Given that all our current output media are 2D (even stereoscopy is a sort of 2D), any representation of a 3D world is, in fact, pixel art.

It's about the underlying logic / calculations, not the ( limitations of the ) output device.

What does the sound of "smile" have to do with the actual thing it signifies? Nothing.

Actually, a lot. When I say "smile" your brain instantly collects all kinds of associations with that word. Why not take advantage of that?

My suggestion ( as previously mentioned ) would be to work on the end-result directly, instead of on a abstract representation.

Random is always a bad idea when describing something. Perhaps colors would make them a little easier to distinguish. And i like words instead

Or even better, no words & icons at all.

What do you think?

SunVox uses exactly that to label patterns. Personally I'm not a big fan though.

Being able to change your code while the game is running is incredibly powerful.

Agreed, can't live without it anymore.

You quoted from the wrong person, Utforska was the one wondering ..

Do you have any picture of how that "language" could work/look like, practically speaking?

Somewhat similar to how 3D applications such as Maya / Softimage let you work on the end-result ( or at least significantly closer compared to code ) in real-time while hiding all the vertex shoving, matrix popping / pushing, quaternion lerping etc. In fact, most artist aren't aware of what exactly goes on behind the scenes ( and most of the time they don't really need to anyway ).

@ Erik & badvibration - Agreed. I didn't mean "language" ( hence the quotes ) in the literal sense, but in the way a teacher guides a dancer, or kids explain a game on the street as they go.

Expressing "x = 5 * cos(t)" or something with nodes is not going to be an improvement.

You're right, that's why you use a calculator block

Also, almost all programming languages lets you define your own words so that you can do things like "if(lion.angry) then human.runAway()" which is very powerful since it reads so nicely.

You ( can ) still have that in visual programming obviously.



Personally I think the whole concept of programming is too peculiar for outsiders regardless of presentation. A tool that enables anybody to create a video game would have to be closer to human "language".

Thanks for the info, will try to have a look at it!

Good luck with that

Just being able to create your own box with the connectors you need and then hiding its contents seems like an obviously good idea. But that must be possible in at least some of these visual languages?

Virtools does exactly that ( and does it extremely well ).

These look interesting, but I'm totally baffled by the website and what each of the different tools are for.

You're not alone, their communication / marketing has always been poor at best. Anyway, what you need to know is ..

- 3DVIA Studio is the ( spiritual ) successor to 3DVIA Virtools
- 3DVIA Virtools is expensive, 3DVIA Studio is free*
- 3DVIA Studio is currently in Public Beta

*3DVIA Studio Pro won't be free, similar to the Unity Indie / Pro pricing structure.

And no, I don't use their products ( anymore ), but I do still think Virtools has the best visual programming interface to date.

http://forum.unity3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=31132

3DVIA Virtools / 3DVIA Studio

But I agree with Chainsawkitten, a mere visual representation of code isn't enough. Personally I believe a virtual holodeck type of environment with a theater style of production flow would be a good starting point.

A little box representing an if-case is still an if-case, despite its graphical representation.

A condition statement is probably the worst example you can give against direct visualization of code, as people are already familiar with its visual representation.

Bravo! So .. when is the next competition