Construct Classic vs Construct 2 for Beginners

New releases and general discussions.

Post » Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:53 pm

[QUOTE=Zotged] It's a tad hard to point fingers at the issues since personally I'm too used to working with CC and its quirks, really. One that instantly comes to mind though are some annoying event sheet editor problems, like drag'n'dropping of events being a surgical operation or issues related to selecting events and such.

I've also ran into some shaders that need minor fixing by hand, like changing the defined pixel shader version. Some plugins are buggy too and have been for years. There's a lot of this kind of things on the bug tracker.

Generally some things don't work like you'd expect them to but like I mentioned you'll get used to them.[/QUOTE] This!
Image
B
23
S
8
G
10
Posts: 1,820
Reputation: 8,242

Post » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:22 am

C2 is getting pretty good and has a lot of features already now, I prefer the editor over CC one, as long as you don't mind making your sprites in a different image application. But it's biggest let down at the moment is HTML5 performance is pretty terrible if you want to make a big action game with with lots of sprites. I'm just hoping that the exe wrapper and HTML5 in general will magically get significantly better performance in the future.alspal2012-06-21 09:23:17
B
134
S
65
G
16
Posts: 1,766
Reputation: 19,190

Post » Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:15 pm

I'd stick with CC. I personally don't care for web gaming at all. Although, I do wish CC had more support. Eventually, I feel that CC with become [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation][/url]deprecated software or the TGF2 of Clickteam.
B
11
S
3
G
8
Posts: 473
Reputation: 4,569

Post » Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:32 pm

I still strongly believe that CC flew under the radar for a far too large a demography. Its capabilities are simply outstanding in comparison to other much more popular solutions like GM or anything Clickteam has ever even dreamed of releasing. It definitely doesn't pale in comparison even though its development has been bumpy at best for the last few years.

But times do change even though I'll echo what Azu said about web gaming, I have little interest in that.Zotged2012-06-29 12:32:26
B
11
S
2
G
3
Posts: 100
Reputation: 2,150

Post » Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:12 pm

thirded, Scirra falling into the HTML5 trap was my biggest disappointment in years
B
3
S
1
G
3
Posts: 45
Reputation: 1,140

Post » Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:08 pm

[QUOTE=declan_gage] thirded, Scirra falling into the HTML5 trap was my biggest disappointment in years[/QUOTE]

Even for me HTML is a lose. For playing this game you must have pretty good internet connection and not everyone have ie connection. Also I just don't get where is the point of making games for browsers. This are just aplications not real games.
B
14
S
3
G
4
Posts: 59
Reputation: 2,841

Post » Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:44 pm

While Construct 2's HTML5 focus allows for multiplatform releases, the lack of power the technology currently has (or may never have, who knows?) can be severely limiting for more bigger ideas.

Construct Classic while (in my opinion) being more powerful has less official support now and is maintained by the community. It's in dire need of an update and stability fixes from my experience as it crashes way too often with big projects.

If someone somehow makes export modules for Classic that allow it to compile games that'll work on Mac, Xbox 360 (probably via XNA) and what have you then it'll definitely be THE go-to WYSIWYG game creation program. I'm hoping someday that Scirra decides to counter YoYo Games who dropped their HTML5-only version of GameMaker for a true multiplatform GameMaker Studio.
B
5
S
1
G
1
Posts: 9
Reputation: 469

Post » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:09 pm

With r100 coming out soon how are opinions changing?

I went off Classic for a good while after experiencing some really annoying bugs with the bone animator tool. I have followed Construct 2s development closely and for the last few months I've been using it as a prototyping tool as I love the programming side of Construct above everything else, it just makes sense to me.

Recently though, I've started to make a 'real' game with it, I think it's pretty much there and capable of handling my ambition with the exception of having an (easy) way to save a game and also the audio functionality is too basic.

With r100 coming up though, .exe exporting interests me because that means so long as the player has a PC the game is assured to work, unlike with browser which can give varying results. WebGL too, that brings the visual capabilities on-part with Classic does it not? Or not? I don't know.
B
39
S
12
G
8
Posts: 580
Reputation: 7,108

Post » Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:33 am

I'm actually about to try out C2 now. The only reason I wouldn't use it before was because, as others have said, I have no interest in purely web based games. I prefer them to be .exes. And with the recent release of r100 of C2, I can now export a project to .exe.

Classic is great and served me well over the past year, but it just has too many random bugs and really slows me down when I seem to get on a roll with my work. I think it's a real shame that Classic was never truly completed, because it's definitely the best program I've used for 2D development up until now. But the problem is, I can't foresee myself making a full game using the engine. Not when I can't even make a full screen without having paralax scrolling; basic features of a platformer.

So it's time to give C2 a shot. :D

EDIT: So... yeah... I didn't realize that it costs $100+ to use the exe feature of Construct 2, so never mind what I said before. >_>Jim152012-09-21 07:06:27
B
16
S
2
G
1
Posts: 156
Reputation: 2,112

Previous

Return to Construct Classic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests