I know that 3D development tools are almost always likely to be inherently more complex than 2D development tools, but I'm wondering if anyone here could suggest some programs that share an ease of use and power that is comparable to C2 [or simply relatively easy and powerful]? I just want something that I can use to create relatively simply 3d content for games and apps, and I'm looking for more ideas.
What do you guys use/recommend?
I already use after effects, flash, unity, blender, and sketchup.
For me the closest thing to C2 and it's event system is Unity with PlayMaker plugin.
You can get Unity free edition but PlayMaker is about 100$ :/
Here's the link to PlayMaker tutorials
Except that PlayMaker plugin is not suitable for making your entire game in it , unlike C2 :)
Udk with kismet is an option
I would be very honestly. It's difficult to make 2D games, because the number of variables involved is huge, but thinking in 3D, where it have 1 new axis, is terrible. Making 3D RPGs are the easiest way to use PlayMaker, because RPGs usually don't jump (if so, you're in trouble, because detection in 3D is a headache pain...).
Wow this is all really fantastic information, thanks guys!
And GameMaker is on sale for $45 right now!
Kiyoshi, just curious, could you elaborate a bit more on why it cannot be used for your entire game?
And rtcarroll07, UDK with Kismet also looks really nice! Thanks for the information!
TELLES0808, yeah I know that 3D is a greater challenge, but I've already built some moderately complex 3d animations, and I would just like to experiment with potential uses for these programs. I am particularly interested in building 3D web applications.
Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.
kiyoshi yeah, why is not suitable? I mean, I was only playing with it for a while when it was in beta and early realese state. But what i've seen latetly it grown big. Almost every option from unity is available in it.
In my opinion, and i've seen others with the same opinion is that playmaker connected boxes system is not suitable for coding an entire game in it (moderately complex game) because there's a strong tendency of those boxes and links to become a huge mess fast when their numbers grow too high, unlike c2 which remains maintanable and easily understandable (given proper organization) with hundreds or even thousands of events. So Playmaker would really shine to rapidly define small to mid-small parts of game behavior in a more complex game. In the case of a simple game it would be perfectly adequate to use Playmaker to define the entire game in it. The purpose of PlayMaker then is not to substitute coding, as is the case in C2 but to easily and fastly define specific behavior of levels , actors etc, that require constant tweaking, without having to get to the code all the time, specially for designers, level makers etc. Then again, it'll depend on the game.
Thanks for the clarification, Kiyoshi! Hopefully the playmaker developers continue to work on the product and have it put out cleaner, more refined code.
If Scirra teamed up with Unity, that would be a dream come true.
alspal...yeah...but think of how expensive C2 would become. We would probably all have to buy new exporters (might have to anyways), and maybe even buy new releases (like 4.0 for unity).
Nah, my guess is they're better off doing their own things.
If anything. Construct2 should look into the Three.js libary.
I cant get Unity to run on my PC x64 so, for me, That would be Bad.
The thing you have to remember about js is that you would most probably need to use webgl.