[QUOTE=tulamide][QUOTE=Arima] You can't judge a tool's capabilities by the content created with that tool. Games take a long time to make, and C2 hasn't been out that long.[/QUOTE] It is the only way to judge a tool's capabilities. If a tool looks good and feels good but creates bad or limited results (just a general thought, this is not aimed at C2), it shouldn't be judged as a good 'game creator'.[/QUOTE]
That's just not the case. That's looking at a tool without using your imagination at all. People create completely amazing things with things that weren't originally made for that purpose routinely.
If the full potential of paint and a paintbrush was revealed by what was made with them, why should Leonardo Da Vinci have ever bothered painting the Mona Lisa? Why should anyone have looked at something and thought they could make a wheel out of it to make their job easier? If people determined that the maximum potential of something was only what has already been done with that thing, then no one would ever make any scientific or artistic progress on anything at all.
To say that construct 2's maximum potential has already been reached - I can't understand why you'd think that. The very first games made with construct two were incredibly basic, so if that revealed the limits of its potential how did anyone ever surpass it?
[QUOTE=tulamide]Following your logic, Stencyl would be the much better game creator than C2. Better interface, better integration of support (like drag'n'drop whole premade block sequences), better response time, etc. Then have a look at apps made with it...[/QUOTE]
From what I have seen of Stencyl I disagree it has a better interface, but I haven't used it. I think that's a matter of opinion. I judge Stencyl the same way - I sincerely doubt it's maximum potential has been reached either.
Imagine the difference of an inexperienced and developer trying to make something in the same program. Construct two is still new, and professional developers I hear often like to wait until a new engine has had something made with it that proves its viability. At that point you'll be seeing more and more impressive stuff.
[QUOTE=tulamide][QUOTE=Arima]True, there is functionality missing from C2 that CC has, but it's being added regularly.[/QUOTE] So you're arguing based on possible features that might be there somewhere in the future? That doesn't fit to your statement 'In fact, ...'
[QUOTE=tulamide][QUOTE=Arima]Regardless, even in its current state, I don't recall many games that were made with CC that couldn't be made with C2 (thumb war being the most notable example, but even then if C2 had sprite distortion it might be capable, though it might require a fast machine).
There are also plenty of examples of stuff C2 can do that CC can't - probably more examples at this point, and those examples are probably more relevant to the majority of users (exporting to mobile, mac and linux, for example).[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] The contradiction of the two passages is why I answered. Such a contradiction was also in the passage, that I reacted to at first.
You say "if C2 had sprite distortion it might be capable". But it hasn't. On the other hand you ignore the same option for CC. Because if CC had an exporting plugin, it would also be capable of exporting to mobile, mac and linux. See? It doesn't make sense to compare things that might have been integrated, but aren't.[/QUOTE]
In that case, I'm referring to the fact that construct two is being actively developed, a benefit that construct classic does not have, and Ashley has mentioned the possibility of sprite distortion in construct 2. Exporting to mobile is not coming to construct classic. Regardless, that does not change the fact that complex games can be made in construct two now with the features it already has.
I'm also not ignoring that construct classic can do some things that construct two can't, I've mentioned that it can.
[QUOTE=tulamide]First, what you are looking for is not the best result for the users of your app,[/QUOTE]
Completely incorrect. What I get out of C2 provides a better experience on more platforms and therefore is better for the users, many of whom couldn't play at all otherwise by not having windows.
[QUOTE=tulamide]but the most comfortable editor for yourself. There's nothing wrong with such a wish, it's just not the point. The result is what counts, the gamer doesn't care if you could produce a game comfortable or with literal pain - a gamer just wants a good game.[/QUOTE]
The editor is entirely relevant to the discussion here. You shouldn't ignore the effect a difficult to endure development environment has on the resulting game. With how hard loot pursuit is to work on, it results in it taking more time to make and eventually it became so hard to work with that I had to ditch some of what I wanted to put in it. A good development environment that makes development easier and smoother will make the resulting game better and provide that game faster, which is better for the users.
[QUOTE=tulamide]And second, you indeed confuse complexity with sheer quantity. See, thumb war indeed is a complex game - yet it doesn't have 10000 events, 500 objects or thousands of animation frames.[/QUOTE]
Also incorrect. Quantity and complexity are not mutually exclusive. Loot pursuit is both.
[QUOTE=tulamide][QUOTE=Arima]honestly, I don't understand why people talk like CC is the actual great version of construct when C2 is so much better.[/QUOTE] Because of its output! The result is what counts. And CC produces rock-solid, fast and amazing executables. [/QUOTE]
Aside from event execution speed, I'm not sure why you think the output is so much better from CC. With the new node webkit EXE export, there's a good chance if you made the same game in both no one looking at them would be able to tell the difference. Also, in my experience, CC does not produce rock-solid executables. I've gotten quite a few crashes with them, for example when using or.
[QUOTE=tulamide][QUOTE=Arima] - capable of even outrunning CC's rendering speed by a good margin with a recent graphics card.[/QUOTE] No. It starts with the fact that any WinXP user (which still is more than a third of all installed windows versions) will experience software rendering.[/QUOTE]
I hadn't heard that - a quick google search doesn't reveal anything about it, can you provide a link?
[QUOTE=tulamide]But even if we take that out of the comparison... Let's create a simple executable: 4000 sprites (based on 4 different sprites with 1000 copies each) of size 128x128 on a FullHD fullscreen, and, if you want to reduce it to rendering speed, no rotation, no movement, and just a start of layout event to create the sprites. I bet CC will win the rendering speed challenge.[/QUOTE]
4000 wasn't anywhere near enough to get the fps below 60, so I added a 0. 40,000 sprites, 10k of each, using chrome for C2 (what node webkit uses for exe export):
Textures not stacked (graphics card has to swap textures for each object): CC: 18fps. C2: 37fps.
Textures stacked (graphics card does not have to swap textures for each object): CC: 30fps. C2: 50-60fps.
As Ashley blogged, C2 has faster rendering than CC. https://www.scirra.com/blog/102/html5-games-faster-than-nativeArima2013-01-31 03:41:13