DaveTheCoder i think the word would be "programing", but never "coding"
G0dot without Coding works?
- Edited
I used the word "coding" because that's the word used by the initial poster. In this context, I don't think there's any difference between "programming" and "coding".
DaveTheCoder well i do, since i already assumed that he is aware that there is no "generate game button" and that he should put some effort into it (but not necessarily coding) due to him asking such a question and not where is the "generate game button at guys", that's where my "recommendation" for visual scripting got driven from
- Edited
Semantics aside, even with node-based scripting you need to think as if you were coding. In fact, using visual scripting is much more cumbersome than typing code, and it only gets worse as the project complexity increases. So no reason not to learn the "real thing" . The fact that they decided to cancel Godot's node based scripting only confirms this.
The gist is, if you want to build games in any non-trivial capacity, you'll need to learn to think like a programmer. In other words you'll need to learn coding. There's no way around it.
xyz the argument here is not wether godot's node-based programing is good enough or better then regular code-based programing, form what I've read he is trying to know if there a way to make a game without coding(text-based programing) and i don't think he ever mentioned his incapabilities to program or code in the matter of fact, and no programing requires programing knowledge(problem solving, logic building, etc...), unlike coding requires both programing and the coding language familiarity(ecosystem, syntax, etc...), So no there no middle answer here that satisfies everyone
- Edited
vexymous Selecting and connecting boxes is coding too. It just uses different kind of code, and curiously, it doesn't absolve you from typing stuff in. But again, this code/program distinction is just semantics. I think we all know what the op meant, from the way the question is formulated
Can I paint my house with a toothbrush? If I ask this on a house painter forum, what kind of answer do you think I'll get? Will it be "Sure, totally possible, as long as you dip it into paint." Or will people who know something about house painting rightfully pull me from my misguided intentions; "No. Use properly sized brushes and rollers."
That said, walls in my flat could actually use a fresh paint job
I'd genuinely be interested in hearing from the op if Godot's visual scripting meets their criteria of "without coding", and if yes, then seeing the game they made with it.
- Edited
At the risk of drawing the ire of the Mods for mentioning the "competition", Scratch may be exactly what the OP needs.
http:://scratch.mit.edu
- Edited
vexymous don't know why there is no sad reacts, dang it
All tears have been shed over the lack of visual programming in another thread.
Visual programming in Godot made it easier to change the code, but not to create it. It was intended for those in the development team who are not very good at programming — artists, screenwriters. So that they could modify the code that was already ready. But creating this code, was a bit more difficult than writing in a programming language.
- Edited
vexymous I was trying to help the OP, idiot, you're just trying to make me look bad.
ADMIN EDIT: This is totally rude and uncalled for. You've been warned.
GodotBeginnerRich woah ? Chill buddy, the guy asked about a method for godot no scratch, if you're trying to joke around there is no need to start calling people idiots
- Edited
xyz I'd genuinely be interested in hearing from the op if Godot's visual scripting meets their criteria of "without coding"
Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't see where visual programming is labelled as "without coding".
This is its main purpose:
- Programmers working in a team that want to make part of the game logic available to Artists or Game Designers in order to offload some of their work.
There is certainly a great deal of slyness in the reasons for rejection:
According to our most recent poll (with more than 5000 respondents), only 0.5% of the user base has used VisualScript as their main engine language.
Visual programming, by definition, cannot be the main engine language. It is precisely an aid to fine-tuning game parameters.
Godot has a very huge problem right now. Creating games is a fusion between programming and artistry. Godot leans towards the convenience of programmers — their comfort is a priority. Artists are much more difficult. As an example, it was the shader window that was made floating, not the animation editor, which is more important for artists.
According to this concept, visual programming really seems insignificant.
As a consequence, there are no games with outstanding graphics on Godot, and therefore one should not worry about excessive realism in games using Godot.
GodotBeginnerRich idiot, you're just trying to make me look bad.
I'm starting to feel like I'm on Russian sites.
- Edited
So to answer the OP, you cannot use Godot without code. Visual scripting is gone from Godot 4 and it was poor and never well supported anyhow. Not because visual script is bad (whole AAA games have been made in Unreal with Blueprints) but because the Godot implementation was poor and not documented or supported.
What they want is GDevelop, which is a pretty good engine for someone who doesn't know how to code. You still need to understand logic and math, but it's easier than visual scripting.
york You can do everything you need with GDScript which is pretty easy.
If you think that's hard, go try Blueprints in Unreal Engine and then you'll understand why Tim Sweeney has been donating money toward GDSCript development because he wants it in UE6.
Unreal doesn't need GDScript. They invented their own language called Verse.
cybereality
Ok, I can kind of grok scratch for non-programmers, but gdevelop looks more complicated than gdscript to me. If you can handle all the twists and turns of that editor, you can do real programming without breaking a sweat.