Yes tutorials, or no tutorials.
Toxe Of course, and that is a good thing.
I don't know how good it is yet. I'm expecting to see complex games with branching stories from people who aren't very good at programming but are strong at creating narrative. So far, my expectations are not being met. Mostly "time-killers" are being created.
while-free- That's the same for Unity, really (I'm using Unity as an example as it is the most popular engine). You have 1000 tutorials to do anything, but how many of those actually teach you the right way? And how many teach you WHY that is the right way? Very few if any.
IMHO the Godot documentation is a great place to start, there even are tutorials in the documentation itself to create some basic games and it teaches you the proper Godot-ian way.
- Edited
correojon I'm a Unity user migrating to Godot, and I love Godot 100% over Unity. It's just way better structured from a design pattern point of view. However, Although those tutorials teaching the right way are few, but they will be found in a few seconds in case of Unity. It's pretty obvious which YouTube channel teaches Unity at what level.
However for Godot, there is a HUGE lack of good tutorials. The documentation is a good starting point, yes. But one should not be forced to read 20 pages for 3 hours to find the answer to a trivial question.
Fortunately the documentation is very well written, but this doesn't cover the lack of good tutorials. Hopefully after Unity's stupid decision, there will be more YouTube videos in near future.
I'm all in to make Godot easier to learn for new comers! But the problem is I myself am a new comer for the moment... xD
(Writes this reply after 2 hours of reading the "Best Practices" section of the documentation - is still confused on many aspects)
Toxe I see, i get it. Thank you
JSchrepp Nice idea, thanks. I will try it
Toxe What if I, lets say, watch a tutorial that is not related to the game i am building, and change the things as I am following the tutorial?
JSchrepp Do you think it is a good idea to watch a tutorial completely first, and then build my game without looking at the tutorial while building the game?
Creatorsbet you can use the tutorial as a reference if you forgot how to do something.
This is most effective learning process for me - Learn to code in a simple project.
- I follow tutorials on things I want to put in my game eg. menu, inventory, statemachine..etc. (one at a time) to see if I could make it work (because if not then probably too complicate for my level, so I'll find another tutorial)
- If , for example, I got a Menu working from tutorial, I then go back and learn all the functions involved by re-making each function in a separate, simpler project.
- Try to understand how each function works and how they can interact with each other.
- Learn to understand what the error is saying.
Working in a simple project will help you learn each functions / errors more clearly without distraction of other non-related codes. After that you should be able to put together a simple game by yourself in no time.
Good luck
- Edited
Interesting topic. I think tutorials are great for learning things on a surface level, like how to navigate new software like a game engine.
But with most things in life, you get back what you invest in it. And in my opinion, this can also be applied to learning. I would say start with some tutorials just to get your feet wet. But then, if your budget allows, invest in some great courses instead.
I bought GDQuest's courses back when I was learning Godot. I can tell you that it's almost a night and day difference in the value you get back and the pace you will be able to move forward learning from it. The most significant difference is that these courses not only tell you how to do things on a surface level, but they also go into different patterns and concepts and teach you how to solve problems. Making games can get very complex fast, and the most valuable thing you can teach yourself is how to form a problem-solving approach to challenges instead of searching for the perfect tutorial.
And once you get up and running with that, invest in a site like Pluralsight to deepen your knowledge further. I personally also invest heavily in books.
Once you get the basics in, learning some computer science on top of that will also be very helpful.
Combine this with just digging in and creating stuff.
Unpopular opinion: for your first game, absolutely follow a tutorial. This is the fastest way to get you a working understanding of how all the parts of the game engine work together, and how things are usually done.
This will give you the background you need to contextualize the documentation that you’ll be reading in preparation for your second game.
Gowydot Hey that is a very good idea! So as i use tutorials to learn things that i dont, like changing game scenes, having inventories, or making a menu, i should experiment using them in a different subject. Thank you
axolotl Yeah that was what i was going to do. But my friend kept saying stuff like "tutorial hell" And "you are not learning", even though i was mostly going to follow it for my first game
Creatorsbet Just to be clear: tutorials are 100% absolutely fine. If you want to watch them then feel free to do so. After all they are a great introduction into a topic and it's always nice to see things "in motion". Just be aware that you should not rely on them all the time and you'll be good.
- Edited
Tomcat But, just for creating games, I'd add art basics, which is forgotten even more often than math.
Yeah, art fundamentals are heavily neglected among aspiring indie developers. It's almost impossible to make a decent game without stuff like basic visual design principles or Disney's 12 principles of animation. To make things more complicated, art fundamentals are not mere knowledge. They're somewhat intangible and applying them competently requires skills and sensibilities that can only be developed through continuous practice. Relying on tutorial format to "get you there" is somewhat of a fool's errand.
This is a key part of the "tutorial hell" problem. For example, many people try to learn 3d asset production via Blender tutorials. Following those tutorials, they're able to make visually pleasant things. However, once the learner goes on to repeat the process on their own, they get disappointed with the results even though they did all the same "steps" the lecturer had shown in the tutorial. They cannot figure out why their own attempts fall short. In search for answers they then switch to the next tutorial in the queue, repeating this ad nauseum, missing the crux of the problem time and again.
The secret ingredient, of course, is keeping the visual side of things constantly in check by application of visual fundamentals in every micro decision made throughout the production process. Tutorials typically only present upfront technical parts of the process. They're much easier to communicate to wide audiences and lend themselves naturally to the "how to" approach. But under the hood, the lecturer tacitly uses their visual skills to make the result look good.
Are such tutorials good or bad? The promise of nice visuals does indeed inspire, but the path to actually get there cannot really be found in the tutorial.