The Daily Click ::. Forums ::. General Chat ::. Construct 2
 

Post Reply  Post Oekaki 
 

Posted By Message

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
12th March, 2011 at 16:45:51 -

construct 2's testing builds are now time limited.
Forcing a price tag on it sounds like a bad idea to me, but this is just stupid.

 
n/a

Cecilectomy

noPE

Registered
  19/03/2005
Points
  305

Has Donated, Thank You!VIP MemberWeekly Picture Me This Winner!Cardboard BoxGhostbuster!Pokemon Ball!ComputerBox RedSanta HatSnowman
I am an April Fool
13th March, 2011 at 23:06:01 -

i noticed that. they are open for 7 weeks though, and they hope to release a new build at least every 7 weeks so you arent without a usable build. but it does put me off even more. the current builds cant do much more than put static pictures on the screen and move them around. not much incentive to use them over any future builds with a pricetag. rediculous.

 
n/a

Indigo Steel Shield



Registered
  02/11/2002
Points
  1472

VIP Member
15th March, 2011 at 17:14:50 -

Maybe it is just me, but there is an issue that has been bothering me for some time. The Klik range of products has been around for a long time, over 10 years. Additional, if my understanding is correct, MF2 was created from the "ground up". In other words, Clickteam didn't just add to MMF when they made MMF2, they started from scratch when they created MMF2.

Now Construct is MANY advantages over MMF2, for example, with Construct a person can do physics without any difficulty. This is done with an easy to understand panel that handles physics with no problem. If you try to do physics with MMF2, you have to spend a great deal of time understanding and working with the physics extensions that are available for MMF2. Creating good physic code in MMF2 is NOT easy!

So here is my point:

1. Has Clickteam been looking at Construct, and seeing what it can do that MMF2 can NOT do, so that they can include more features to MMF2 that Construct already has? I hope so. For example, Construct’s platform movement is better and has more features than MMF2. Yet MMF2’s platform movement has been panned by many people for being buggy, even though the MMF products for been around much longer than Construct. It STILL is NOT “cleaned up”. What is wrong with this picture!? I for one would welcome more features in MMF2 platform movement, like being able to prevent the player from changing directions while in mid-air. I also am thinking of Construct’s bone movement, easy zooming during game play, and other features.

2. Anyone for has ever used both image editors from MMF and MMF2 will notice that MMF2’s image editor has a lot less features and tools than MMF image editor! Why?

 
n/a

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
15th March, 2011 at 17:22:50 -

Now Construct is MANY advantages over MMF2, for example, with Construct a person can do physics without any difficulty. This is done with an easy to understand panel that handles physics with no problem. If you try to do physics with MMF2, you have to spend a great deal of time understanding and working with the physics extensions that are available for MMF2. Creating good physic code in MMF2 is NOT easy!

Why do you expect game making to be made easy for you? If you really want to make good games you need to be willing to learn, its not handed to you on a plate.

 
n/a

Indigo Steel Shield



Registered
  02/11/2002
Points
  1472

VIP Member
15th March, 2011 at 19:25:40 -

I understand what you are saying. And of course I DON'T xpect game making to always be made easy for me. We really do need to be willing to learn in order to make good games. However, my point is NOT just the fact that physics is VERY easy in Construct while it is MUCH more difficult in MMF2. My point is also that I am hoping Clickteam will take a very careful look at Construct and try to include many of the features that Construct already has. I don't mean just the way physics in done in Construct, I also mean many of the other features as well.

Futhermore, I can't help but wonder what the platform movement in MMF2 is still so buggy even through it was made from the "ground up". Why not take care of this after all of these years. Additionally, why is MMF2's image editor missing so man of the features that WERE in MFF?

These are questions I am just asking because I love Clicktean and some people would choose a free product that has what they want as opposed to paying over $100.00 for a product that does NOT have what they want. So why not do all that can be done to improve MMF2? Maybe in the next builds?

By the way, some thing ARE handed to you on a plate when you are using Construct, like physics in Construct. Just a thought.

 
n/a

Marko

I like you You like you

Registered
  08/05/2008
Points
  2804

Has Donated, Thank You!Game of the Week WinnerVIP Member360 OwnerDos Rules!Happy FellahCrazy EvilI am an April FoolGingerbread House
15th March, 2011 at 19:37:46 -


Originally Posted by -Adam-
Now Construct is MANY advantages over MMF2, for example, with Construct a person can do physics without any difficulty. This is done with an easy to understand panel that handles physics with no problem. If you try to do physics with MMF2, you have to spend a great deal of time understanding and working with the physics extensions that are available for MMF2. Creating good physic code in MMF2 is NOT easy!

Why do you expect game making to be made easy for you? If you really want to make good games you need to be willing to learn, its not handed to you on a plate.


But that is the point of MMF2! I bought it so i would have things handed to me on a plate - i've learnt other languages before and to get really good you need to spend a hell of alot of time learning it inside-out. The point if click products was to short-cut that. Asking for more from Clickteam is a valid request.

 
Image

Subliminal Dreams. . ., daily gaming news and the home of Mooneyman Studios!
www.mooneyman-studios.webs.com

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
15th March, 2011 at 21:48:45 -

Are you being serious? If you want that, buy Warioware DIY. It does everything for you

Even with Click products you can't expect to have it handed on a plate. Making games with them is easier than most ways of developing, saying that you expect it handed on a plate is actually rather stupid, hence why I cant tell if you're being serious or not.

 
n/a

Pixelthief

Dedicated klik scientist

Registered
  02/01/2002
Points
  3419

Game of the Week WinnerWeekly Picture Me This Winner!You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberI like Aliens!Evil klikerThe SpinsterI donated an open source project
16th March, 2011 at 02:26:22 -

I know theres plenty of fanboyism and irrational and biased views of construct vs mmf2 and all that blah blah blah. But I take a look from a more utilitarian standpoint, and I'm not all that impressed with construct 2. And I really liked tigerworks, mind. I think its the fact that Construct 1 was never a finished project that really rakes against it. Imagine anyone who actually tried to create a serious project and learned that it will never be finished, the loose ends never sewn, and construct 2 not backwards compatible. Its not a suitable platform for developing major projects.

And now Construct 2 comes with a hefty and inconvenient and non-package price tag, but the promise isn't there.

Frankly, the level of abstraction presented in a computer science standpoint of the language/compiler/ide of Construct vs MMF2 goes against logic. The entire point of MMF2 is to give you an environment where you trade efficiency and scope in exchange for easy and fast development. The more ambitious and well programmed you get in either MMF2 or Construct, the less difference there is in development time from creating it all in say, C++. For example, I really wish I had created Asunder in C now, but at least its functional enough to finish.

But what you need to realize is that these are rapid prototyping tools/languages/ideas. Not meant for large ambitious professional projects, but for smaller scale rapid game and application making. Even in large game projects, MMF sees use by developers who want to create mockups or even just dev tools. But for creating things like flash applications - its absolutely the ideal product.

But all the advantages Construct seems to offer over MMF2, its tools and abilities that stretch towards the domain of DIY large complicated projects- not rapid prototyping. MMF2 shines when you can get almost all your coding accomplished by built in extensions, built in active objects and animations, built in effects and the plethora of 3rd party extensions, scripting tools, and community support. Especially the latter.

And that doesn't even scrape the range of exporters that MMF2 has due to being firmly planted in the ground for so long now. I can take the same game with the same graphics and code, and export it as a .exe, a flash app, a java application, a java applet, a unicode text .exe, a hwa .exe, or a python binary that can run on unix/max/windows all together.



Construct 2 might have been better than MMF2, if you uprooted everything in MMF2 and gave all that community, extensions, exporters and plethora of work thats been done to it. But it doesn't have that firm ground. And its not an argument about fairness or "what ifs". Sure, it [i]could[/i] have been better, but MMF2 has the advantage of having been around so long with so many people and garnering all that support. And that software engrainedness is a hurdle in many places of adoption, not just MMF2 vs Construct or w/e. Look at Ubuntu vs Windows, heh. And its not all one sided stories- look at Firefox & Chrome against IE.

From a utilitarian standpoint, if you want a rapid prototyping tool, one you can pick up and develop with, without large amounts of CSci background- MMF2 is just the logical choice, as much as I like Construct. Even the risk analysis alone should tell anyone that, because as much as I respect the work they've done, theres no stable footing for Construct, period. And maybe some day it will indeed outstripe MMF2, and if so, good for them! But it doesn't yet.

 
Gridquest V2.00 is out!!
http://www.create-games.com/download.asp?id=7456

Marko

I like you You like you

Registered
  08/05/2008
Points
  2804

Has Donated, Thank You!Game of the Week WinnerVIP Member360 OwnerDos Rules!Happy FellahCrazy EvilI am an April FoolGingerbread House
16th March, 2011 at 07:16:27 -


Originally Posted by -Adam-
Making games with them is easier than most ways of developing, saying that you expect it handed on a plate is actually rather stupid, hence why I cant tell if you're being serious or not.


I'm being serious. And if you say that is "rather stupid" then that is your opinion, not a fact.

To quote the MMF2 page on the Clickteam website, "...you can get superior and impressive results with no programming skills or knowledge required". So yes, i want it handed to me on a plate, it's what they promised.

 
Image

Subliminal Dreams. . ., daily gaming news and the home of Mooneyman Studios!
www.mooneyman-studios.webs.com

chrilley

Insane Beaver

Registered
  05/01/2002
Points
  704

Game of the Week WinnerVIP Member360 Owner
16th March, 2011 at 11:56:13 -


Originally Posted by Marko
To quote the MMF2 page on the Clickteam website, "...you can get superior and impressive results with no programming skills or knowledge required". So yes, i want it handed to me on a plate, it's what they promised.


That means that you need no programming skills to make great games with MMF2, you still have to make it yourself.

 
Image

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
16th March, 2011 at 13:37:25 -

Ive heard it all now

 
n/a

Marko

I like you You like you

Registered
  08/05/2008
Points
  2804

Has Donated, Thank You!Game of the Week WinnerVIP Member360 OwnerDos Rules!Happy FellahCrazy EvilI am an April FoolGingerbread House
16th March, 2011 at 17:09:14 -

I don't get it - why is asking for better built in movements in a drag-and-drop game-making application asking for too much? Especially when the competition does give you better built in movements?

 
Image

Subliminal Dreams. . ., daily gaming news and the home of Mooneyman Studios!
www.mooneyman-studios.webs.com

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
17th March, 2011 at 15:09:18 -

What I think marko means is that mmf2 does most of the work for you, not necessarily everything.
When most of the hard work is already done either via hard coded mmf functions or extensions I think it's fair to say that by using mmf you do have things handed in a plate. You just need to know how to use them.

 
n/a

Don Luciano

Heavy combat pancake

Registered
  25/10/2006
Points
  380

VIP Member
18th March, 2011 at 14:32:53 -

The price is very silly? I mean why would someone pay to get updates for a certain amount of time, it doesnt make sense...


 
Code me a sausage!

GamesterXIII



Registered
  04/12/2008
Points
  1110

I am an April Fool
18th March, 2011 at 15:26:03 -


Originally Posted by -Adam-
Now Construct is MANY advantages over MMF2, for example, with Construct a person can do physics without any difficulty. This is done with an easy to understand panel that handles physics with no problem. If you try to do physics with MMF2, you have to spend a great deal of time understanding and working with the physics extensions that are available for MMF2. Creating good physic code in MMF2 is NOT easy!

Why do you expect game making to be made easy for you? If you really want to make good games you need to be willing to learn, its not handed to you on a plate.



Isn't your post contradicting itself a bit?

You say that Construct makes Physics easy (IE: the feature is handed to you on a plate) and that Physics are very hard to pull off in MMF, yet you use this as an argument for "learning" to use Construct as not everything should be handed to you on a plate?

 
n/a
   

Post Reply



 



Advertisement

Worth A Click