Agree with —
But the main thing is...If you want to do Console Games, why do you chose, C2?
I think Construct is it's own nemesis sometimes. It's so easy to do a basic game that pretty much anyone can do it with a little bit of learning how the event sheet works. The problem with this is, do the games run well? I can only speak from my own experience trying to develop for mobile. At first I thought, bleehhhh performance sucks, but it turned out it's my own code/events that sucked. It was easy to make the game do what I wanted, but it's so hard to make the game do things efficiently.
I'm sure there is a lot of talent on this forum, and a lot of people have great ideas, but just because you can do things, doesn't mean it will perform great on your desired platform. I've been struggling on and off with my first game for about 2 years. Often I put my main project to the side, and just mess around with C2 and it's capabilities, doing small test projects, just to try out some features/plugins whatever, and learning.
But one thing I noticed, is that it's much harder than you think, very similar to my previous job developing for consoles. When I worked at DICE, we had a very very limited memory budget for UI, for Battlefield: Bad Company. You have grand ideas of what you wanna do but is set back by technology and what you actually can do....
Developing for Consoles is more to it than just pushing out a game. Every console has their own QA department making sure things are up to par, and performing well. It's not like Google Play store where any "developer" can upload their clones and shovelware. You have to make sure on screen elements for buttons follow UI guidelines, and is clearly visible for a variety on TV screens and resolutions. Your game is not going to pass, if it's not up to par, at least that's what it's what like working on AAA title a couple of years ago. I don't know if it's a bit different if the console has an indie dev section.... but anywho
So even if Scirra provided console export, you have a lot more working against you that just creating a game. Even if html5 games were supported better on consoles. It's gonna be pretty hard I guess.
When you have a game you want to develop, I think it's better to chose the tool right for the job, than expecting your tool to adopt to your needs. Your best bet is to chose an engine that is specifically designed for your purpose and does it well.
So back to my first question. If you want to do Console Games, why do you chose, C2/C3?, it's not designed for it. And consoles are generally not designed to run HTML5 games.
It's like choosing MS paint to do advanced photo editing like what you would do in Photoshop.
Maybe people chose C2 for console because they claimed Wii U support? And over a year ago, announced XB1 "beta" support, and again recently announced XB1, to the point where it's listed as a supported platform for C3? Wii U export was more or less unworkable and WebGL shader support in Edge (which would have to be depended upon on XB1 export) is almost entirely broken, so claiming "support" for those platforms is misleading at best, purposely vague overstatements that are known by Scirra to be not entirely true at worst. Combine that with those of us who've already had their games approved for release on Wii U & XB1 not being able to do so because of the engine not being able to do anything close to what's event remotely been promised platform-wise, and you're headed pretty deeply into the territory of misleading marketing. Consoles don't need to be designed to run "HTML5 games." Games built in HTML5 need to be using HTML5 tech that can run on consoles - all of which are capable, spec-wise, of doing so. Scirra's complete lack of desire to support consoles in such a way that the HTML5 games it exports run well on consoles is the issue. The "we're sticking to standards" approach falls apart when nobody else, including web browser developers on PC/Mac/Linux/Android/iOS, sticks to standards. It's an oft-repeated excuse used to dismiss criticism of engine performance and feature set. With C3 just being an editor update on top of the same engine, I think the length of this thread points to the more experienced devs trying to make money by releasing games built in C2 being over the excuses.
You're basically ignoring those facts to tell everyone who wants to port to the platforms that Scirra has claimed are supported by their engine that they're wrong for expecting the tool set they landed upon to do what's advertised, as are those of us who are well aware of what's required to get a game running on multiple platforms or as wide a range of hardware as possible on a single platform like PC. I certainly didn't spend time hacking resolution switching - even if it's just the canvas, it helps with performance on lower-end GPUs, however many times Scirra may say it doesn't matter (they're completely wrong) - into Sombrero for my health. Reading UI guidelines isn't a big deal for me or others who use C2, since we've spent decades having to do exactly that for UI design for other types of software products. Experienced used are what Construct needs to grow beyond a userbase of hobbyists and students - unless, of, those are the target audiences for Construct moving forward, in which case experienced users will move on and the showcase for C3 will end up looking pretty sparse. Well...more sparse.
I built Sombrero in C2 because I dug the idea of the event sheets. Heck, I switched from Unity to C2 because at the time Unity didn't really have very good 2D tools. The issue isn't the editor/interface/whatever, though don't even get me started on how every concern I had with going to a browser-based IDE has proven true in a single week of stress testing. It's the woefully out of date or missing features of engine itself. Scirra saying "no, we're the best with a super-advanced HTML5 engine" is kind of nonsense after a certain point when the games can barely run on PCs that can handle games made in other engines just fine. Nobody cares - especially those purchasing games - how many times graphics drivers are blamed, when it's not an issue with other engines. I'm pretty over that excuse when I can run advanced games that came out a month ago on a tablet PC like a Surface Pro 4, but just about any complex C2 games is choppy as all hell, and they blame a graphics chip that can run advanced 3D games (even if at lower resolutions). "It's just as fast as native" is such a bold-faced lie that I don't know how Scirra keeps thinking they can get away with claiming it, outside of a mostly inexperienced user base. Being "the best tool for 2D games" involves more than just saying a tagline. It involves results. That we haven't seen.