Problem Statement

The Core Problem

Learning game programming requires mastering complex, engine-specific APIs before one can begin to understand game development concepts. This creates artificial barriers for talented, creative people.

Game engines create a strong lock-in effect due to their highly unique APIs - yet they all perform the same high-level tasks.

Among self-learners, tutorial hell is widespread - a comfort zone shielding oneself from engine complexity through passive consumption.

Games are the single strongest motivator that brings young people into programming. Yet game engines lack a safe ‘learn by doing’ sandbox that invites experimentation.

The Road To A Solution

LunyScript unifies C# gameplay programming across game engines. Its abstraction shields users from engine-specific concepts and provides a safe space for experimentation while teaching valuable game programming patterns. Skills and code become transferable. Engine API details are introduced gradually as users advance.

First implemented in Unity, then ported to Godot. Future plans include Lua bindings for hot reload and modding capability.

---

Table of Contents

• What We Know
  • 1. API Fragmentation: The Root Problem
  • 2. The Engine Lock-In Effect
  • 3. Visual Scripting Isn’t The Catch-All Solution
  • 4. Learning Support Is Inadequate
  • 5. Constraints Enable Creativity
• The Gap to a Better Outcome
• Why This Matters
• How LunyScript Addresses This
• Secondary Benefits

---

What We Know

1. API Fragmentation: The Root Problem

• Unity, Godot, Unreal solve identical problems with completely different APIs
• Very different codeGetComponent()vsget_node()but same results
• Switching engines means relearning implementation patterns => wasted effort
• Engine switching costs are very high, and exponentially so for beginners

The irony: Game engines became popular because they solved API/platform fragmentation. Now their fragmentation has become a problem in itself.

---

2. The Engine Lock-In Effect

Beginners:

• Must learn multiple domains simultaneously => high cognitive demands paired with huge interest leads to widespread tutorial hell (‘learning’ lock-in)
• Premature commitment to one engine before understanding the choice
• Choice overload: Heavily fragmented game engines / creation tools (100-200), but only 2-3 provide tangible career opportunities

Experienced Developers:

• Still significant time investment to switch engines
• Switching engines is a career risk, not an opportunity! Most job offers ask for 2+ years experience in specific engine
• Forced paradigm shifts cause sudden loss of productivity => developer goes back (or wishes to do so)

Ecosystem:

• Knowledge and tutorials don’t transfer
• Communities fragment by engine choice, even language preference
• Game code is either engine-locked or requires significant integration effort

Culture:

• Not-Invented-Here: e.g. dozens of character controllers available, developers still write their own => Reinventing gameplay wheels is commonplace!

---

3. Visual Scripting Isn’t The Catch-All Solution

What Works:

• High-level visual tools (PlayMaker, Game Creator) are popular paid assets because they provide declarative, intent-revealing patterns at a high level
• Success comes from hiding complexity and the promise of being simpler

What Doesn’t Work:

• Unreal Blueprints succeeds because it provides high-level functional nodes — but partly because the only alternative is C++
• Other Visual Scripting tools have abysmal adoption rates => Godot: 0.5%, Unity: very few posts. Consequently:
  • Unity Visual Scripting has laid dormant since 2022
  • Godot removed their VisualScript in 2022

The Fatal Flaws:

• Visual Scripting fails if it copies an imperative programming language 1:1
• Visual scripting is verbose and extremely space-inefficient compared to code
• Arranging nodes is unproductive, but necessitated to avoid “node spaghetti”
• Hard to debug, refactor, review, document, version, and establish guidelines

Engine Scripting Languages:

• Boo, UnityScript, UnrealScript: removed after 9-16 years due to maintenance cost
• They all exposed the engine’s API 1:1 => simpler syntax but same API complexity
• UnrealScript: Epic was forced to provide a C++ alternative => Blueprints
• UnityScript/Boo were barely used (<5%) => C# considered easy enough
• GDScript: >75% user base due to tight integration: no external editor necessary

‼️The Missing Middle:‼️

• There is no middle ground: beginners/designers must jump from visual scripting and/or creation tools with small APIs directly to full engine programming
• Simple declarative programming patterns are absent in game engines
• Visual tools merely replace anxiety-inducing syntax (semicolons, brackets) with boxes and lines - but one still has to have imperative programming skills

---

4. Learning Support Is Inadequate

Observable Patterns:

• Game dev forums show high numbers of one-post beginner accounts
• Beginners’ code is often chaotic, showing lack of conceptual understanding
• “Read the docs” responses assume foundational knowledge beginners lack

Fragmented Ecosystem:

• Abundance of learning material but inconsistent in quality, and target audience
• Every tutorial creator teaches their own style, compounding confusion
• Tutorials strongly focus on the how (quick wins), rarely explain the why
• ‼️Tutorial Hell: beginners follow excessively but unable to work independently

5. Constraints Enable Creativity

Evidence:

• Successful constrained tools (RPG Maker, Ren’Py) encourage creativity
• Developers’ widely held belief that “game programming needs full flexibility” contradicts reality of what restrictive creative tools accomplish
• Limiting, failure-safe systems are a blessing in disguise for learners — they reduce decision paralysis and encourage experimentation => Scratch et al
• Heavily customizable building block systems have irresistible draw: Minecraft, Python

---

The Gap to a Better Outcome

⚠️ Current State ⚠️

• Beginners must learn engine-specific APIs before implementing actual game-play!
• Knowledge doesn’t transfer between engines—switching means starting over
• Visual scripting & GDScript are the only “simple” options (with major drawbacks)
• No middle-ground between high-level visual programming and HLL programming
• Fear of “wrong choice” causes early lock-in or prevents advancement

✅ Desired State ✅

• Learn game concepts through simple, declarative API that reveals intent
• Knowledge transfers well between engines—try Unity, Godot, or both
• Text-based from day one: debuggable, refactorable, version-controllable, etc.
• Gradual progression from high-level patterns toward engine-native programming
• Engine exploration carries no penalty—build confidence through working code

---

Why This Matters

1. Wasted Creative Potential

• Talented people give up due to artificial barriers, not lack of ability
• The industry loses diverse voices and perspectives
• Creation tools lack the platform reach of professional engines

2. Inefficient Learning Ecosystem

• Educators repeat the same trivial concepts in different engine-specific APIs
• Learners consume tutorials without building independent problem-solving skills
• Communities fragment by engine rather than uniting around shared knowledge
• Missing ‘safe space’, easy-to-use sandbox to experiment in

3. Artificial Career Limitations

• Engine loyalty limits job opportunities and creative freedom
• The gameplay coding designer role became unattractive: either heavy UI interactions or intricate programming knowledge - choose the lesser evil!

---

How LunyScript Addresses This

Core Insight: Game engines share 90% of their fundamental concepts equally well but expose them through 100% different APIs. Learning different UIs is comparatively easy.

LunyScript Solution: A unified, declarative API that works identically across engines—filling the missing middle ground between visual scripting and full programming.

Direct Problem → Solution Mapping

Problem	How LunyScript Helps
API is the barrier	Declarative, intent-revealing syntax—focus on game concepts, not API memorization
Exponential cognitive load for beginners	Simpler API = one less domain to juggle; reduces early lock-in fear
API fragmentation	Same code works in Unity, Godot, future engines—knowledge transfers completely
No middle ground	Text-based declarative patterns bridge visual scripting → full programming
Visual scripting drawbacks	Debuggable, refactorable, version-controllable text code from day one
Tutorial hell dependency	Readable code encourages experimentation and understanding, and teaching patterns
Mid-tier tool lock-in	Scratch/Roblox users feel more welcome in pro-tier engines, find early successes
Lack of safe learning space	Unified community around entry-level API

What LunyScript Is NOT

• Not a replacement for engine-native programming — it’s a scaffold toward mastery but with similar long-term productive capability than visual scripting
• Not targeting high-end AAA development or bleeding-edge features
• Not hiding engine concepts — it teaches transferable patterns first

Goal: Provide a gentle, productive entry point that transfers completely between engines, fills the missing middle ground, and builds confidence through working code.

---

Secondary Benefits

While self-learners are the primary focus, LunyScript creates value for:

• Tutorial Creators: One tutorial reaches Unity + Godot audiences; multiply reach, reduced workload; encourages comparisons
• Educators: One curriculum deploys to multiple engines; teach concepts, not API semantics
• Prototypers: Faster iteration while still creating reusable code
• Framework Devs: Cross-engine tools without compromising engine integration

These are consequences of solving the core beginner problem and cross-engine functionality, but have the potential to become additional design drivers in the future.

---

← Back to Main Documentation