Quote Originally Posted by Alfonse Reinheart View Post
Then you are really going about this the wrong way. You want to make a real abstraction, not a bunch of macros and other such nonsense.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I program C++ with include files macros and what have you. That's how we program. Shaders work the same way. So I don't understand the disconnect you have here.

People who want to make "very presentable full fledged video games" are either people with money (and therefore aren't going to use your tool when they can hire a programmer to write and maintain their engine for them) or indies. And indies aren't trying to use low-level tools; they're using higher level stuff like UDK, Unity3D, XNA, and so forth. They don't want do deal with the low-level details, because low-level details are taking precious development time away from important things like gameplay and getting the game finished.
This is further offtopic. But many people don't feel intellectually served by these institutions. I don't personally consider "indie" games to even be relevant. I think we would have different conceptions of what "very presentable full fledged video games mean". I don't personally even think most "AAA" titles nowadays would qualify for the distinction. I think what I mean is professional presentation, polished, and a real full featured 3D adventure game; you know, what people usually mean when someone says "real game".

So the only people who would use this tool you're developing are hobbiests. People who noodle around with game code in their spare time, with no real determination to make a better game.
Today's hobbiests have resources above and beyond what businesses were doing with video games up to around 1995 and even up into 2000. People with opinions I respect consider the 90s the golden age of video games.

... what? Let's ignore the fact that "video games still look the same as they always have" is patently false.
Again. Games are still just texture mapped triangles; for the last 5 years with really ugly shadow techniques. The formula is remarkably stable. OpenGL ES is a great example of what a video game really amounts to.

You are saying, in all seriousness, that most of D3D11's API is cruft because, in your estimation, games don't look any differently. That the number of API functions is in any way related to the way games look. That if an API has a lot of functions, then that must mean games should look better or else the API is broken.

There is no logical reasoning between "API has lots of functions" and "games don't look better" that leads to "API with lots of functions that don't matter."
It was not a critique of D3D11. It exposes hardware functionality presumably. So it can't be allowed to take liberties one would assume. But the basic gist of what a game needs to be able to do in the graphical dept. can be summed up in a remarkably small number of hypothetical API procedures (thanks to the advent of programmable GPUs of course)