However, what do you mean “Scratch is more flexible”, but the other two have more features?With Scratch it is more like code rather than based on scenes (Stencyl) and objects and triggers (Gamemaker). You can make everything manually in Scratch whereas the pre-made scripts in the other two may be more “specialized”, but they are also more numerous, plus you can write your own code/scripts/blocks too unlike in Scratch in Gamemaker, can you do this in Stencyl too?ĭusty22 wrote:Scratch making more sense, well I definitely agree Scratch is very intuitive. Well Gamemaker and Stencyl in that sense sort of use drag and drop blocks/scripts to make code no? Just like Scratch? Scratch however contains only “building block” blocks. So with Scratch you can create those scenes manually and triggers manually, but you aren't forced to use one or the other.

Yet, these people would still benefit from the overall very focused and productive toolset GMS offers to successfully finish their projects.Magnie wrote:With Scratch it is more like code rather than based on scenes (Stencyl) and objects and triggers (Gamemaker). After all, there are many fun games in the market about programming in Assembly.įor artists, non-programmers and inexperienced programmers, I think GML would not be a no-go. However, I think that a programmer can have fun with GameMaker if they see the software itself as a game and the limitations of the language as a challenge. But at such a point, it would be easier, cheaper and even more productive to abandon GMS altogether.

It would be more productive for me to write the core of the game in other languages and interface it for GameMaker through an extension. Without community pressure, GML is today about the same as it was in the first version of GM Studio I've tried, many years ago (version 6, before GM belonged to yoyo games).Īs an experienced programmer, I grew very frustrated with GML. Despite that, a portion of GML community seem to think of such features as useless addendum. It's factually easier to write many algorithms in C than in GML.Īlso, there is a reason why more higher-level, industry standard, languages provide more features than low-level languages. pointers and structures) without proper replacements. Overall: While it's true that GML is Turing Complete, and therefore it's technically possible to write any algorithm in it, the language gets rid of more 'complicated' stuff from more low level-languages like C (e.g.

Stencyl vs gamemaker