C3 Love

0 favourites
From the Asset Store
Full game Construct 2 and Construct 3 to post on Google Play
  • >

    > > I'm pretty sure C3 is going to be the best thing since the discovery of fire.

    > >

    > Burnt fingers.


    That's why children shouldn't play with matches.

    Takes one to know one? Sorry, I thought we were coming up with childish retorts as opposed to humorous wit.

    How about this: speaking of the invention of fire, newt is certainly taking a Neanderthalic attitude in his many trolling barbs of late.

    Best just not to feed them.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Please keep it civil folks, you know the drill, I'll lock threads at the first sign of trouble.

  • I am a Construct 2 user and a pragmatist.

    I have been using Construct 2 to develop mostly web-based interactive simulations, with the occasional export to iOS and Android. I could go through the trouble to develop simulations natively in javascript or in some other language, but I have found that it is not worth my time. As a physics teacher, I can wake up at 5:00 am with an idea, and by 7:30 am have a working simulation for my students, complete with art, animation, user interface, and, of course, the important physics idea. I can't imagine doing this any other way.

    We don't have computers in school, but every student has a school-issued iPad, and most students have personal cell phones. I started out as an iOS native developer, but I quickly realized that there was no way I could implement a new idea and push it out to students in a few hours if everything I built had to be approved by Apple. HTML5 is the only way to do this, and the major reason that I haven't spent a whole lot of time looking at other engines.

    Up until now, Construct 2 has been the best fit for what I do. Nothing else comes close. Not Unity, not native javascript, not any of the Lua-based engines, not Gamemaker, and not even the various web-based scientific visualization tools like NetLogo or glowscript (although I am now using glowscript more and more to teach coding).

    I am excited for Construct 3. I would gladly pay a fee of around $100/year for something that I spend 2-3 hours every day using. I already pay similar amounts for Dropbox, Netflix, and Amazon Prime, and none of those bring nearly as much joy as tinkering in Construct 2. I have felt guilty for years now that the Scirra crew doesn't have a yearly subscription fee, and yet they push out updates on this major piece of software every week. That is literally years worth of uncompensated time. If you find yourself struggling with the idea of paying a subscription, consider that you are already working with a wonderful piece of software that is being improved at an absolute breakneck pace. If we don't pitch in, this support will go away and we will be left with a tool that will wither and die.

  • Hey all, been away for some time now in 3D land.

    I too have been looking forward to what C3 may bring, and eagerly followed the links in my emails.

    I would have to say that although I can see where Scirra are coming from with the pricing of C3, I also have to be a realist, so with my web host subscription, my adobe subscription, and a few others, another subscription - especially that expensive - is out of my price range.

    Personally I don't want you to host anything, all I want is a tool, and if I make a game that is worth selling I can just put it in the appropriate store.

    I have a business licence for C2, so I gather that gives me a twelve months of C3 for free (I think - which is awesome - thanks ) So hopefully I can use it to make something special and sell it to the masses. Well at least a 200 hundred of them to pay the C3 sub lol.

    Also if it is still at the mercy of other third parties, like the likes of Google, then I am sceptical about whether it is worth the time investment.

    However, best of luck with C3 Scirra.


  • Like the OP I have tried most of the engines and cut my teeth on 001 game maker. C2 has the features I use most and I can whip out a the game mechanics in a few hours and then spend my time on the artistic part of the game so speed in design is a major draw for me.

    I can't say I need anything C3 has offered but I am sure I will try the free version and maybe something will get me hooked that would over ride my contempt for subscriptions.

    One thing that would sway me is the ability to do 3D. The OP says how difficult it would be but 001 has 3D and works fine in HTML5 so Scirra can do it.

    I would like to see Scirra focus on getting their arcade server working properly and set up like the store with animated gifs for pics, recommended games, side bar advertising of C2 games and allow designers to use their own pic on the load screen seen on websites instead of the identical Scirra add.

    Then we can promote Scirra games and that makes game designers some money so they will flock to Scirra to get the engines.

    I think instant gaming with HTML5 will over take apps because people are getting leery of downloading apps that collect personal info and can sell things to kids without parent permission but in order for us to do that with Scirra games they have got to work with websites like mine that need a game pic on the load screen.

    Anyway, the OP has their opinion and I have mine and while I hope C3 lives up to the hype and is a good deal for mobile and console game designers I just don't see it being of use to me and it may be a step in the wrong direction of where gaming is going in my opinion.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)