Wikipedia

Talk:Godot (game engine)/Archive 1

< Talk:Godot (game engine)
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Mika92 in topic Dynamically typed scripting language with strict typing?
Archive 1

Article Created

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Significant news coverage with many many reliable sources. BlitzGreg (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Statements such as "Godot has an advanced, independent, and complete 2D engine, so there's no need to fake 2D in 3D space." or "Godot contains a sophisticated and one of the best animation systems out there" make me doubt the neutrality of this article. Who believes it to be so advanced, or 'one of the best'? The developers? Why? Is the ability to avoid 'faking 2D in 3D space' a feature worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:b8a9:50c0:182c:2e5e:deea:e8a4 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote parts of the article, trying to find references where possible (and removing some). I also removed "sales-talk"-sounding text and tried to phrase things more neutrally based on information in the Godot docs and tutorials. This should hopefully address the neutrality dispute. Starkiel (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
As the creator of the article I do agree with the original complaint and found Starkiels revisions to be sufficient. After reading over the whole article and moving a few things around I no longer see anything overtly biased so I am removing the template. My only remaining concern is perhaps the list of features could be moved into a table right aligned to the text for space or removed all together. Wikipedia is, as always, not an encyclopedia, it should just give a general overview of the engine. Similar to the origin of the engine's name, Wikipedia doesn't need to list every single feature Godot is waiting for. BlitzGreg (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is, as always, not an encyclopedia, ..." Umm, isn't Wikipedia in fact "The Free Encyclopedia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.114.155 (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Godot (game engine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Dynamically typed scripting language with strict typing?

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but I'm a bit confused by the Scripting section, which seems to say that the GDScript language both is dynamically typed and has strict typing of variables. Are these not contradictory? --Modus Ponens (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

GDScript is dynamically typed with optional static typing. The variables defined by keyword "var" are actually all one type called Variant which are a kind of wrapper for C++ types. So inside each var is an actual C++ type including primitive types. Variants will infer the type based on what the value defined looks like for ex 1.0 is a float, 1 is an int, "one" is a string but typing can be enforced using ":". GDScript eventually gets compiled into opcodes and while Godot 3.0 has no opcode for type, Godot 4.0 does. So is Godot dynamic or static? GDScript in this case is actually both dynamic and static since it actually gets compiled with type opcodes somewhat similar to Java. The assumption that a language must be one or the other is the issue with your question. GDScript is actually part of a breed of languages dubbed loosely typed languages such as JavaScript, TypeScript, Perl etc. On the opposite end of the spectrum are strongly typed languages like C++, C#, Java in which typing is mandatory. Hope that clears things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.3.17.86 (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This is called Gradual typing.
As this article explains, your statement regarding C# is not correct due to the `dynamic` type in C#. Mika92 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No mention of VisualScript

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Godot offers a visual scripting language which is similar to Unreal Engine's 'Blueprint'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:574F:AD00:D5B8:A2E6:B256:8571 (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Godot's VisualScript is removed starting from Godot 4.0. Read this comprehensive analysis as a secondary source concerning Godot's motivations, which contains links to Godot lead developer's justifications and insights surrounding this decision. Xrayez (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
For that matter, should the VisualScript screenshot, be removed to prevent any further confusion and avoid creating false expectations? There are numerous threads such as this one where people have asked whether VisualScript is going to be resurrected. Based on what Juan Linietsky has been saying, it's not going to make a comeback. I'll go ahead and remove the VisualScript screenshot if I receive no objections. Xrayez (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
As a COI editor, you should not be making edits like that to this article, as has already been explained to you multiple times. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm a subject matter expert on Godot being a co-author of Godot, and as per WP:EXPERT, they are highly welcomed on Wikipedia. Don't marginalize editors based on their apparent affiliation, as per WP:FANATIC, especially when I provide valuable opposition-based perspectives. In addition, having WP:COI does not make me invalid as an editor, and having COI doesn't necessarily imply bias as per WP:COINOTBIAS. Given your logic, Godot members should be forbidden from making changes to the article, but this would go goes against Wikipedia's fundamental guideline WP:BOLD. There are currently several Godot members that edit Wikipedia article about Godot directly, and they have not declared their WP:COI, so I'm being transparent in contrast. Xrayez (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Any "Godot member" who has a conflict of interest should follow Wikipedia:Edit requests and use Template:Edit COI, which is what you should do. If you have evidence for other editors which doesn't cross-over into WP:OUTING, post it at WP:COIN. Otherwise, do not cast aspersions. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
You consistently dismiss my evidence as irrelevant; consequently, I find myself having to defend my actions and persona. Once you demonstrate that you are a welcoming editor who appreciates my suggestions, I will follow your instructions. Until then, in accordance with WP:COI, I am not obliged to utilize such templates. No one on Wikipedia exerts control over articles. Xrayez (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Added More Contents

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added more content to the article and made some changes to existing article. If you find any mistakes or irrelevant points, feel free to correct them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SakuraMiyazono (talk • contribs) 06:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes. I've reverted a few of your additions, and changed the organisation to be more legible and more concordant to Wikipedia standards, but overall I appreciate the work you've done. - Novov T C 04:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sonic Colors Ultimate

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This game hasn't been officially confirmed to use Godot. I added a 'citation needed', but maybe it'd be better to remove it entirely unless someone can find a reliable source? It seems weird to include it based on rumours. The source I removed contained no proof, only second hand information. Rvanee (talk)

Hello. Fortunately, the linked article (Sonic Colors#Sonic Colors: Ultimate) does include a source for this.
  • Yin-Poole, Wesly (September 4, 2021). "Sonic Colours: Ultimate players report graphics glitches and bugs". Eurogamer. Archived from the original on 5 September 2021. Retrieved September 6, 2021.
I have copied that source to this article. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

'Criticisms' section

Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@ABetterTomorrow101: Regarding this edit, to be blunt, there are several problems.

First, Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, which includes novel interpretations of sources or combining sources to support novel conclusions.

This section uses informal, vague, and leading language such as "garnered significant praise", "a diverse range of opinions" etc. The s weasel wording such as "Some critics argue", "concerns have been raised" etc. This kind of language is non-neutral. See WP:TONE and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for more.

Additionally, within Wikipedia criticism sections are usually avoided because they often introduce neutrality issues.

Any such content would need reliable sources. Wikipedia also strongly prefers independent sources. Forum posts and similar are not generally reliable. Further, while primary sources can be used if necessary, these sources need to be properly summarized. An April Fools Day post would need to be cited as an April Fools Day post, not as as a source for there being "many instances of feedback and critique".

Grayfell (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. Thanks for the pointers ABetterTomorrow101 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@ABetterTomorrow101 The project manager of Godot and the executive director of Godot Foundation answer the question about changing Godot's logo at GodotCon 2023:
Xrayez (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"Godot3D" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Godot3D. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Godot_(game_engine)/Archive_1&oldid=1242385156"