C# and .net for gaming

Db193f30887437e72afeb302ef494e3e
0
thekingofgaming 101 Dec 15, 2005 at 09:27

Hi guys what do you think of c# .net for game development and is there any official game developed entirely in .net? thx

9 Replies

Please log in or register to post a reply.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Dec 15, 2005 at 14:26

There is the Purple# engine : http://www.bunnz.com/
That’s all I can think of right now

Db193f30887437e72afeb302ef494e3e
0
thekingofgaming 101 Dec 15, 2005 at 16:10

I dont dont mean engine sorry but any commercial games e.g. fps etc… by the way thx for the reply

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Dec 16, 2005 at 15:15

not that i know of

22786d797e0afe22c66ea226fe21ac30
0
wazoo 101 Dec 16, 2005 at 17:23

AFAIK ArenaWars was written in C#.

That’s about all I know of.

6aa952514ff4e5439df1e9e6d337b864
0
roel 101 Dec 16, 2005 at 17:33

I can’t find the reference, but I remember a very impressive IOTD on flipCode of an engine written in C#. I believe that it is very feasible to write an engine/game in C#, I’m currently developing an engine in C# and I am planning to use it for a game.

Besides that, .NET/C# must be the feature; if Microsoft really wants something to happen, it simply happens, a few mega-dollars here and there and voila. Games are also the feature, so .NET/C# + games = the feature. Great syllogism, isn’t it?

8563f7b73aeb34bb8604f1dd8f546c88
0
Mattias_Gustavsson 101 Dec 16, 2005 at 20:44

Personally, I wouldn’t write a game or engine in C#, at least not for a few years. But it is not the performance I’m worried about, it is the availability of the .NET runtime on the players computers (I don’t want to have to bundle my games with hundreds of MB of runtime, especially if it is a downloadable game). Also, I’ve heard worrying statements about incompatibilities and inconsistencies between different versions of the runtime. I just feel that for me, it is not yet a mature enough platform, and I doubt it will be anytime soon.

That said, it is a very nice development environment, and I really hope it will become a viable platform sooner rather than later. For corporate development, where you have full control of the deployment environment, I’d choose .NET every time, even as it is today.

6aa952514ff4e5439df1e9e6d337b864
0
roel 101 Dec 16, 2005 at 21:02

The .NET Framework Version 1.1 Redistributable Package is just 23.1MB, and I think that XP SP3 (if it will exist) and Vista will have the framework by default for sure. Besides that, you can then also argue not to chose for DirectX9.0c, because of the download. I don’t know about the incompatibilities though, I never had problems with that. One other reason not to go for .NET + managed directx is the documentation; it sucks imho.

8563f7b73aeb34bb8604f1dd8f546c88
0
Mattias_Gustavsson 101 Dec 17, 2005 at 12:09

I wouldn’t go for DX9 either, not without a fallback to at least DX7. But that’s probably because I’m concerned about the download size. For CD/DVD distributions it would be less of an issue.

6aa952514ff4e5439df1e9e6d337b864
0
roel 101 Dec 17, 2005 at 16:10