2D Gaming Development / CocosSharp
-
Good to hear! MonoGame is what I'm flying with for now. I've been fairly happy so far. CocosSharp is built on-top of MonoGame and allegedly provides a more .NET friendly framework. It seemed like an exciting option. However, the last update is so old I can hear crickets on the GitHub site :) Also, since nobody has visited and exclaimed, "Yea, CocosSharp rocks!", it seems woefully short of supporters. Everything I can find says its dead. Heck, on the following GitHub site, the link they list for their web site is even dead. GitHub - mono/CocosSharp: CocosSharp is a C# implementation of the Cocos2D and Cocos3D APIs that runs on any platform where MonoGame runs.[^] It's a real shame. It looked interesting. I was hoping someone might chime in with recent news.
I've been using MonoGame for the past year for cross-platform, and it does rock! You can now also use it in .NetStandard which you could not a year ago. It is actively being improved and there is a great community that can help. Also, there are lots of examples out there to help get you started.
-
[Xenko Game Engine](https://xenko.com/) Just saying....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
Mmm. This project got turned open-source a month ago, with no corporate support. I'm all for open-source projects, but this is like MonoGame with less features, less developers, a smaller community, no money, and a slightly better open-source license. How will this ever survive? Is there a crowdfunding campaign funding it or something?
-
To be honest I never practice either unity or Xenko. Just was curious about DirectX C# binding From what I read it's much more developer friendly. But has less design tools! :)
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
Yeah, Unity started off with ActionScript based scripts and added C# later so the scripting is kind of wonky. Xenko is much more C# friendly from what I can tell and apparently has a very good engine but the editor needs a bit of work from what people are saying. Looks super promising though!
Blog: [Code Index] By Mike Marynowski | Business: Singulink
-
I have an idea for a simple 2D game and am thinking about trying to go cross-platform. Let me start with, I considered Unity first. For various reasons, not interested in advice about it. To stay in VS/C# land and save money, I'm considering using CocosSharp. I'm usually reluctant to invite opinions, but I could use some advice here. My biggest concern is that the last update (of CocosSharp) on GitHub is comparatively old. Is CocosSharp still a viable alternative? Or, am I about to use an already extinct dinosaur? Anything else you'd recommend? Again, my focus is free/cheap, simple, 2D. In an ideal world, VS/C#, so I can stay comfy on my PC. Though, I'm flexible on that goal. Most of the other options I saw out there seemed expensive, complicated, and/or 3D oriented. UPDATE: I'll leave the thread open for continued Unity cheerleading, since this seems to be the only opinion out there. Sigh...not sure of the purpose of repeatedly posting "use Unity", but too each their own :) Regarding the original topic, since I'm leery of CocosSharp's continued support, I've decided to experiment with MonoGame instead.
Another vote for MonoGame here. I've been a fan of the XNA API since its beta days and the MonoGame team are doing a great job of extending it to multiple platforms. I'm probably the last person on the planet still actively developing an XNA product. :-) KoduGameLab One thing to keep in mind is that MonoGame is an API and Unity is a game engine. Unity will do a lot of things for you but it will also insist that you do things its way. You will also be stuck with its limitations. For instance, in Kodu I need to be able to support R-to-L languages (Hebrew, Arabic, etc.) None of the UI options in Unity do this well (or at all). Using XNA I was able to roll my own support from this. Yes, it was a pain but at least it was possible.
-
Mmm. This project got turned open-source a month ago, with no corporate support. I'm all for open-source projects, but this is like MonoGame with less features, less developers, a smaller community, no money, and a slightly better open-source license. How will this ever survive? Is there a crowdfunding campaign funding it or something?
Well it has (or had?) corporate support. One Japanese company which name I forgot.. mm.. ha yes, [Silicon Studio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon\_Studio) ....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Wow, that does look pretty awesome! However, like Unity, it seems way over-kill for the simple 2D game I'm considering. Regrettably, I'm old-school and barely passible at 2D artwork. My 3D skills are absolutely non-existent. It probably doesn't help that, because of a vision problem, I can't even see true 3D. Still, the graphics on that site make me almost believe in myself :) Anyhow, thanks (and an upvote) for what appears to be a serious contender, which appears largely unencumbered license-wise. All the other suggestions so far, I had at least heard about. I'm surprised that this one has flown completely under my radar.
You're welcome! :) You can't see 3D? Never heard of that ! :omg:
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
I have an idea for a simple 2D game and am thinking about trying to go cross-platform. Let me start with, I considered Unity first. For various reasons, not interested in advice about it. To stay in VS/C# land and save money, I'm considering using CocosSharp. I'm usually reluctant to invite opinions, but I could use some advice here. My biggest concern is that the last update (of CocosSharp) on GitHub is comparatively old. Is CocosSharp still a viable alternative? Or, am I about to use an already extinct dinosaur? Anything else you'd recommend? Again, my focus is free/cheap, simple, 2D. In an ideal world, VS/C#, so I can stay comfy on my PC. Though, I'm flexible on that goal. Most of the other options I saw out there seemed expensive, complicated, and/or 3D oriented. UPDATE: I'll leave the thread open for continued Unity cheerleading, since this seems to be the only opinion out there. Sigh...not sure of the purpose of repeatedly posting "use Unity", but too each their own :) Regarding the original topic, since I'm leery of CocosSharp's continued support, I've decided to experiment with MonoGame instead.
-
You're welcome! :) You can't see 3D? Never heard of that ! :omg:
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
Yup, you need stereoscopic vision (aka two working eyes) to see true 3D. Regrettably, I've got extremely poor vision in one eye. So, 3D is a no go for me. The brain is pretty good about using perspective cues to compensate, so you hardly notice. Basically, its the same difference between a movie and a 3D movie.
-
Another vote for MonoGame here. I've been a fan of the XNA API since its beta days and the MonoGame team are doing a great job of extending it to multiple platforms. I'm probably the last person on the planet still actively developing an XNA product. :-) KoduGameLab One thing to keep in mind is that MonoGame is an API and Unity is a game engine. Unity will do a lot of things for you but it will also insist that you do things its way. You will also be stuck with its limitations. For instance, in Kodu I need to be able to support R-to-L languages (Hebrew, Arabic, etc.) None of the UI options in Unity do this well (or at all). Using XNA I was able to roll my own support from this. Yes, it was a pain but at least it was possible.
Yeah, I've found MonoGame to be really easy to pick up so far. Already, implemented some animation loops and got them working on Windows Desktop, Windows Universal, and Android. I'm really impressed with the stub projects it auto-generates for each platform. So far, I've changed almost nothing in them. All the logic and graphics live in a shared project, with no conditional compiles. Though, I'm guessing some of that will creep in as I add user interaction.
-
Yup, you need stereoscopic vision (aka two working eyes) to see true 3D. Regrettably, I've got extremely poor vision in one eye. So, 3D is a no go for me. The brain is pretty good about using perspective cues to compensate, so you hardly notice. Basically, its the same difference between a movie and a 3D movie.
oh, ok. makes sense...
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!