for your 360.

Radiant · Fri 12/01/2007 08:54:19

I haven't tried it, but I note that while it is free, to actually use it to create Xbox games you have to pay a $49 subscription to microsoft. And if you don't actually want to create Xbox games, there's plenty of other solutions that are in fact free. So it seems they want to boost Xbox popularity by having indie games created for it, and yet they want the indie developers to pay for the games they create.

lemmy101 · Mon 15/01/2007 01:15:39

Quote from: scotch on Thu 11/01/2007 08:15:09
It's a game programming platform for the 360, with ability to compile the same source for PC too. It is based on C#. No, it's not worth trying unless you're desperate to make a game for your 360.

I'd disagree with this heavily. Once you became fluent in C#, you could make a game many times faster than in C++. C# is not ready for any Halflife 2s or Gears of War, but a few processors and GFX cards down the line... It may well be the future of PC game development.

MillsJROSS · Mon 15/01/2007 06:47:30

I don't think scotch was actually attacking C#, I think he was trying to say it wasn't done in C++, as He-man thought it was. Personally,

-MillsJROSS

Radiant · Mon 15/01/2007 08:56:26

Quote from: lemmy101 on Mon 15/01/2007 01:15:39
[I'd disagree with this heavily. Once you became fluent in C#, you could make a game many times faster than in C++.

I don't think that's true at all. Once you've got a decent graphic/sound library around (and there are several of those freely available on the internet), the rest is just game logic. C++ has all the Class tricks available; return code vs. exception handling is really a matter of taste and despite what people think you can screw up equally in both; and pointers are a plus if you know what you're doing, and can be ignored if you don't.

lemmy101 · Mon 15/01/2007 12:48:22

It terms of a full project lifecycle, code design stage C# UML class diagrams you can design the entire object base in a fraction of the time and generate code for them (true you can do this if you buy UML packages), not to mention the simplified memory system would take eons off of bug-testing, tracking down memory leaks, reduce the amount of bugs created, etc. Higher level abstraction of hardware accelleration means that engine development will be higher level, meaning game engine development will require less work as the XNA SDK is expanded.

I would go as far as to say that writing games faster and simpler is the primary point to C# and XNA.

The only arguments in my mind against it really are being under Microsoft's proverbial thumb, compatibility with existing or legacy third party libraries or platforms, and execution speed. The latter two of which will not likely be a problem forever, maybe even the first if it becomes a standard.

Radiant · Mon 15/01/2007 14:24:09

That's about UML, not C# (besides, most indie developers don't do UML).

It's true that memory leaks can be a source of bugs if you don't fully understand allocation, but so can exception handling. Did you know that Visual Studio C++ has excellent tools to locate and fix memory leaks?

And C++ libraries also have higher level abstraction of hardware acceleration. It's a matter of good tools, not which language you use. Performance-wise, C++ beats C#, hands down.

Ghost · Fri 19/01/2007 00:29:07

Quote from: Radiant on Mon 15/01/2007 14:24:09
Performance-wise, C++ beats C#, hands down.

Bold true fact. Also applies to the more popular IDEs; starting the monsters that run C# take soo much longer. I'd rather stick to C++, a small IDE and Allegro; these are the tools I started to learn C/++ with, and they never let me down.

It's intriguing that there is a PC/X-Box cross development kit out there now. Should definitely be worth a look. Plus, since this is completely free to get all the stuff, games will pop up soon, showing what the not-acronymed-kit can do.

Microsoft XNA

Ghost