thekingofgaming at December 15th, 2005 04:27 — #1
Hi guys what do you think of c# .net for game development and is there any official game developed entirely in .net? thx
anubis at December 15th, 2005 09:26 — #2
There is the Purple# engine : http://www.bunnz.com/ That's all I can think of right now
thekingofgaming at December 15th, 2005 11:10 — #3
I dont dont mean engine sorry but any commercial games e.g. fps etc... by the way thx for the reply
anubis at December 16th, 2005 10:15 — #4
wazoo at December 16th, 2005 12:23 — #5
AFAIK ArenaWars was written in C#.
That's about all I know of.
roel at December 16th, 2005 12:33 — #6
I can't find the reference, but I remember a very impressive IOTD on flipCode of an engine written in C#. I believe that it is very feasible to write an engine/game in C#, I'm currently developing an engine in C# and I am planning to use it for a game.
Besides that, .NET/C# must be the feature; if Microsoft really wants something to happen, it simply happens, a few mega-dollars here and there and voila. Games are also the feature, so .NET/C# + games = the feature. Great syllogism, isn't it?
mattias_gustavsson at December 16th, 2005 15:44 — #7
Personally, I wouldn't write a game or engine in C#, at least not for a few years. But it is not the performance I'm worried about, it is the availability of the .NET runtime on the players computers (I don't want to have to bundle my games with hundreds of MB of runtime, especially if it is a downloadable game). Also, I've heard worrying statements about incompatibilities and inconsistencies between different versions of the runtime. I just feel that for me, it is not yet a mature enough platform, and I doubt it will be anytime soon.
That said, it is a very nice development environment, and I really hope it will become a viable platform sooner rather than later. For corporate development, where you have full control of the deployment environment, I'd choose .NET every time, even as it is today.
roel at December 16th, 2005 16:02 — #8
The .NET Framework Version 1.1 Redistributable Package is just 23.1MB, and I think that XP SP3 (if it will exist) and Vista will have the framework by default for sure. Besides that, you can then also argue not to chose for DirectX9.0c, because of the download. I don't know about the incompatibilities though, I never had problems with that. One other reason not to go for .NET + managed directx is the documentation; it sucks imho.
mattias_gustavsson at December 17th, 2005 07:09 — #9
I wouldn't go for DX9 either, not without a fallback to at least DX7. But that's probably because I'm concerned about the download size. For CD/DVD distributions it would be less of an issue.
roel at December 17th, 2005 11:10 — #10