I've been thinking and asking a questions for awhile now, i think gearing scratch to kids doesn't make a good platform to make games in because using the GUI is great but making physics engine stuff doesn't make your game good it just looks amateur, I've had issues trying to make games good and they are terrible.

If it took a route to make optional/not required in built engines because , i think gearing scratch to kids isn't the right way of making a successful platform and should gear it to people who want to make actually good games rather than glorified tech demos.

Scratch isn't intended to be a game platform. It's an introductory programming language directed primarily towards children. So, whether or not Scratch is good as a game platform is somewhat irrelevant, because game-making and game-playing is not the main focus.

It's not supposed to be a professional game creation platform, it's something that should be easy for someone to learn and use. Of course, there is a way to make complex projects and games, but that's not the main focus. The focus of scratch is to make kids interested in coding, but it is a program for all ages.

Now I'm not really sure of what you're asking exactly, but it might be that trying to make something complex in such a simple editor can be hard. If you want a way to make complex programs I'd suggest going to a different program, as scratch is just supposed to be a starting program.

it isn't intended to be a game platform, that's why there's no physics or 3d engine built in.
ninja'd

Za-Chary wrote:

Scratch isn't intended to be a game platform. It's an introductory programming language directed primarily towards children. So, whether or not Scratch is good as a game platform is somewhat irrelevant, because game-making and game-playing is not the main focus.

As much as we all want new features and blocks, Za-Chary has a valid point. Scratch's purpose was always to be an introduction to programming and very friendly towards younger users.

edit: ninja'd by two people neat

NO

TheAnnoyingSmartKid wrote:

NO

No to what? That Scratch is not a game platform?

I think that with the introduction of Scratch Jr Scratch can be made closer to a real game platform (or at least give us the options), as scratch jr. would be an excellent introductory language and scratch could be centered closer to a relatively more advanced platform

I am only going to say this once, Scratch is not a game platform. Scratch is a platform where anyone can come and code using Scratch's custom made blocks. Scratch has invented a way for kids (and not only kids) to program is a much easier way than Python or Java (Etc.) So in conclusion Scratch is not a game platform.

programmer204 wrote:

I am only going to say this once, Scratch is not a game platform. Scratch is a platform where anyone can come and code using Scratch's custom made blocks. Scratch has invented a way for kids (and not only kids) to program is a much easier way than Python or Java (Etc.) So in conclusion Scratch is not a game platform.

the only thing scratch is easiest at as is making games. Stuff like art and animation have easier and more effective platforms.

One: scratch is a begginer’s coding site, and 3D graphics and physics (unless yur griffpatch or somethin’) are near impossible to make.

Two: not everyone makes games.

Three: QaS is not the place to rant or yell.

scratchykit5743 wrote:

One: scratch is a begginer’s coding site, and 3D graphics and physics (unless yur griffpatch or somethin’) are near impossible to make.

Two: not everyone makes games.

Three: QaS is not the place to rant or yell.

one: Use scratch Jr if you wanna begin and stuff, making scratch more advanced wouldn't delete the basic stuff
two: if you dont make games then you might as well use another platform since scratch isn't too art and animation friendly
three: what the heck are you talking about?

NOTANO0B wrote:

scratchykit5743 wrote:

One: scratch is a begginer’s coding site, and 3D graphics and physics (unless yur griffpatch or somethin’) are near impossible to make.

Two: not everyone makes games.

Three: QaS is not the place to rant or yell.

one: Use scratch Jr if you wanna begin and stuff, making scratch more advanced wouldn't delete the basic stuff

It would certainly make it confusing.

Use snap, it's better

I mean scratch is supposed to be an introduction to coding, but in all honesty if you move on to a text-based language with prior expirience on scratch you will find yourself learning the text-based language completly from scratch (no pun intended), I think scratch is meant to teach the different elements in a programming language or the concept of coding instead of actually teaching coding

scratchykit5743 wrote:

One: scratch is a begginer’s coding site, and 3D graphics and physics (unless yur griffpatch or somethin’) are near impossible to make.

Two: not everyone makes games.

Three: QaS is not the place to rant or yell.

well griffpatch's job is a javascript coder, so of course he's an expert

awtyagrawals wrote:

Use snap, it's better

its more confusing

TheAnnoyingSmartKid wrote:

I've been thinking and asking a questions for awhile now, i think gearing scratch to kids doesn't make a good platform to make games in because using the GUI is great but making physics engine stuff doesn't make your game good it just looks amateur, I've had issues trying to make games good and they are terrible.

If it took a route to make optional/not required in built engines because , i think gearing scratch to kids isn't the right way of making a successful platform and should gear it to people who want to make actually good games rather than glorified tech demos.

Its supposed to be a simple coding platfrom, to get people introduced into harder platforms like CC+ and Ruby.
What are you asking exactly?