I'm going to make a new game.

[theparanoidlsdfreak]

It will have
lots of jokes
cameos
drugs
no swearing
nothing worse than leisure suit larry regarding sex, this game won't be like **** quest!

I turned the curser into a joint, The main character will probably be Bluntman, or a parody of him .  I tried editing the ego, but it messed up and I will wait until the next version.

I can do all of the views for the game

I can make pics, but I'm not good at priority or control yet .  I will try to learn it better.

I can make all or most of the text and jokes in the game, but I can't program it so far.  I could either get someone to help me do all the hard stuff, or I could study the tutorial and try to master it.

I never tried AGI studio, should I try to learn that first?  Or should I just start from SCI Studio.

[Brian Provinciano]

You shouldn't have trouble programming the game if you do the tutorial from top to bottom and don't skip anything.

I personally think it would be a better idea to start with SCI, rather than to start with AGI to get used to stuff and then move to SCI. SCI is quite different. Many people who have made AGI games try to do AGI code in SCI games, and it just doesn't work, kind of confusing them.

For example, AGI does:
   move.obj(oA,X,Y,STEPSIZE,fDONEFLAG);

SCI does:
   (obj:setMotion(MoveTo X Y RoomScript))

Some people try doing things like:
   (obj:setMotion(MoveTo(oA,X,Y,STEPSIZE,fDONEFLAG)))

which obviously won't work. Learning AGI first could lead to confusion. SCI is a fair bit different from AGI.

Also, though more complex, SCI Studio offers far more indepth tutorials and teaches much more step-by-step. Though more complex, it could likely be easier to learn as a result.

[Cosmic R]

I agree with you brian and at the same time disagree.

For a person with no programming experience, I would recommend AGI.  It is very easy to learn and ideal for beginners.  SCI on the other hand would simply be like throwing a beginner into the deep end -your tutorials assume that the user has programming experience. I myself found it confusing at first, mainly because I have little to none object oriented experience, but it could also be because of my familiarity with AGI. But my suggestion is try both, whichever grabs you, then use that system.

[Brian Provinciano]

Yeah. There have been some people with no programming experience who have done the tutorial and are creating SCI games which look very promising and have great graphical effects. However, it is true that many people could have trouble learning it if they have no prior programming experience.

I suppose it really depends on the type of features you want your adventure game to have, and that is the true decision maker. If you want a really classic look, then AGI is a good choice. If you still want the text parser interface, want better graphics, and a completely customizable interface with more features, then SCI is a good choice. AGI was the first animated graphical adventure game engine, SCI had the last mainstream text parsing animated adventure game engine.

[OmerMor]

Bluntman from Kevin Smith's movies? cool!  

[Allen]

You could also do some cool Cheech and Chong stuff!

[Chris Cromer]

You could also do some cool Cheech and Chong stuff!

That would be perfect, I would love to somehow hear the phrase "Hey man, are we parked?"

[Kon-Tiki]

Maybe it's because I have a hole in my culture, but who or what are/is Cheech and Chong? And Bluntman?

[Brian Provinciano]

Cheech and Chong are some of the best comedians of all time. They did really hilarious movies in the 80s, such as "Up In Smoke". Tommy Chong is currently the photo guy on That 70's Show.

As for Bluntman, check out the great Kevin Smith movie line including Jay and Slient Bob Strike Back, Clerks, Mallrats, etc.

[Allen]

Cheech and chong have had very funny drug experiences including cocaine and pot.

"Dave? Dave's not here!"

[theparanoidlsdfreak]

(Bluntman ego pic)

I don't know how to upload pics, so I'll just give a link

http://www.wutangworld.com/forum/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=476