Construct 2 - Realistic State after 1 gazilion downloads

  • If we're not talking about bugs but actual engine features, then if I use a particular native engine and I want to do Z and it doesn't do it, do I then blame that engine also? You do what your engine is capable of, if it isn't capable of doing what you need it to, then use another engine.

    I'm not sure what you're not getting. HTML5/WebGL implementation in chrome / Crosswalk are incomplete, especially so on mobile versions of chrome. It's not that 'the engine is not capable', e.g. I can do a lot of the things on the desktop version of chrome / node-webkit. It's just that wrapper C2 depends on for mobile is in a BETA stage, Crosswalk labels itself as such. And yet here you are telling people that they aren't experiencing bugs, even though crosswalk itself calls itself a beta wrapper.

  • When did I say Crosswalk doesn't have bugs? Are you kidding me? I noted it was improving quickly.

    When you design for mobiles you compromise, especially so with HTML5. You make do with that works and redesign your game. If that doesn't fly with you, then go with a more native engine. HTML5 just isn't matured yet.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • When did I say Crosswalk doesn't have bugs? Are you kidding me? I noted it was improving quickly.

    When you design for mobiles you compromise, especially so with HTML5.

    Ok, improving quickly, but then your whole 'if someone isn't having problems then you shouldn't be either' stuff is both unnecessary and missing the point.

    As far as your second statement, again missing the point. The test game I'm making for mobile would have no issues with a better export solution. So you only have to make sacrifices when designing for mobile if using C2 with such simple games. Using another engine this would have no issues, it's just so simple and not a real game, just a game designed to test the state of C2 before investing into a real project.

    Anyway I'm not really interested in convincing you, I'm just interested in you understanding that your experiences do not represent other people's. For many people, C2 is not working as advertised. And those people just don't care that it's working for you or that you're willing to excuse its shortcomings.

  • The question is, what kind of game do you want to make and is it possible with C2 and Crosswalk? If it isn't, you either change your game or you look elsewhere. That is the price you pay for using a HTML5 easy to use game engine. The price is compromise because again, HTML5 isn't there yet.

    I certainly know people have problems, there's no need to say it, everyone troubleshoots and fixes bugs. The fact remains that if some have managed to make complex games work, then there is hope for myself personally, and so I try my best to make it work also. Either that, or I go learn proper programming and do it all native.

  • The question is, what kind of game do you want to make and is it possible with C2 and Crosswalk? If it isn't, you either change your game or you look elsewhere. That is the price you pay for using a HTML5 easy to use game engine. The price is compromise because again, HTML5 isn't there yet.

    I understand that I can use another engine. I am doing just that. I don't see what that has to do with anything. C2 advertises its ability to make mobile games and doesn't say that HTML5 is not ready, instead Ashley preaches the opposite, that it's the same as native and blah blah blah. People use their money to buy it based on that. So they have every right to expect C2 to be able to make games rather than serving as a beta test for some buggy third party export wrapper.

    Anyway I think this conversation is useless. People who buy a product because its advertised to be able to do something will complain when they can't do that thing with the product. You coming into threads telling them to go buy another product or that the product is fine because YOU are not having problems so therefore any problems they are having are not due to the product is just useless. I don't see why you do it, and I don't see how you can justify doing it without offering to buy them the other products you are recommending or at least covering their C2 expense. If you're not buying them another engine, covering their C2 expense, or fixing their bugs, there is no need to reply to their complaints.

  • Me saying HTML5 isn't there yet is not equal to saying its defective. It can't do everything you want it to do. Neither would any game engine in fact. You work with what it can do.

    Why do I bother responding? I do it in the spirit of hope, that others too are inspired as I was, when I had bugs and poor performance, I blamed HTML5. Until I fixed it, it was my own sloppy implementation that led to the slowdowns and bugs. Sure, not all problems are due to your own doing and its due to the features which don't work when exported to mobiles. But every game engine has flaws or features you wish it could do. If there was a perfect game engine, we wouldn't be here and all would use it.

    Sorry if I am not being helpful for you.

  • Me saying HTML5 isn't there yet is not equal to saying its defective. It can't do everything you want it to do. Neither would any game engine in fact. You work with what it can do.

    To me with comments like this it just seems like you don't get how this works. HTML5 is not an application to be ready or not. It's a specification. Specific implementations are ready or are not ready. It's not that HTML5 can't do something in this case (though there are things that can't be done), it's that EVEN THOUGH html5 spec includes these things, Crosswalk/Ludei wrappers do not fully support those things yet because they are beta products. In essence it's like someone selling an incomplete runtime with unstable basic features as a complete product ready for deployment rather than a beta, leading people to believe it's generally complete and stable. It's not like an engine not having a feature, instead it's like an engine misleading you that it has stable features when those features are actually heavily experimental. This is true with C2 and mobile, and it's why you get so many complaints. Talking about "Oh the engine just can't do that" is just .. well it's just so off the mark I'm not sure why you insist on continuing this when you are clearly not appreciating the issue.

  • The engine can't do it on mobiles because the exporters are lacking. Why do you want to argue semantics?

  • The engine can't do it on mobiles because the exporters are lacking. Why do you want to argue semantics?

    It's not semantics. That's like saying "the engine can't do it because it's actually incomplete, even though we advertise it as complete". Whereas you are trying to imply that "some engines can't do stuff, that's totally normal." A 2d engine can't do 3d stuff, that's acceptable. I wouldn't complain about that. Advertising that you support mobile and implying that it's ready for production when in fact that's not true is not acceptable. Advertising that you have a 3d engine when really it only does 2d would get complaints.

    EDIT: Specifically there is no reason to think that 'HTML5 is not ready' unless you have already used the wrappers C2 depends on. So if it tells me it's ready for mobile, without being able to test it I think it's ready for mobile, and I buy it. For all I know before buying it, the HTML5 implementation C2 uses could easily have been ready for production. There is no global reason to assume that just because it's HTML5 it's not ready. People only find out it's not after they pay for it, and this leads to complaints. This should not be hard to understand or seem unreasonable.

  • Silverforce unfortunetly you are not right. As Juryiel mentioned Crosswalk is still beta, and CocoonJS have it's own issues, so you can't say that Construct 2 already have bullet-proof solutions for mobile. And that's the reason why you can't mention many bigger mobile titles and that's why using Construct 2 would be serious risk for bigger developer.

    Also if you will have any problems with 3rd party wrapper - you can only ask IntelRobert etc. for help - Scirra will always say "ask..."

    Previously everyone was waiting for Ludei, now everyone is waiting for Crosswalk. And there is still iOS, hello

  • szymek It's not bullet-proof, never said it. I can only speak for myself, if you guys don't think its good enough then its your call. I think Crosswalk is good and improving quickly.

    Yes, iOS we're still stuck with CocoonJS and yes, its limited to smaller games.

  • Silverforce

    whatever will happen, I will stick to C2 because I don't have coding skills. But those who have money (for programmers, graphic designers etc.) for sure will use more reliable (in case of mobile apps) engines like Unity.

  • It really depends on your aim.

    Simple browser games mean construct 2.

  • It really depends on your aim.

    Simple browser games mean construct 2.

    +1

  • Personally, I had totally no idea about HTML5 technology and its state, and still I don't want to know about that. I just wanted to make some game apps for my friends. I bought C2 for some silly reasons : I'm used to making maps with Blizzard map editor(similar with event sheet system), the community was nice, it was on sale, the design of the website was cool, and that cool website said "You can export your game in mobile. Android, IOS, etc, but you only pay once." After purchase, I come to know that exporting for the mobiles is not that easy thing. Bugs and fps drops were everywhere.

    A year passed after purchase, and still I didn't learn how to code, but thanks to community, I learned many tips. There's STILL many hard things with mobile exporting, but I don't regret my choice for some glitches about those performance/exporting issues, because it's just for my hobby.

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