0 Favourites

stencyl being nice to construct?

  • [quote:159bayl2]Releasing Early Doesn't Always Work

    We've already seen other competitive platforms (real companies, not hobby projects) release in 2008, but they have failed to gain traction for several reasons, among which quality is one. We're not going to fall into the same trap and will focus on quality to stand out from the crowd.

    lol!, is this saying that construct didn't fall into this trap?

  • I don't think that's the case

    Anyway, I think I'll chime in with a hearty "who cares what the Stencyl people do?" Either they release, or they don't. Either it's good, or it's not. Only time will tell. You might as well give them the benefit of the doubt... though my inner skeptic says "don't just tell me how good it is... SHOW me."

    Personally, I think it's a huge mistake not to allow people to test your product. A handful of private alpha testers might be able to take care of a few issues or bugs, but once they get their product out as a public beta, it'll be too late to easily address any huge design issues that the masses may have.

    Construct has it right... let people try it out, accept feedback and criticism, and use that feedback and criticism to make a more well-rounded and stable product.

  • with the number of bugs everyone has found already with construct, id be scared to try a slightly tested program which claims to have a trillion features (erhm backflipping anyone?). BUGS ARE GOING TO BE EVERYWHERE!!!???

    Or do our devs just drink too much beer while they program?

  • Or do our devs just drink too much beer while they program?

    Hummm...

    I'm a staunch defender of release early, release often though - we did release early, and it did suck (it took a few builds before save worked and we sucked as coders back then), but we got some early interest and feedback on the program design. It rightly got a reputation for being buggy, but that's well on the mend now. However, release-early-release-often is advocated for open source projects, I guess commercial business has more to lose with a dud first release.

    Who cares if they directed that comment at us (we really are a hobby project anyway), but I would say release-early-release-often is a better model than absolute silence. I don't know why they won't even release a few screenshots or demo games - it would dispel any suspicions of vapourware, nobody's going to run off with their content and steal their millions, people would take them more seriously, and by the looks of things most of their userbase would detonate with excitement!

    Still, no need to get trollish over this, if they release and it's good, game on

  • I don't think they directed the comment at Construct. I really have came upon makers or engines that never really made it to the surface.

    Well anyway, I am, I mean I was, excited about this Stencyl as well, but more than a year of not hearing anything but "It's done when it's done", reminds me of Duke Nukem Forever and... well

  • There's also http://enigma-dev.org/ - an open source rewrite of Game Maker but translating a GML style language to C (talk about ambitious!). It looks in early days yet, but they're doing the release early release often thing, which is cool.

  • I am watching Enigma closely as I come from a GM background. It is still in early stages but I really hope it pans out.

  • I don't know why they won't even release a few screenshots or demo games - it would dispel any suspicions of vapourware, nobody's going to run off with their content and steal their millions, people would take them more seriously, and by the looks of things most of their userbase would detonate with excitement!

    Stealth mode, Ashley. Stealth Mode!

    All jokes aside, I do wish the Stencyl team good luck. I seriously doubt that I'll go beyond messing around with it for one day but "the more the merrier".

  • http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=constructvsstencyl2.png

    Actually... this is more appropriate.

    (sorry, but the April "mini update" was laughable at best.)

  • Construct 3

    Buy Construct 3

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

    Buy Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Wow, first time I've heard about that enigma.. thanks a bunch

  • That logo and lack of screenshots made me wonder for a brief moment if they didn't just use Construct source code for "inspiration."

    It was a brief moment , but that logo does indeed smell of familiarity. Yes, I stuck my nose at the screen to be sure...

  • The problem with using a small group of alpha testers is they will get into a groove with the product and know how to use it and bugs will go unreported. With a beta test as big as construct everyone will try different things and find different bugs. Because there is no way a small group of people can find all the bugs in a program, some one will always manage to find a bug.

    You know what they say: "When you make something idiot proof they just make a better idiot"

  • The problem with using a small group of alpha testers is they will get into a groove with the product and know how to use it and bugs will go unreported.

    That's very true, I think. A lot of bugs have been found and fixed when someone submits something totally crazy to the tracker which makes me think "wtf lol", like using dynamic lighting and physics on objects in a container which spawn and destroy randomly. I doubt myself or regular users would have ever thought to put something like that together, but it exposed a bug, which could then be fixed. I would worry, staying in a private beta, that all that type of testing was not being done, and those bugs would still be present at release.

  • http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=constructvsstencyl2.png

    Actually... this is more appropriate.

    (sorry, but the April "mini update" was laughable at best.)

    What? I don't get the picture and why was the april update laughable at best?

    I would worry, staying in a private beta, that all that type of testing was not being done, and those bugs would still be present at release.

    They might be worried to get a "buggy-product"-image.

    It seems that instead of from buggy to stable, they prefer the on-the-surface-stable (when users don't do anything "crazy") release.

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