Frankly, Whats the point of c3?

> Leaving me still developing in unity.

>

...They're fun. But I like C# more.

I do really like the power of of c#. I can't express how liberating polymorphism and interfaces are when they are the right tool for the job you have been trying to with events in c2.

Plus... making, deleting, and editing variables is still so much faster via code.

So is coding with unity as hard as it seems? Is playmaker any good for bridging the gap?

I think if you can event edit, you can code. It really comes down to logically breaking down a problem into concepts a computer can understand. That usually involves math for games. I suck at math, (the highest level I had was high school algebra) but working with games has helped me learn the basics better than ever as well as trigonometry and some other stuff.

When I first got unity, I got playmaker, but I realized it was just another thing in the way of me telling the computer how to run the game. I learned to program in highschool, so there wasn't this big barrier there for me, but coding really isn't that hard. The hardest part really is the logic, and as mentioned above... you already do that logic for making events.

If you ever needed some pointers or help in coding, I would be glad to help. I like c# the best, but I also can use javascript to make c2 behaviors. I think though that using javascript to make games is much harder that using javascript to make websites (which is what it was made for). So needless to say, I think if you are coding for games, you may as well be using unity, unreal, xna, or similar.

> I can't get Super Ubie Island on consoles and i really wish i could.

> This is a major issue when trying to develop bigger games.

>

> This issues has me seriously looking into Game Maker Studio 2. But I really do enjoy the event system in Construct. Big reason why I am so on the fence. But I can't keep developing projects without a way to deploy to consoles

>

I really like the speed and fluency of the c2 editor. Its primarily the reason it took me so long to "move on". A few others here nailed it when they said c2 is quick and agile, great for prototyping or perhaps a simple mobile or web game. But it really does start to fall when size and scalability come into play.

My question for you is, why bother with GMS when c2 is better for what the two offer. If you make the leap to GMS, why not just use unity, or unreal? I mean, even in the GSM community there are plenty of people who only use it for prototyping and stuff before moving the project into (insert engine here). It's true that making a small game in unity takes longer, but once you get to mario3 on nes sized ambitions an environment like unity or unreal are better serving- I have moved several projects from construct to unity and while it is a risk I took in dev time, it has since paid off. I use c2 to try out quick little ideas, but do the real implementations in unity.

On a side note, I read an article about you somewhere (bank publication, the internets, I'm not sure where), but I liked you story. I admire the risks you took and the perseverance you have had in game making.

Thanks Ruskul

I might check out Unity. It's been a while since I have. I was just so used to the workflow in Construct that I didn't want to bother going through another dip. I just wanted to keep creating

> C3 is the only one to support Linux with the editor

>

Unity does too.

Also another visual scripting plugin for it: plyGame

I'm well aware Unity does, even though Unity's Linux editor is experimental, I was talking about C3 versus the older versions, which is the original topic of discussion.

I'm well aware Unity does, even though Unity's Linux editor is experimental, I was talking about C3 versus the older versions, which is the original topic of discussion.

Except Construct 2 works okay in WINE, and although I know WINE isn't ideal for most Linux users, it's still something: https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager. ... &iId=25151

> I'm well aware Unity does, even though Unity's Linux editor is experimental, I was talking about C3 versus the older versions, which is the original topic of discussion.

>

Except Construct 2 works okay in WINE, and although I know WINE isn't ideal for most Linux users, it's still something: https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager. ... &iId=25151

WINE is less than ideal, comes with tons of its own issues, which is why having it on Linux proper is so nice <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

From what I have seen... c3 is basically c2 that you have to rent. Whats the point? I feel as though I am part of a c2 community that begged for just a few simple features. Features that you sort of need to actually make a decent game (something beyond flappy phone games)... Heck, even working box2d physics sure would have been nice. We weren't asking for 3d, we were asking for the basic tools any game engine needs. (collision filtering, raytracing, collision callbacks, swept shapes, ... I could go on) Not to mention extreme scalability issues when making complex games. And javascipt is stupid for games (but thats obviously a given, a compromise that wont be changed)

Is c3 going to address these problems? I haven't heard, frankly, I don't care because I got sick of not having the tools needed for really making a game in c2 and so dropped it.

And I'm not someone who thinks a behavior should make my game. I program. I have rolled 3 different platform engines on my own, and a custom retro based physics behavior for c2. I just wanted basic features literally almost every other engine has.

I've been happily using Unity for free. With c#. Why would I rent c3 when I only use c2 for simple prototypes ?

I don't care that it is on mac (see above). I don't care that its in the cloud (see above). I don't care that it has a 3 in its name if it doesn't actually fundamentally address the major issues with making a game with c2.

Anyone have any insight?

I would agree on the need for collision filtering, if Construct 2 or 3 had this it would be a huge step forward plus the need to be able to move the sprite without the need of the collision polygon would also be good .

> So is coding with unity as hard as it seems? Is playmaker any good for bridging the gap?

>

I think if you can event edit, you can code. It really comes down to logically breaking down a problem into concepts a computer can understand. That usually involves math for games. I suck at math, (the highest level I had was high school algebra) but working with games has helped me learn the basics better than ever as well as trigonometry and some other stuff.

When I first got unity, I got playmaker, but I realized it was just another thing in the way of me telling the computer how to run the game. I learned to program in highschool, so there wasn't this big barrier there for me, but coding really isn't that hard. The hardest part really is the logic, and as mentioned above... you already do that logic for making events.

If you ever needed some pointers or help in coding, I would be glad to help. I like c# the best, but I also can use javascript to make c2 behaviors. I think though that using javascript to make games is much harder that using javascript to make websites (which is what it was made for). So needless to say, I think if you are coding for games, you may as well be using unity, unreal, xna, or similar.

Yeah, I guess once you have logic, it's just a language to learn.

Yeah, I guess once you have logic, it's just a language to learn.

Yes and no. Construct 2 is Javascript, and it lets you do whatever you want at any time. There's no inherent structure to it, and it's very easy to do something grossly inefficient.

If you use Unity, you should use C#, period. Unity's Javascript is not actual Javascript as explained here: http://wiki.unity3d.com/index.php/Unity ... JavaScript

So while the logical aspects will transfer over, you still must learn Object-Oriented programming techniques to really succeed. Unity is a component-based system and to make the most of it, you need to understand concepts like inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation, abstraction, and how to use a strongly-typed api.

So while you can use the language and create things in a Construct-esque way, your game will suffer for it.

Unity is also a 3D engine, so you have to think about the Z axis even when doing a 2D game.

That being said, I find Unity to be an amazing tool for learning C# (i learned all the C# i know through Unity, and now work full time doing it), so I sincerely encourage the foray into new engines and new languages.

Another alternative to playmaker is a plugin called Gameflow. It's similar, but different. And cheaper. Not as big a community for it yet.

c3 is basically c2 that you have to rent. Whats the point?

Being an OS X user that switches computers multiple times a day, I find C3 to be exactly what I needed.

Time to move to Unity which is 100 more powerful and FREE. I have C2 pro licence, but I don't seethe point in upgrading my licence to yearly payment for the same futures as in C2

Unity does a lot of things for you and you don't need to know C# or javascript to start developing a game with it. One can take a few days to go through tutorials, get the basics down ( C# syntax and Unity interface ) and start development. Then learn the rest as you go.

Now the question is whether you really need Unity if you are not developing 3D games

Now the question is whether you really need Unity if you are not developing 3D games

Short answer is Yes:

For the last 5 years I had fun making games in C2, but when it comes to publishing them, integrating ads, leaderboards, etc...I was always at the mercy of plugin developers. CranberryGame had a lot of plugins that I used in my games, but for the last year it disappeared. Some of them are not working anymore and he is not interested I guess in updating them.

With Unity there are always more options to choose from in case one of the developers dies or is getting hostage when going in Holiday.

I agree that plugs really are a big issue, and have been for a while.

I also think that Scirra is going to have to lead the way in fixing it. We need better support, and set rules over all aspects.

From behaviors with no license to store plugs that have zip documentation, and even less support.

I mean the thing is useless without plugs.