Post

This vision statement makes sense, and I appreciate them mentioning Godot is for games of small to mid size teams. Thats a good blend of vague and specific to have. But… Seeing the words ‘sensible defaults’ makes my Tool Designer hairs stand on end. It’s best to avoid that: youtu.be/ALJ4sq9NZzY

Godot Engine@godotengine.org

We've published Godot Engine's first written vision statement, formalizing a decade of shared experience building, releasing, and maintaining it. This is intended to guide the Godot Foundation as we make decisions about where to allocate our resources. Read more: godotengine.org/article/godo...

Thanks! Wording is so difficult with these public statements, so I understand the struggle. Something I’ve seen work well is using a sliding scale of simple to complex. For example: Simple defaults, customizable to preferred complexity by the user. Because usually the intention is simplicity

So you can imagine starting off with a default in which the UI looks simple, non-overwhelming, few buttons, etc. This is easy to argue, esp for onboarding. And then the user can easily (preferably with drag and drop) put buttons and features all over the UI, to define their own level of complexity.

Fair point! I still need to watch your talk, but note that this section isn't only about editor UI/tools, but the default behaviors of all Godot APIs. E.g. what are the default renderers, default environment, audio buses and filters, physics gravity, camera field of view, behavior of UI nodes, etc.

Sure, and it applies to all of those too. So a default renderer is simple, and can then also be expanded and made more complex. Same with audio, FoV, etc, none of them can have 'sensible' defaults, they're all editable defaults But let me know what you think once you've had a chance to see it!

0 reposts4 likes

"Sensible" here means "works for the most commonly encountered use case (wet finger assessed)". I'll watch your talk ASAP to have this argument explicitly refuted :P