So What Is Your First Impression Of C3?

The good thing about the Construct platform is it's easy to come back to after not using it for a while and be able to use it again without many problems. I can see it being easy for C3 as well.

Right now I'm going to reduce my post count on the forum as I don't plan on using this browser engine much at all, so there's no need to give my opinion about anything anymore. But if I ever need to use it, it's easy to pick up and go. I had higher hopes for C3, and I think one day a browser engine might catch on and it'll be easy to export to every platform as easy as it is with other engines. For now, much respect for the direction these guys are taking it. But it's just not for me.

Congrats on a successful launch and future!

Just read through some of the many bug reports for C3.

There were about 6 pages of bug reports the first day but from what I see Scirra has closed about half of them with the same response that is should be fixed in the next release or can't do anything about it or your computer is the problem not C3.

I thought Scirra said they had internal bug reporting built into C3 so they could get accurate bug reports to fix problems?

Anyway, the Scirra response to most of these C3 bugs seems to be the same as we got with bugs in C2. That does not bode well for getting problems fixed anytime soon.

Just my observation.

Yeah, been looking through the bug thread too, and just reminds me why I left C2 some two years back.

So just going back to 3D land now.

Happy game making everyone. Just remember to disable all your useful add-ons, so you make your game - lol.

I entered the beta having no intention or reason to upgrade, so my feedback may or may not be much use.

PROs

• In general, it's a great technical achievement:
• The app is always the latest version, with no downloading or waiting. Though I hope in future versions it tells you that it's updated itself, and what's changed.
• The precision upgrades to behaviors like Physics and Bullet (are these changes coming to C2?)
• The UX upgrades: editing arrays and dictionary in particular

CONs

• In general, many attempts at simplification have become reductions in the experience:
• It looks like Construct for Kids. It just doesn't feel professional, if that makes sense, especially coming from the crispness of C2. The UI is way too big and clunky - the fonts are too big, the padding around them too great, and the grey bars around each window are so thick. For example, the palette windows: the section titles sit in these large, grey blobs, and the options in the palette have little grey blobs indenting them.
• Perhaps another example over-simplification: things are in strange places. For example, right-clicking a layout lets me Edit the Grid, but not show/hide it. I have to 'edit' the grid to do this, despite showing/hiding the grid being a much more frequent user behavior than setting the grid width/height.
• It feels like I'm clicking around a lot to get to what I want to do. For example, I can't seem to have the animation properties and the colour palette open at the same time.

OVERALL

I'm not sure who this was built for. It's technically fantastic like this to have a game editor in a browser, but it looks and feels much younger and lesser than other game engines (not just C2). So for existing C2 users, there's nothing showing me why I should move my work to C3 - why would I upgrade, and pay more, for a lesser experience? Do I have to be around for that one week at the end of the beta, when everything is unlocked? And the first impressions it makes to new users isn't nearly as strong as other engines. I guess it's good for education and kids?

My two cents: I would reconsider launching this before it has matched C2 note for note. I would spend the first year with C2 users alone, giving them full access, letting them build plug-ins, style options, and new behaviors. Let them build it like they build their games and apps. After those users have expanded it and all the bugs have been ironed out, then I'd launch it and charge for it. Then there would be a community, an experience, to subscribe to.

Just my perspective! Regardless I hope the team is proud of what they've achieved, and of course, wish Construct all the success in the world. I'm a huge fan of C2 and hugely appreciate the work that it must take. Thanks for helping creators create.

After reading through the impressions of many C2 game developers I know and trust it looks like most of us have the same complaints and concerns about C3.

I would like to suggest Scirra reads through this feedback and consider doing something that will help those of us that do not have a desire to move to a browser based subscription engine and may now be considering leaving Scirra altogether.

Put the new features and exporters you are including in C3 (many that we have asked for for years) into C2 or create a package of those features and exporters as an addon for C2.

I would happily pay another $99 (no subscription) for a package of working features and exporters for the existing C2 engine and I think most C2 game designers would be willing to support Scirra in that way.

As it looks, Scirra is going a direction with C3 that most of your C2 users are not thrilled with to say the least and this package idea would be a way to keep the people that has supported Scirra with our money and through designing plugins and promoting you in our games happy and shows you have a long term interest in supporting C2 and we will not be abandoned.

I know Scirra has invested a lot of time into C3 and you are hoping it will be popular and be the next big thing and that is an admirable project but if you lose your C2 users in the process was it worth it?

I would appreciate Tom & Ashley to read and consider what the users have said on this thread.

- It looks like Construct for Kids. It just doesn't feel professional, if that makes sense, especially coming from the crispness of C2. The UI is way too big and clunky - the fonts are too big, the padding around them too great, and the grey bars around each window are so thick. For example, the palette windows: the section titles sit in these large, grey blobs, and the options in the palette have little grey blobs indenting them.

+ 1

I would happily pay another $99 (no subscription) for a package of working features and exporters for the existing C2 engine and I think most C2 game designers would be willing to support Scirra in that way.

+ 1

Yeeeah I'm probably never going to go with C3, unless there are extremely extraordinary circumstances, because I don't like the idea of a subscription model with no purchase option. I don't make much money as it is and what if one of the years into it I don't have $99 at that time? I guess I'm just going to have to put all my stuff on hold for a month or more.

I would happily pay another $99 (no subscription) for a package of working features and exporters for the existing C2 engine and I think most C2 game designers would be willing to support Scirra in that way.

+1 x 1000

I played around for couple of days with C3 and at this point its not even close to C2. It feels like this is a very first version and Scirra just starting to create an engine. I meean look at Buildbox or New Game Maker those are really next gen engines and a big step forward from their previous versions. I am beta testing Buildbox 3.0 and just wow 3D support, nodes etc. So I dont get it why you re-invented C2 in web version rather then creating C3.

You could face lift C2 add proper export and Mac support and you are golden.

(...) C3 (...) at this point its not even close to C2. It feels like this is a very first version and Scirra just starting to create an engine.

Exactly this, at the moment there is an astonishing amount of bugs... I'm wondering how much time will be necessary to have a full working version

It feels like this is a very first version and Scirra just starting to create an engine.

I'm wondering how much time will be necessary to have a full working version

Well, seeing as how the earliest available version of C2 was released 26th Jun, 2011, if this can be compared to the earliest versions of C2, I'd say about 6 more years. lol which that's not even considering the fact they will also be working on C2 alongside it.

Well, seeing as how the earliest available version of C2 was released 26th Jun, 2011, if this can be compared to the earliest versions of C2, I'd say about 6 more years. lol which that's not even considering the fact they will also be working on C2 alongside it.

The early versions of C2 were far, far more primitive than what we are launching now with C3. r45 came out in June 2011. We didn't add core features like audio support, animations, collision polygons, WebGL support, and more until later down the line.

The early versions of C2 were far, far more primitive than what we are launching now with C3. r45 came out in June 2011. We didn't add core features like audio support, animations, collision polygons, WebGL support, and more until later down the line.

After reading through the impressions of many C2 game developers I know and trust it looks like most of us have the same complaints and concerns about C3.

I would like to suggest Scirra reads through this feedback and consider doing something that will help those of us that do not have a desire to move to a browser based subscription engine and may now be considering leaving Scirra altogether.

Put the new features and exporters you are including in C3 (many that we have asked for for years) into C2 or create a package of those features and exporters as an addon for C2.

I would happily pay another $99 (no subscription) for a package of working features and exporters for the existing C2 engine and I think most C2 game designers would be willing to support Scirra in that way.

As it looks, Scirra is going a direction with C3 that most of your C2 users are not thrilled with to say the least and this package idea would be a way to keep the people that has supported Scirra with our money and through designing plugins and promoting you in our games happy and shows you have a long term interest in supporting C2 and we will not be abandoned.

I know Scirra has invested a lot of time into C3 and you are hoping it will be popular and be the next big thing and that is an admirable project but if you lose your C2 users in the process was it worth it?

I would appreciate Tom & Ashley to read and consider what the users have said on this thread.

My first impression is like that of many users, C2 in a browser

It opens very fast and goes fluid

I was going to buy C3 because in with C2 they had done a good job, but the subscription model and see that C3 is not much more than a C2 in the browser, with some improvements, this have done that C3 already not interests me

I won't rent C2 in a browser

Perhaps they believe that in the future, they cannot include major changes that would justify buying again...

Maybe for this reason subscription model? i dont know, I still do not understand it

I bought GMS2 and I'm waiting to buy F3

It would have also bought with a few improvements,I wanted to buy C3, but cannot be

The early versions of C2 were far, far more primitive than what we are launching now with C3. r45 came out in June 2011. We didn't add core features like audio support, animations, collision polygons, WebGL support, and more until later down the line.

I'm aware those versions are most likely cavemen paintings compared to C3 in its current state, I just prefer to consider the worst-case scenario of anything so I'm more prepared for curveballs life throws at me.

I would be willing to rent C3 if it was a rent-to-own model, even if I ended up paying more in the total cost of if it were just purchased outright, but I am extremely averse towards needing a subscription forever. Or even what one user suggested that we can only use versions up to what we paid for and if we didn't continue the subscription, we no longer get updates but can still use it. I think the latter is the best model for you to go with. I imagine people would even be willing to pay more per month for that thing than a yearly subscription would total to per month and you totally lose access.

I was initially excited for C3, considering it holds some cool improvements that could be useful in helping me out...

But know that I know that it's a subscription type thing? Yikes...

It doesn't really seem like any huge changes in C3, just a new look and things that would have been great in C2.

I would get it if it were a one-time purchase but... in its current state it doesn't seem worth such a subscription.

I'll just finish stuff with c2, subscription is too lock-in for me.