0 Favourites

Frankly, Whats the point of c3?

  • 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?

  • Construct 3

    Buy Construct 3

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

    Buy Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Im going on the main reasoning for C3's inception was to provide editor features that C2 couldn't handle.

    I can only assume that using html5/ javascript gave a way to handle those features, while allowing for multi platform support in a way that he could not find in C++.

  • For what I have seem Constrcut3 is just Construct2.1.

    I think like this due to this marketing campaing that show us one thing today, one bottom tomorrow.

    By the moment, nothing impressive

  • I completely agree. Nothing that is extremely useful for more complex 2D games.

  • Yeah I'm feeling the same way. Lots of quality of life improvements and surface level improvements, but it's the same engine. Most of these updates could have, and should have come to C2 long ago.

  • So far I feel it is Construct 2.5. But I am waiting to read all the blog updates, maybe they are saving the best bits for last.

  • I'm too wondering about C3, Most of the blogspots coud be an C2 update changelog but they market it like Features. I don't say they are bad, they are more than welcome but I feel (and that's just my opinion) that C3 seems more like a gimmick marketing/business plan than a professional approach. It seems like they made a mistake to not charge for the C2's big updates and they need some money back. I don't know though, I hope I'm wrong.

    Random idea ( U know what would be awesome ?, Scirra to make a unity plugin with their visual approach charging 150 per year. No problem there. I would happily depend on unity's devs faults rather than ludei, intel etc..)

  • Haven't seen anything that particularly stands out as a major improvement yet! Most of the updates I've seen are hardly blog worthy

  • Yeah I'm feeling the same way. Lots of quality of life improvements and surface level improvements, but it's the same engine. Most of these updates could have, and should have come to C2 long ago.

    This.

    Make input box bigger here, add keep aspect ratio button there, Construct 3.

    For me this tweet from Ashley sums up C3,

    [quote:ukffrqs8]Iain just opened Construct 3 on his phone, opened a project, built an APK of it, installed it and ran it. All on the phone. Neat

    Some people might read that and get excited, but i can't think when i'd actually use it.

  • Random idea ( U know what would be awesome ?, Scirra to make a unity plugin with their visual approach charging 150 per year. No problem there. I would happily depend on unity's devs faults rather than ludei, intel etc..)[/size]

    Random idea, my butt I already stated this idea in another C3 thread.

  • > Random idea ( U know what would be awesome ?, Scirra to make a unity plugin with their visual approach charging 150 per year. No problem there. I would happily depend on unity's devs faults rather than ludei, intel etc..)[/size]

    >

    Random idea, my butt I already stated this idea in another C3 thread.

    lol Maybe I saw it there I'm not sure, either way it's not going to happen, lets hope C3 or GameFlow unity's plugin gets even better

  • >

    > > Random idea ( U know what would be awesome ?, Scirra to make a unity plugin with their visual approach charging 150 per year. No problem there. I would happily depend on unity's devs faults rather than ludei, intel etc..)[/size]

    > >

    >

    > Random idea, my butt I already stated this idea in another C3 thread.

    >

    lol Maybe I saw it there I'm not sure, either way it's not going to happen, lets hope C3 or GameFlow unity's plugin gets even better

    Haha no worries. I was only messing with you. And yeah, I agree.

  • I hear you, ruskul. I spent a couple of months porting a full version of box 2d web to c2. It's actually 90% complete and includes a built-in platform behavior.... just so I could have collision filtering. But the limited export options were always nagging away at the back of my mind. So I started on this new project a couple of weeks ago:

  • I read the blog this afternoon about the "sprite and animations" editor in C3 and got very excited about it. We cannot deny the fact that there are many improvements over C2.

    Using Construct 3 in a browser alone will be a true bargain for me. Nothing to install and you can work at every computer with internet.

    I am sure over the next months, there will come a lot of new exciting announcements from Scirra. Can't wait!!!

  • As it stands now, with the information available to us, I think the main point of C3 is a complete rewrite (yet again) to accommodate a browser-based application, rather than one that is coded to work directly on an OS level.

    I understand why the devs are doing this: re-routing multi-platform support to a browser (Chrome) that already exists for all major operating systems, including mobile, is one reason (less work for devs). Secondly, the devs can develop with web tech, rather than C++, or whatever was used to develop Construct 1 and 2. Thirdly, having the editor run in Chrome allows them to implement live editing - for example, particle systems are editable live. Fourthly, it allows them to run Construct 3 as a service. Fifth, new functionality can probably be implemented faster for the devs this way.

    Point 2 is a personal decision, and has nothing to do with the users.

    Points 1 and 3 are useful to have, but many other game editors already support these things (well, no mobile editing on Android or iOS, of course). Personally I do not see the point of mobile touch screen only editing on small screens except for simple examples/prototypes, and the "coolness" factor.

    Point 3 is already catered for in most other game engines worth their salt. Take Godot or Unity, for example: particle systems can be edited live, as is the case with many other things. Of course, when the output is web-only (Construct) it makes sense to switch to a browser-based editing environment for live editing: they both share the same foundation, which makes it simpler and more efficient for the devs to support and implement.

    From my point of view, the majority of the benefits of C3 are initially aimed towards the developers themselves, with a secondary concern for the users. I am sure the devs feel quite differently about this. Certainly the benefits will trickle down more and more towards the users, and it is more convenient for the devs to roll out new features.

    One issue, however, is performance in a browser. I have worked with browser-based applications, and compared to their desktop equivalents they always lose out in performance. A browser is yet another shell between the OS and the application, and it does have an impact. (for example, compare Gravit with desktop based illustration tools - way slower!)

    I am sure the devs will add more features as time goes by - they should be able to roll out new functionality faster now that both the editor and the output share the same foundation.

    But I am out. The rental model is unacceptable to me, and after a bit more pondering, I have come to the conclusion that it is a bad idea to rely on a specific browser (Chrome) as a foundation to build a game editor environment. If it would work cross-browser, I'd be more lenient perhaps.

    Other issues for me are the lack of native export, no animation timeline, and other things such as the awkward handling of functions, no built-in translation support, and inconvenient control/input handling. Versioning and large project management are problematic as well.

    Now that I am starting a fairly large game project I had to rethink my approach, and Construct 2 would not have been my choice anyway. With how the new Construct 3 is planned, I am convinced I would never even have considered C3. I think it is more aimed at small projects and not really meant to be used for semi-large scope projects. My opinion and expecation - but I can only know for sure when it becomes available.

    Having said all this, I still find Construct 2 to be quite helpful for prototyping ideas quickly, or try out a quick movement setup. Perhaps that ought to be the aim of C3: the best prototyper in town

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)
Similar Topics Posts Views Last Post
Unread hot topic
203 18,514
Lumicreative's avatar
Lumicreative
Unread hot topic Locked topic
198 18,664
Tom's avatar
Tom Construct Team Founder
Unread sticky
150 20,738
Crow in the Snow's avatar
Crow in the Snow