[casual_games] Torque? Popcap? Or DIY?

[Jónas Björgvin Antonsson]

Yes, we (gogogic) are using Flash AS3 (9.0) to develop games and other stuff. For more complex games we use a socket server for game logic and client connectivity. The socket server we're using can be extended with pure-bred Java code so it is a dream to use for us old dog developers.

Flash is a very robust platform and the latest version has moved even more towards a stable development model with object oriented design, good interfaces and we de-coupled tiers of code/art/assets.

J#
www.gogogic.com

-----Original Message-----
From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Tom Hubina
Sent: 29. október 2007 15:30
To: 'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [casual_games] Torque? Popcap? Or DIY?

Assuming you're making a 2D game, where does doing everything (Web, PC
download, Mac download) in Flash 9 fit in? Has anyone explored that route
recently?

Tom


> -----Original Message-----

> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org 

> [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Brian 

> Meidell Andersen

> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 8:02 AM

> To: Casual_Games at igda.org

> Subject: Re: [casual_games] Torque? Popcap? Or DIY?

> 

> 

> When we first started out, we had to decide between these 

> same options, and we ended up going with DIY.

> For most people, I think this is a nutty approach, so I'd 

> like to explain why we ended up going with it (hopefully 

> saying something useful along the way).

> 

> We are two people in our company, and we are both used to 

> work together for years working on "big" triple-a console games.

> Ultimately we want to do more indie-like titles, but the 

> casual games market is a well established market that seemed 

> fun and simple to start with.

> When we first started, we evaluated a bunch of different 

> engines, both open source and cheap ones. Most of the ones 

> mentioned by other people in this thread were included in the list.

> Ultimately we chose DIY for these reasons:

> 

> 1) We have long term plans for what we want to do with the 

> engine, and we didn't see any of the evaluated engines as a 

> good fit for both our short term and our long term goals.

> 2) We are stodgy and old and a lot of the engines simply 

> didn't work like we preferred them to

> 3) We have a good deal of industry experience and knew 

> exactly how to write an engine

> 4) Our plans lend themselves to gradually building our engine 

> tech while producing viable products along the way

> 

> For DIY to make sense, I think these conditions need to be satisfied:

> 1) None of the engines you can afford fit well with your long 

> term goals, and

> 2) This is not the first time you are writing a game engine

> 3) You aren't on a tight schedule

> 

> If any of these conditions are not met, I would definitely 

> not go with DIY.

> 

> I hope this was of some use.

> 

> Regards,

> Brian

> 

> --

> Brian Meidell Andersen

> Programmer/ Founder

> The Game Equation

> http://www.thegameequation.com

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Casual_Games mailing list

> Casual_Games at igda.org

> http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe

> Archive: http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe

> Archive Search: 

> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=010373383720242846960%3Az3tdwggxil8

> List FAQ: 

> http://www.igda.org/wiki/index.php/Casual_Games_SIG/Casual_Gam

> es_List_FAQ

> 


_______________________________________________
Casual_Games mailing list
Casual_Games at igda.org
http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe
Archive: http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe
Archive Search: http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=010373383720242846960%3Az3tdwggxil8
List FAQ: http://www.igda.org/wiki/index.php/Casual_Games_SIG/Casual_Games_List_FAQ