Personally, I'm never likely to want to make a 3D game.
I think if Clickteam add 3D support, it will reduce MMFs effectiveness as a 2D development system:
eg. The interface is no longer optimized for 2D only - it becomes a "Jack of all trades, and master of none".
eg. Clickteam spend all their time fixing bugs and improving the 3D engine, instead of improving the 2D engine and adding extra features.
it wouldn't be all that hard to have both 2d and 3d functionality without hurting the 2d all that much
if you want a 2d game, just put the camera in ortho and don't touch the z-axis except for layering (hwa is already like that). i doubt even 2d features like pixel-based collision maps would be all that hard (efficiency may be another story)
the editor would probably be a box (representing the level bounds) that you could rotate around; this could theoretically complicate designing 2d games, although there'd be nothing stopping clickteam from adding an option to lock the view down the z axis which would fix that problem
really it'd just be 3d with 2d shortcuts on top of it
Originally Posted by Xgoff it wouldn't be all that hard to have both 2d and 3d functionality without hurting the 2d all that much
The major annoyance most have with MMF, from what I've seen, isn't the 2D graphics part. It's the coding part, with the clunky (and slow) expression editor, the massive amounts of code required to do the very most basic of tasks, and so on. Take all of that hassle, that can only retrieve numbers from two axes, and put it into an editor with a third axis.
Originally Posted by Sketchy eg. Clickteam spend all their time fixing bugs and improving the 3D engine, instead of improving the 2D engine and adding extra features.
I agree with this because..
Clickteam has pretty much abandoned the java mobile runtime so they can focus on flash. Kinda annoying since the java mobile runtime is one of the most stable. (besides HWA that is)
I'm sure the same would happen to the 2D runtime if a 3D one was released.
If this means that we can have a MMF3D and/or a completed HA for MMF2 and/or a full blown HWA MMF (or even better a MMF3 that does HWA and 3D!) then i agree.
However i don't actually know if this is the stumbling block for my wish-list
they need more funding/staff that's dedicated solely to fixing bugs/removing limitations and need for workarounds
$120 is a really steep price for something that still has noticeable bugs/limitations all the way back from knp. though clickteam is usually great about fixing these i really do hope mmf3 fixes enough of it so they don't have to say "maybe in mmf4" when it comes to things like infinite alterable values/strings for objects
hell even allowing global qualifiers (or better, global everything) would improve things considerably
Originally Posted by Xgoff it wouldn't be all that hard to have both 2d and 3d functionality without hurting the 2d all that much
The major annoyance most have with MMF, from what I've seen, isn't the 2D graphics part. It's the coding part, with the clunky (and slow) expression editor, the massive amounts of code required to do the very most basic of tasks, and so on. Take all of that hassle, that can only retrieve numbers from two axes, and put it into an editor with a third axis.
Yea, no thanks.
Uh, no. I don't believe that. I think many people including myself, find the event editor and the amounts of code is all a part of the designing of a game. If you want a cookie cutter game maker, use something else. MMF is about assigning ease to power and theres never been a better balance between the two. I think Clickteam just needs to evolve on what they have, not step back and consider redesigning any of it - beyond the need for extensive repair, such as more up to date editors. I would hate to see the functionality of MMF dramatically downplayed by adding automation. We've all already seen how that works out with default movements. Pass.
Originally Posted by OldManClayton Clickteam needs more funding and recognition. I'm hoping after some good MMF2 Flash games have been out for a while, that will happen.
Agreed. I think though that CT is missing chances when it comes to this. Especially their focus on education seems a little off. They hardly offer any educational material for the teachers to work with, making it less attractive for teachers to work with their products. I ran a small gamemaking project recently and got about 15 students hooked to TGF. About every dude aged 11-18 wants to be able to make games. Most of them tried Gamemaker and didn't get it (I don't get it either) and TGF2/MMF2 was just what they wanted. If they just got more schools to use their products (by developing lesson plans and all) they could double their funding. And then hire more coders to make their great products even greater.
When moving objects (in frame editor) with the mouse, being able to hold shift to move the object in only one directions (not diagonally). Adobe has this in all of their programs and is really handy!
Heh, it just needs better coders. Two people working on the same thing is not always a good idea. Hire one Ashley Gullen and I'd bet they'd make 4 times more progress than they do now.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Vertigo When moving objects (in frame editor) with the mouse, being able to hold shift to move the object in only one directions (not diagonally). Adobe has this in all of their programs and is really handy!
It's quite slow but you can use the arrow keys to do this.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Xgoff
