Games made using behaviors = boring and unrpoffesional?

This forum is currently in read-only mode.
  • Just an annoying thing that got me thinking, how many games of Construct are done using a behavior, this be platform, top-down or whatever that's built-in, do most prefer to use the event systems to make a full game as using for example the platform behavior makes your game boring and unproffesional? (sp?) (This game could have fun gameplay even tough it uses built-in behaviors)

    This got me thinking, if so is it better to learn and use custom movement? even for making a classic mario-alike game with guns/shooting and so on? like Turrican or megaman gameplay to be sincere?

    or using the custom movement system is better off for advanced movements? like jetpack games or Bionic Commando like games (BC uses a grappling hook to go to other platforms)

    and how I read somewhere the platform behavior (idk about top-down or other behaviors) that it is fairly flexible, I don't know how much tough, also are the behaviors going to be included C2 or do we have to code/event our own behaviors the hard way somewhat similar to in game maker (tough I didn't find coding movements in GM quite hard but I still don't know how to use GM to full capacity yet, despite I have made 4 or 5 games with it, all are platforms and use the same engine/movement)

    And one last note, is it safe to use 0.99.97? (I am using this version and am planning to make a full fledged platformer shooter, amongst other games maybe) for those who are using it how stable it is to make a full fledged game on Construct yet? seeing as this version might be the last release of C1.

  • I've always thought if people regularly code their own movements instead of using behaviours (e.g. a custom platform movement instead of platform behaviour) then the behaviours should be improved so that everyone uses them. They're not meant to be a toy for newbies, they're actually meant to provide functionality in a useful and accessible way. They should also be customisable enough that you can implement custom functionality to make your game unique and interesting, be that springs or reversing gravity or whatever.

    If you have any ideas on how behaviours can be improved towards this - especially in C2 - do tell us your ideas! I was under the impression most people use the behaviours, even for full games - if that's not the case, I'd be interested to learn why.

  • Well i use the behaviors most of the time.It wont make a game boring ,There are many factors involved when a game gets boring.If you use custom movement then it's just like using GM's scripting stuff , different but still almost the same thing.For advanced movements where behaviors

    just wont do ,Thats when custom movements comes in.

  • I was under the impression most people use the behaviours, even for full games - if that's not the case, I'd be interested to learn why.

    Well coming from a guy who seen game maker games source codes and so on, most pro game developers (whether game maker, Construct and presumably clickteam game developmet tools(tgf2/mmf2)) I saw games in game maker that use their own code, different from the standard tutorial platformer as they make their own engine platformer, some similar to another platformer engine in features like basic movement, jumping, jumping over platforms and so on, so I thought if Construct users do the same method while the platform movement has essentially everything from jump over platform and such features, now if you're working on an advanced platform game with physics of being pushed around by explosion blasts or so on I see the use of custom movement, imo the platform behavior is just fine as it is, there are some bugs I noticed with it. (some frames don't work like the character keeps changing between jumping or standing when colliding with the floor and this was in 0.99.96, idk if it is fixed in .97)

    Other then that, behaviors are useful to save you time and their properties like speed, jump height and such make it possible to make platformer games differ from each other imo.

    @DravenX: Indeed, but double jumping shouldn't be too hard to implement by using platform behavior and variables or w/e it's called in Construct and no, using custom movement is different then GM scripting stuff, python feels like GML, custom movement is merely using event's.

  • Games made using behaviors =/= boring and unprofessional, at least to me.

    I find behaviors to be a great method for avoiding having to reinvent the wheel. Behaviors are great for taking out chunks of workload and can be used for multiple purposes, like using RTS movement to make a point and click adventure game. Sure, behind the scenes it'll seem simplistic to other devs who get a look at your cap and may not impress them, but what really matters in the end is how well the game plays. The player isn't going to know whether you used preset behaviors or from-scratch scripting. They're just gonna know if the game plays well or not.

    Nothing to fear from behaviors and plenty to adore, I say.

  • Why not split the behaviors up some? Like instead of a single platform behavior have the movements as separate behaviors like platform move left / right, or platform jump, platform double jump, platform super jump, etc.

    That way you could build up a nice selection, and mix and match. That is if you can get the behaviors to "play nice with each other", unlike physics, etc.

    Should be much easier to debug as well.

    Who's up for a interpolated movement?

  • Why not split the behaviors up some? Like instead of a single platform behavior have the movements as separate behaviors like platform move left / right, or platform jump, platform double jump, platform super jump, etc.

    That way you could build up a nice selection, and mix and match. That is if you can get the behaviors to "play nice with each other", unlike physics, etc.

    Should be much easier to debug as well.

    Who's up for a interpolated movement?

    The ability to get "play nice with each other" is the key comment. If you can do that great, but many times in Construct did Physics toss in a curve ball.

    I like behaviors, They make prototyping, and simple games easy to create. Then again I am not pro nor a high end user. ...which may be a point to add behaviors.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Thing is, will the player ever know you used behaviors? If you just slap a behavior on something and toss it in your game then yes, they'll probably figure it out and it will seem 'boring and unrpoffesional', especially to other Construct users who know how the behaviors work. The trick is to modify the behaviors with events to the best of your ability, or mess with the settings so you come up with something more unique. The platform behavior, for example, is more of a base for your player or enemy, and not a 'package' so to speak. Once you add skidding, turning, wallkick, double jump, hookshot, and the like..no one will know (or even care) that you used a behavior. The only difference is you didn't spend hours coding ALL of it from scratch.

    As far as .97 being 'safe to use'.. I'd say so, with careful planning of course. I wouldn't work on something too ambitious though, save it for C2

  • I think this train of thought is just another case of coding snobbery.

    If a behaviour or plugin does everything you want it to, then coding it from the ground up is not only a waste of time, but goes against modern programming.

    Code is meant to be reused as much as possible, and using behaviours and plugins is no different to using existing classes/functions and libraries, either as they stand or adding to them for your specific purpose.

    At the end of the day, people are using programs like Construct to write games, and whether it's because it's faster to develop or because they don't know how to program at code level, there will be code snobs who will say that it's lesser than using something like C++, even though C++ programmers will be using built-in libraries and external libraries for most of their calls (which of course were written by someone else, lol)

    If a game works well in both idea and performance, then it's irrelevant how it was coded.

    Java used to be ridiculed years ago, but over the last few years it's been instrumental in the rise in mobile phone games, and it culminated (in my opinion) in a game like MineCraft showing just how irrelevant a specific language is.

    Just remember, generally, if someone is saluting a specific language/tool to the degree that they ridicule any other method, then you can be sure that either:

    a) It's the only language/tool they know how to use

    or

    b) They chose the hardest way to program something so that they could prove to themselves how great they were (which means they are lacking confidence in general).

    As someone who started programming in 1982/3 (ish) and has used Z80 machine code through to C++/C# with everything in-between, and enjoy using software like Construct/Unity/Stencyl etc, I'd never judge a game by how it was written.

    The final result is all that matters.

    But then I'm not a snob in any aspect of life, and some people can't be anything else but a snob, lol.

    Krush.

  • yeah, I agree with the general consensus.

    at first I had the same thought as you, when I first got here.

    basically. Oh, behaviors are nice for people who don't have the know how to do this on their own.

    but it's so customizable, there's really no reason not to use them. the result will be basically the same. you just save yourself alot of time, and have the convenience of instantly beginning on the things that will make your game unique. anything you can add to a platform movement you made from scratch, you can add to the object using platform behavior

    alot of people tout custom movement as a way to make more unique versions of behaviors. I personally see it more as a way to make behaviors that don't exist.

  • Yeah, behaviors are good to save time and I do plan to change them/play around with them to make, that's why I tend to use behaviors, atleast the platform behavior feels more flexible then game makers platform tutorial imo but the again gml pro's tend to make their own engine most of the time as gm doesn't use behaviors and they have alot of time on their hands as well, in my game I do tend to add atleast skidding/dashing tough, even tough I haven't used Construct much I will learn how to add it eventually, I couldn't use Construct because I have school work to do and it's difficult to work on games when you have essays to write/complete.

  • Besides Krush being completely right, behaviors will run faster than if they were done in events. If you're trying to do everything with events (depending on the complexity), I have a feeling it could actually impact performance.

  • Behaviors only equal an unprofessional game if the behavior code itself is bad. Look at the Klik products and their platform movement. When a game uses it, you KNOW because you always get stuck in things.

    On the other hand, Construct's behaviors are much better coded and it's not noticeable. They're very flexible so each game can use them uniquely; there aren't limitations that make each game using a behavior all cookie-cutter-like. If you gave me a game made with the platform behavior and a game made using events that was nearly the same, I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which. They're there to be used, so they SHOULD be used, unless they're crappy, which in Construct's case they are not.

  • A lot of construct behaviors work perfectly, theres no reason not to use them, and adding custom content is easy.

    if you want to make a platform game, by all means you should be using the platform behavior.

    Only when a really specialized movement, like that in sonic games or n is needed, should you think about building your own engine from the ground up for real control over how terrain interactions are handled.

    games with grappling hooks can use the platform movement, you just need to turn it off while hook stuff is going on and reactivate it when its not.

    game maker has a lot of bad practices associated with it, dont look to those for guidance, because they're workarounds to the program.

  • Yeah, MMF2 platformer behavior sucked, they have no collision box so you had to make your own events for it or using the alternative platformer object that is a downloadable plug-in, Construct's behaviors are much better coded, I have no problem myself with games using behavior as long as the games are fun to play ^^ but as posted here it's quite sad to see people downrate your game because you used a built-in object, something which game maker guys are famed for, I saw some good/decent gm games that are done with care yet to be downrated by a guy who decompiled their game and checks them out to see if it's code or DnD, which is discouraging to say the least.

    [quote:1qmpsyrd]I would argue that money has already brought a lot of programmers who aren't serious about game development into the field. Have you seen how many soulless games there are on the web? It's the result of people saying, "I can program, games make money, I'll make a game."

    Programming has been a barrier of entry to game development but being a great programmer doesn't make you a great game designer. There are a lot of artists out there who have great game design ideas, and now they can take a stab at it. People won't be able to get away with making lazy, bad games and those games shouldn't be a threat to anyone who has confidence in their own abilities.

    Spoken by Tom Fulp from Newgrounds and I agree with him, this is from the TGF2NE forum on their bbs.

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