Anyone here still work with flash? As in making games for money etc. Or has everyone moved on?

And woo 2000th page, been here since the start haha.

At 6/9/11 11:09 AM, Depredation wrote: Anyone here still work with flash? As in making games for money etc. Or has everyone moved on?

At work I've probably got a 70/30 split between Flash & Unity. Once Unity can export as a SWF that will probably change to 70/30 in favour of Unity.

At 6/9/11 11:29 AM, Innermike wrote:The point is I don't want someone to google the word newgrounds and think I'm a cartoon porn watching freak, I think that's quite a healthy thing to want to avoid. I mean, I'm not usually concerned with what people think of me, I don't really like or enjoy the company of people at school any way, I like being different, but not a perv with a tentacle fetish or something.

From what I've experienced most people know Newgrounds for its spammy games, not its mature section.

One of Tom's long term goals is to include Unity into the mix of things. It makes sense, i mean with the eventual leap into film stuff, it'd make sense to keep a pulse on gaming trends.

At 6/9/11 06:42 PM, Luis wrote: One of Tom's long term goals is to include Unity into the mix of things.

The soon the better really. You can already submit Unity content over at Kong and since there's over 60 million installs of the Unity web player, I can't see it going any where but up from here. I remember when some people where saying Silverlight would rival Flash, well Unity actually will and IMO over take Flash for game development in a couple of years from now.

At 6/9/11 11:29 AM, Innermike wrote: I like being different, but not a perv with a tentacle fetish or something.

There's nothing wrong with having a tentacle fetish, thank you very much.

I'm very much still in Flash. Even though I still don't submit anything anywhere at all.

Maybe it'll change. One day!

At 6/9/11 06:57 PM, Kirk-Cocaine wrote: The soon the better really. You can already submit Unity content over at Kong and since there's over 60 million installs of the Unity web player, I can't see it going any where but up from here. I remember when some people where saying Silverlight would rival Flash, well Unity actually will and IMO over take Flash for game development in a couple of years from now.

The last time I was on the chat, I did ask Tom about it and he did say it was on the cards. I think this was before Unity said they were going to look into supporting SWF export for support with FP11.

Although after the week I've had with Unity, I'll be happy sticking with Flash for now. Mind you, I've also spent a lot of itme this week trying to use the upgraded AIR for iOS exporter with CS5.5 and get Flixel running at a decent speed on the iPad.

It's not doing very well. Least not compared with the improved AIR for Android exporter... still need to steal JPI's Blackberry Playbook and try it on that...

At 6/10/11 06:16 AM, KaynSlamdyke wrote: Although after the week I've had with Unity, I'll be happy sticking with Flash for now.

Why, what happened?

At 6/9/11 06:57 PM, Kirk-Cocaine wrote: well Unity actually will and IMO over take Flash for game development in a couple of years from now.

It would, but the thing is that I'd rather prefer Flash for now, mainly because whenever I try to run anything that's made with Unity, the Unity web player crashes and brings my browser down along with it. No matter how many times I update, reinstall, clean install, do this, that, anything -- it still crashes.
If I'm not the only one that's experiencing this, then I can see Unity going downhill from there.

At 6/10/11 07:20 AM, Sanjeev98 wrote: If I'm not the only one that's experiencing this, then I can see Unity going downhill from there.

Never seen that personally, although the Unity web player might be redundant soon.

At 6/10/11 06:16 AM, KaynSlamdyke wrote: Although after the week I've had with Unity, I'll be happy sticking with Flash for now.

At 6/10/11 07:10 AM, Kirk-Cocaine wrote: Why, what happened?

A rush project, that decided to up and collapse on the end-user's machine due to the stars being out of alignment (we finally managed to replicate the bug on the fifth machine we tested on). More than likely something to do with things running on Time.deltaTime instead of a fixed timestep.

Posting on my birth year!

Yeah Unity could very well take over in the next year or so.
I'm still using 100% Flash because I'm a dick and I don't like learning.

At 6/9/11 06:42 PM, Luis wrote: One of Tom's long term goals is to include Unity into the mix of things. It makes sense, i mean with the eventual leap into film stuff, it'd make sense to keep a pulse on gaming trends.

Indeed. Adobe's getting lazy, Flash 3D is slow as hell and probably going nowhere. Unity is the future for browser games methinks.

At 6/10/11 03:27 PM, PSvils wrote: Are you guys serious?

Oddly enough, some good points. But none of us are likely to move out of Flash anyhow. Most of us who are working in Flash at the moment as our day jobs are picking up Unity as a second or third or fourth skill because it's a useful bit of kit.

I don't have brand loyalty. I use whatever tool is going to do the best job. I think most developers are like that too. A lot of the coders haven't been using the Flash IDE, for instance, to write actionscript since we had a suitable alternative. And if we're developing offline or mobile apps, we'll use whichever platform delivers the best performance.

Unity looks like it's actually managing to gain it's ground. At least to the point where it's about where the Shockwave format was a few years back. If it gets that extra push, I for one will just remember to keep practicing my C# as well as my AS3.

At 6/10/11 03:27 PM, PSvils wrote: Usually you can start up Flash, drag things on to stage and have things running in a matter of minutes.

I find it's quicker to mock up basic stuff faster in Unity than in Flash now, especially since Unity does all the physics for you.

Although I will admit that it took me longer to get to grips with Unity than it did with the Flash IDE. Whereas I was able to pick up Flash on my own I needed to be shown the ropes of Unity before I could make anything worth while.

and so people developing Flash 3D games with those engines probably won't see any reason to switch now

While the Molehill stuff does look impressive, it'll be a while before see anything more than an incubator build. It'll probably ship with CS6, which probably wont be 'til next year now, because of all this CS5.5 business.

Doing 3D in Unity is such a dream too! Not least of all because you can view your scene in 3D in the IDE, but when you preview your game you can still edit everything as the game is running. Moving & rotating freely around your game in one window, while the actual game view plays out in another is incredibly useful.

And Flash will always exist for web apps and video playback.

Yeah, I'm not doubting that. Flash is, and always will be, a lot more versatile than Unity. When I said Unity would take over Flash, I meant purely in terms of game development, Flash is still plenty useful for other projects and wont be dying out completely forever, I just personally think it'll have a hard time keeping up with Unity in the game stakes, especially as Unity to can export to pretty much every platform. Rochard is an upcoming game on the PSN, which was made in Unity.

At 6/10/11 04:23 PM, KaynSlamdyke wrote: A lot of the coders haven't been using the Flash IDE, for instance, to write actionscript since we had a suitable alternative.

On that note, the Unity IDE has much better support for working with code - so much so that I got all giddy when I first saw them. For example, you can mess about with variables using slider bars! Change the initial properties of any object with them, stuff like that.
Not exactly hard to do with regular code, but it's a nice touch, and one that I can imagine being much helpful for non-programmers who you've built classes for.

At 6/10/11 09:28 PM, Innermike wrote:

At 6/10/11 07:41 PM, Doomsday-One wrote: you can mess about with variables using slider bars!

NOWAIRLY???

Mike swoops in to destroy the meaningful discussion!

It's super effective

At 6/10/11 07:41 PM, Doomsday-One wrote: For example, you can mess about with variables using slider bars!

So, what about it?

At 6/11/11 01:09 AM, Sanjeev98 wrote:

At 6/10/11 07:41 PM, Doomsday-One wrote: For example, you can mess about with variables using slider bars!

So, what about it?

It's nifty!
As I said, not a required feature, but it feels so much easier testing things by moving a bar or selecting an object from a list rather than going into the code and typing these things out.
And, as I also said, it is probably much less intimidating for non-programmers working with various classes.

To clarify, I'm not saying I'm gonna drop everything Flash and move to Unity just for slidey bars, but I am saying that Flash has always needed better integration with code, and Unity provides a strong example of how to do it.

Flash might be a much simpler thing to get into, but most web games aren't coming from us Newgrounds doofs any more. It's 2011 and this is a MARKET now full o teams of 4 or 5 people in god-knows-where makin a serious living.

So if Unity's the next step up then it's not gonna scare people off if it's a bit harder to use.

At 6/11/11 06:16 AM, Doomsday-One wrote:

At 6/11/11 01:09 AM, Sanjeev98 wrote:

At 6/10/11 07:41 PM, Doomsday-One wrote: For example, you can mess about with variables using slider bars!

So, what about it?

It's nifty!
As I said, not a required feature, but it feels so much easier testing things by moving a bar or selecting an object from a list rather than going into the code and typing these things out.
And, as I also said, it is probably much less intimidating for non-programmers working with various classes.

To clarify, I'm not saying I'm gonna drop everything Flash and move to Unity just for slidey bars, but I am saying that Flash has always needed better integration with code, and Unity provides a strong example of how to do it.

I've always considered Unity, as it appeals to me, but I can't be arsed to learn another language and get used to Unity's interface when I can do almost the same stuff in another program.

The main problem with Unity we've found is that doing anything with User Interfaces is nowhere near as easy as it is with Flash. To be fair, any UIs you have to create and modify using pure code are un-fun, but in Unity's case each UI element adds to the draw calls (which need to be saved for important things on iPhone development), and need to be exported "just so" otherwise they'll be treated like textures, and turned into Power of Two scale images (which are ugly).

I'm sure we'll spring for the third party Sprite Manager and UI Manager classes at some point for 2d imagery manipulation, but it's a shame there's not a simpler solution for managing UIs in Unity.

At 6/11/11 02:50 PM, KaynSlamdyke wrote: I'm sure we'll spring for the third party Sprite Manager and UI Manager classes at some point

Yeah, we've got the Sprite Manager 2 and EZGUI at work, both are shit hot.

Birth year/page post.

If anyone (no one) cares, I was looking into Unity a while back, but never bothered to go anywhere with it. Maybe I'll try to later or whatever.

Stencyl

Is it my relative distance from Game Dev these past two years that caused me to overlook Stencyl? Or is my first impression of the program overestimating its capabilities? Recently NG teamed up with TGF, but if the rumors I've been picking up are anything to go by, Stencyl is a much better solution. Is this true? Has anyone managed to test it out? I'm looking to make a very basic RPG, more parts visual novel, and I'm currently inbetween RPG Maker VX and Stencyl, so I'm just looking to get a more informed, subjective opinion of the program.

At 6/15/11 01:23 PM, PSvils wrote: Just be a man and program it yourself...
Your relative distance from Game Dev has kept you from discovering Actionscript 3.

I'll take your lack of tact as a lack of maturity. I appreciate your input, however. Perhaps I should improve my grasp of AS3, but there is no point re-inventing the wheel. If I can find a suitable API, and associated GUI, why shouldn't I use it to help expedite development?

At 6/15/11 05:53 PM, Deathcon7 wrote: I'll take your lack of tact as a lack of maturity. I appreciate your input, however. Perhaps I should improve my grasp of AS3, but there is no point re-inventing the wheel. If I can find a suitable API, and associated GUI, why shouldn't I use it to help expedite development?

This reminds of an interesting discussion. I believe some people were pissed when that Game Factory 2 came out, because it enabled anyone without much grasp on programming to make a game when other, more competent people had to go through much more and use knowledge they worked hard to obtain to make something similar. But really, if there's an easier way to do whatever it is you're doing, then you should really be practical and use that method.

It's like, why make your own physics engine from scratch when there's perfectly good ones, and even better ones, out there? Why make your game in C++ while you're at it, and find some way to make it playable online, when you can just use Flash? I think that's a pretty bad example, but you can see my point.

As a general rule of thumb though, the more complicated something is to use, the less limited it is. It all just depends on what you want to do.

At 6/11/11 12:14 PM, Sanjeev98 wrote: I've always considered Unity, as it appeals to me, but I can't be arsed to learn another language and get used to Unity's interface when I can do almost the same stuff in another program.

Oh the Unity site is just fucking FULL of tutorials, you should check it out.

At 6/15/11 06:50 PM, 4urentertainment wrote: This reminds of an interesting discussion. I believe some people were pissed when that Game Factory 2 came out, because it enabled anyone without much grasp on programming to make a game when other, more competent people had to go through much more and use knowledge they worked hard to obtain to make something similar. But really, if there's an easier way to do whatever it is you're doing, then you should really be practical and use that method.

It's like, why make your own physics engine from scratch when there's perfectly good ones, and even better ones, out there? Why make your game in C++ while you're at it, and find some way to make it playable online, when you can just use Flash? I think that's a pretty bad example, but you can see my point.

As a general rule of thumb though, the more complicated something is to use, the less limited it is. It all just depends on what you want to do.

god, whoever's saying that sounds like jerk. If your talent's in game design or animation, then you might aswell just jump onboard. Programming is a huge barrier for everyone.

At 6/15/11 08:14 PM, PSvils wrote:

At 6/15/11 07:22 PM, I-smel wrote: god, whoever's saying that sounds like jerk. If your talent's in game design or animation, then you might aswell just jump onboard. Programming is a huge barrier for everyone.

I'm a disciple of the DUI. I mean DIY.

You can fight me with your progressive, liberal, rainbow, everyone-is-happy-and-shouldn't-be-press ured-to-try ideology, but you'll never win!

On a serious note, why do you think that a lot of the big game devs out there create their own engines from scratch, even 3D rendering! (I'm not just talking about big companies, the indie devs of Amnesia also made their engine from the ground up, only used 3rd party physics libs and such...

In the end, yes, do what you can, if you find an easy way of doing it, do it...but making a game is all about developing the core of it. It's what defines the game as yours imo. All flixel games have a similar feel I think...

meh.

Then again I only finally allowed myself to use 3rd party libs a few months ago, and started playing with Box2D a bit...explains my mentality a bit.

I can definitely understand your perspective. There is a more acute sense of ownership when you completely develop an engine. I can also understand your antipathy to anyone that takes "the easy way." Back when I was more active in the flash forum, it was Gust who helped me to build a more practical perspective on programming. His stern words eventually cracked my shell and, despite my drifting from programming, has allowed me to better appreciate the true objective of programming: the result. Since then I have taken the soccer approach to it: so long as the ball hits the back of the net, it's a goal.

As far as stencyl is concerned, I'm taking the time out tonight to work with it since I really didn't get a conclusive opinion. I'll see if it works for me and my needs and report my findings. I know back when I was a regular here, my biggest barrier was ego. Had I had something to supplement my understanding of AS3, I would have been much more productive.

As a programmer I'm more inclined to dislike things like the Game Factory, etc. that make it waaaaay too easy to make bad games, but I will always appreciate the effort that is put in to making a truly enjoyable, unique game, no matter who or what made it.

However, I will respect an author far more if he programmed a game himself.

In the end, a good game programmed entirely from scratch using no "game builders" will always be better than anything made using a "game builder". The easier the game development process becomes, the more similar and repetitive games will become, until there is only a vague sense of originality left. The fewer creative restrictions you have, such as those that generally accompany "game builders" , the better the end result will be.

And some of this applies to Flash vs. C++/Java/whatever--some restrictions had to be applied to make the development process easier. I'm sure if we all spent the time to make games in other, less restrictive languages, we would be much happier with our work.

</ramble>