There is much need for discussion, actually.there is no need for discussion, the pros from the forums simply make tutorials. thats it.
Actually thr forum is a great place, as this is a matter that required thought, and not everyone shares a time zone.i see, well then my suggestion is frost cat as the OP here to make a discord and add people and discuss there, here is not very practical. kenjiro dabadidabbed the whole 1st page. still when somthing is decided and worked upon you shuld update here or somewhere. also good luck
I think this is basically what some people are suggesting, at least that's what I'm getting from this topic.tutorials definitely need to go less in the direction of "Here's how you do A," when A is only applicable to one specific type of game, and wayyy more of "Hey, this is a 2D array. As an example of how you use it, here's an entire animation system built on 2D arrays. Go wild!"
The problem with that approach (manipulating phy_position manually) is that you're basically short-circuiting a system meant to make things easier for you to abstract (physics forces etc), giving both yourself and the CPU more work. Good tutorials would've taught you a way to do things that's both easy to code and minimizes the amount of redundant or unnecessary work. (At least you've taken the effort to built UPON the tutorial material instead of just mimicking it, and that's more than most people do! )I simply don't feel it's worth the effort to work out how when I can simply say "phy_position_x += spd" and that be that.
I don't know if anyone else streams, but I know @Fel666 has been known to do awesome streams on YT from time to time. Across the various streams of his that I've caught so far I've watched him build, in 2 hours or less, the core mechanics from; Tetris, Bomberman, Go, and a top down shooter SuperHot demake. I also know the @Mike streams really cool retro re-makes in gamemaker as well as old hardware emulator hacking-ish stuff. Not sure I did a very good job of describing that. But really interesting stuff anyway.I'm in a way new here and would like to share my perspective. I was around for GM7 i think it was. Back in the mid 90's anyways. YouTube wasnt even a thing then. If there was tut vids out back then. I wouldn't even have the bandwidth to watch them. But I did have the forum, which was full if 13 yo boys and very toxic. The most help i got was from the game files i could open up and look at. Just being able to see all the code and the structure of it all was a huge help. I can only imagine if someone was there with me explaining things how much more i could have learned. I sid figure out quite a bit on my own. I found a top down Halo shooter and i took the ai from that and changed a bit how it moved, experimented with adjusting some variables, added some if else script and after loads of trial and error i turned a foot soldier ai into a klingon bird of prey with a cloaking system. I was really proud of that. Its been years since then and have forgot much of what I have learned. But I'm back at it now. I would really like to learn the fundamentals of coding. Now days we got twitch tv. Perhaps one of you veterans could stream some dev sessions and do some Q&A.
....Has anything useful come out of this thread yet? Or was it just a bunch of bluster?
Not much has come out of the thread yet, I admit. But there has been a little background work on the ADDIE concept between Storyteller, Fel666 and I. Though it did not take long for us to realize that the original idea won't work out, here's my takeaway from the discussion:I'm sorry, but your post comes off as someone who thinks that people should only learn one way, and learning any other way is wrong. And I find that very lacking.
I don't try it because of the topics I teach (elementary theory and non-genre-specific coding), how they aren't conducive to a video format and how SEO-unfriendly it is. Fel666 does some coverage those, and the videos are consistently underused. They market poorly because they're not sexy and they're not what novices think they'd immediately need. Most think they need to know how to make a game, but they don't think they need to know basic GML to get it done. The channel approach is a losing fight that I don't want a finger in, both ideologically (it's stupid to demand that all sorts of learning be audiovisual) and practically ("How to use control structures" will always lose to "How to make RPGs" on YouTube).It took me the course of 8-10 years to get really good at what I do (programming games), and it will likely take about that long for anyone else just starting to get pretty good (unless they're a very fast learner, or a literal genius, both of which are very rare). You claim these YTers are having a negative effect on the rate of learning of beginning programmers. And maybe you're right. I haven't examined their videos closely. Perhaps their videos are pretty terrible at teaching good concepts. Okay. Fine. Let's assume that for a moment. My question to you, then, is why don't you try the same thing yourself? You seem pretty to be a smart cookie, and I really do mean that. Video production isn't actually that difficult. If you manage to make videos that are informative and entertaining, and you market your channel well, you could potentially attract quite a large viewer base. Why not give it a try?
My criteria for a good tutorial are simple:Unfortunately, that's not all. You have to come up with the criteria of what constitutes a "good" tutorial. Can you explain what your criteria is, exactly? What about other longtime GM experts. I'm pretty sure if you ask them, their criteria would be at least somewhat different. How 'smart' does someone have to be to be considered one of these chosen 'experts', and who will choose them?
I recognize the asymmetry in traffic and broader community attention, that's why your suggestion is shifting me towards figuring out where GMC fits into the picture instead of what the GMC can do against it.What if you got your wish for 'curating' tutorials on this board. Both Heartbeast and Shaun Spalding have close to 100,000 subscribers on their channels. Their videos seem to regularly get anywhere from 1k to 500k views, with Shaun's Basic GM: Studio tutorial from four years ago reaching 1.3 million views. Let's try to low ball the numbers massively here and say that half those views were people watching the tutorial a second time, and let's assume that only, say, 20 percent of viewers even watched it to completion. That's 130,000 people who watched that full video alone.
Compare those numbers to this board. The number of people who watch these people is far more than the number who visit these forums. So what if you won't put their content on the approved list. Why should they care, exactly? Let's flip it around. Why should those content creators recommend the GMC as a learning resource to their subscribers, if their content isn't welcome here? Because, and I'm sorry I have to point this out, they have a much larger audience then you, and that audience will keep growing.
You also seem to be quite antagonistic towards them, making the claim that they are purposely not covering skills that are really needed so as to keep their audience from being independent, while producing no evidence. Which I honestly find kind of offensive, and I'd imagine they would as well. You can't know the reasons they're making their content at all. Why do you assume their motives are in bad faith? For that matter, you seem to be blaming Youtube as a platform in general. That seems kind of broad.
If you want to talk about "showing up and posting something completely off-topic at any time", that's a much bigger issue with chat systems like Discord than with forums. The last thing this discussion needs is people speaking line-by-line in real-time without gathering their thoughts into cohesive packages.Forum posts has the benefit of supporting asynchronous communication and advanced formatting, so they still have some merit... but I can see the problem of keeping a focused discussion going when someone can just show up and post something completely off-topic at any time
That is very true!This is an important discussion to have. I'm a beginner, but I made a rule early on: never use code I don't understand. Copy pasting is a path to failure.
I expect it is frustrating. But it has nothing to do with the tutorial format -- i.e., whether it's video, downloadable project, or blog post. Lazy learners will copy/paste from good tutorials, bad tutorials, or free source code -- regardless of format. When that happens, it's not the fault of the tutorial author, or the format they chose.That is very true!
I lost count of the number of time I have had to cope with people who copied my code and had no idea what it did.
It's kncreadobly frustrating.
I agree.I expect it is frustrating. But it has nothing to do with the tutorial format -- i.e., whether it's video, downloadable project, or blog post. Lazy learners will copy/paste from good tutorials, bad tutorials, or free source code -- regardless of format. When that happens, it's not the fault of the tutorial author, or the format they chose.
I disagree with the notion that video is inherently a poor format for tutorials. There are plenty of good video tutorials -- as your own tutorials prove. In the hands of a skilled tutorial author (like yourself), video can work fine.
That said, not every tutorial is suited for video. With lots of code, or many code blocks, a written format may be a better choice.
No mystery here. This has to do with subject matter, rather than tutorial quality. Lighting and collisions are topics beginners recognize and want to learn. Whereas structures and state-machines appeal to experienced programmers. And beginners outnumber experienced users by large margins.(snip)
My better videos (that explain more general topics) get very few views from being searched, and are not being suggested very often.
However some of my videos I'm not too happy with (lighting systems, etc) are getting far more views!
Not being frequently searched for by rookie developers is understandable, it's the lack of recommendations from experienced developers that Fel666 is having beef with.No mystery here. This has to do with subject matter, rather than tutorial quality. Lighting and collisions are topics beginners recognize and want to learn. Whereas structures and state-machines appeal to experienced programmers. And beginners outnumber experienced users by large margins.
This also explains the number of "dumb questions" for certain tutorials. It's a function of audience skill level and size, rather than tutorial quality.
Nevertheless, I understand your desire for "metrics" to gauge how well your tutorials are succeeding. But metrics based on view numbers don't tell the whole story, for reasons I mentioned above.
I find it kinda beautiful how the first topic's first reply ties in with the opening post of the second topic.
While it probably just was an autocorrect messup, I like how it suggests YouTube tutorials are one-way consumption rather than something that requires active effort and learning. It's a hilariously appropriate metaphor for the underlying problem we're discussing.
I think proper resources are suggested, quite often. Most "dumb questions" (i.e., easily answered by a little research) are referred to the GM manual. Often, members provide a direct link to the specific function needed. So I don't see an issue here.If the "dumb questions" are coming up so often, why are resources that target the underlying causes of "dumb questions" not being suggested more often?
First, I don't feel that's true. I think GMC beginners (in general) receive good advice about using resources to improve their skills. That said, bad advice still occurs occasionally. But again, it's because beginners outnumber experts. So when they try to help, they sometimes give poor advice. That's the nature of an open forum. So your question answers itself.Also, if beginners massively outnumber experienced users, why are so many of them given poor advice on how to become independent?
I think the solution to this is to cover smaller, Self contained subjects.Part of the limitations of youtube tutorials is when you're a channel owner, analytics tell you the shorter the video you can make, the better it is for hits/views. So they tend to gloss over important stuff. We're unfortunately in a soundbite world.