@ffff0 it's the same with texture filtering. we had to add a transparent pixel all around the images and offset each pixel by 0.5 to not get white lines at the edges so the filtering takes from the transparent pixel in the texture rather than trying to fetch outside the texture.

also, mipmaps might help in your situation since you've already downscaled the image before rendering it if it selects a mipmap at the right level.

@Alexandra_Nilsson_T you mocapped this game with a kinect? thats insane :D yeah I'm sticking to 2D, I can't be bothered to learn everything you've gone through Alexandra xD I want to code and get things moving immediately. This is your first game and you've learnt all this in 2 years? That's very fast if that's the case!

@Alexandra_Nilsson_T That is really impressive Alexandra!

@ffff0 truth :)

@ffff0 are we allowed to post about our personal projects not related to EZA in any way? Just something we're working on? It can easily get to promo-y I guess.

@matt_b That's awesome Matt. I'll definitely have a listen.

Yeah I'd love to play a DLC diving more into the lore and not just the kinda-similar-story to the first game. I agree even if it isn't unique it sure feels like a fresh universe in games. They did a lot of world building and it barely shows in Catalyst. I enjoyed the comic even if it was short.

Exactly, I didn't mean open world couldn't work at all in my piece. I meant it would require a lot more work and iteration to really become interesting which is time they didn't spend, and therefore they should've gone for an easier approach or put a few more years into it and really Witcher it. The city felt small because it wasn't that open due to the big chasms you could only cross in a couple of places.

Yeah missions were impossible without the red because there's no time to find your own path and even though its open there's not much choice due to everything being so high or low except the intended paths. Grid and main missions were fun most of the time. I just reaaaaaally hated those locked rooms of combat. It screams everything they said they didn't want to do with the game. I think it worked best when it was kind of open fields with climbable objects and the occasional slower paced movement puzzle. If that was all the maps were I would be happy. Just do it in different environments and with a few twists like ziplines and hooks used cleverly. Climbing the towers were fun but it was too hard to get any pace because of all the enemies and sometimes badly designed intended routes.

I've been wanting to give it another shot for a while. I should play some more missions in different areas and see if there are any good ones I missed. Love the movement, world and the music still and I really hope they make another installment and learn from their mistakes. Noone does a perfect game the first time.

@JamboHyland95 I'm pretty sure I heard unity is set to depricate Javascript support and focus on C#. It's probably not a good idea to support several languages due to the extra resources required.

I've only made a few experiment projects so far.

A global illumination test. A ball race game and a top down platformer. I have a video of the latter on YouTube but I'm on my mobile right now so I can't find it.

I still have the two far along projects to finish before I'll do anything serious with unity but there are endless resources around it which is very intriguing to work with.

@JamboHyland95 2D is definitely easier for a solo dev unless you're making some kind of simple geometry-based game. That's what I like to work with as well. Game Maker is definitely easier to get started with. As soon as its time to get into more serious development and create more advanced systems I really feel their choice of a proprietary language is a major hurdle. As you get more experienced it really kills productivity to have to learn a new language and tools when the entire industry is built around C++ and C#. I think they would have had a lot more success if they used C#. People could've used the most powerful IDEs out there and get better debugging and intellisense and even move from Unity for 2D projects. Right now I'm really impressed people can build such big games in Game Maker. It's just a shame they make it so unnecessarily hard to use the best tools out there for productivity when you know what you're doing. The way Unity does it doesn't really require that much C# knowledge either. Game Maker should be able to use the same ease-to-use UI coupled with C# and they'd get a lot more people on board I think. It wouldn't be looked at as a beginners tool anymore.

Great that they have good sprite and animation tools and such. I think Unity have a lot of work to do there. There seem to be some pretty great assets for it and more tools are being integrated but I've heard Game Maker has better stuff out of the box.

@JamboHyland95 making your own engine usually is about experimenting with low level APIs like DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan, Metal and getting things to show up on screen and getting input, physics and sound to work. There a tons of great libraries to build from today. Box2D, Fmod and OpenGL and maybe some middleware like SDL or libgdx or similar gets you well on your way. But I wouldn't really recommend it unless you want to learn how things work way under the hood. If you've used Unity a lot, why not use that knowledge to build your game idea or at least prototype some of the core features of your vision?

Do you see any advantages in Game Maker over Unity so far?