So What Is Your First Impression Of C3?

Post » Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:56 pm

I have done a more complete tour since the last time, and I begin to love it more and more, you can take, as has long been expected, my money too. Impatient to discover the full version and all the features (still a few blemishes about standalone windows native version, the absence of multi-layer TMX support on tilemaps, amongst other things, but we will come back to it in due course). ;)
B
37
S
14
G
9
Posts: 62
Reputation: 7,228

Post » Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:48 am

I have tried to test the first beta on my IMac. Just skimming through the UI and loading/running examples. Based on this and the info we got during the blog updates, these are my thoughts...

1) I had concerns about Chrome compatibility and for sure, my personal concerns were valid for myself. I needed to upgrade my chrome version to run it. After that it ran, but then, this update might have broken a different web tool. Will see. Makes me feel uneasy.

2) My Imac is not WebGL2 compatible. Even recent Macbooks pro aren't. I forsee a lot of problems comming from that and juding this by the past, I know already the reaction we will get.

3) On My IMac which runs OSX 10.11.x it lags sometimes. You can see that Chrome hogs the system fully. Definitely doesn't feel as fluid as a native app.

4) Some examples wouldn't run, so this version was deliberately shipped with incompatible samples. This feels more like an early alpha than anything.

5) I dislike the change in the pricing model. Definitely a technology change which brought Scirra in a better position regarding chross platform development but C3 is just that. There is no added value imho. Also the pricing models treats developers from different countries unfairly as for the same usage, some have to get the business subscription where others can use the personal one. And judging from the my past experiences of using subscriptions, they went up/up/up in price over the time.

6) The announced free version with its 40/50 event limit will be barely a demo imho.

7) I LOVED that C2 was portable. Put it on a Stick and run it basically everywhere. Not possible with C3 so far. My job flags its website as a gaming site and so it isn't reachable. I wonder if schools will have similar problems with their closed network systems. Maybe Scirra will have created a bigger problem for themself here if they target the education sector.

For me, these are to many issues which I don't wanna deal with. I want to use a software, not fiddle with the system it runs on. It simply has to work. If it doesn't run easily on OSX, it shouldn't be there. Also I want to be treated equally as a customer, which I won't be. I don't see why I should pay more for the same usage. Adding to this my previous negative experience with subscription models, I will pass C3.

Anyway thanks for Scirra to let me have a look. Good luck.
B
19
S
6
G
7
Posts: 55
Reputation: 4,159

Post » Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:01 pm

The good thing about the Construct platform is it's easy to come back to after not using it for a while and be able to use it again without many problems. I can see it being easy for C3 as well.

Right now I'm going to reduce my post count on the forum as I don't plan on using this browser engine much at all, so there's no need to give my opinion about anything anymore. But if I ever need to use it, it's easy to pick up and go. I had higher hopes for C3, and I think one day a browser engine might catch on and it'll be easy to export to every platform as easy as it is with other engines. For now, much respect for the direction these guys are taking it. But it's just not for me.

Congrats on a successful launch and future!
B
25
S
12
G
11
Posts: 260
Reputation: 7,923

Post » Sat Apr 01, 2017 6:23 am

lamar wrote:Just read through some of the many bug reports for C3.

There were about 6 pages of bug reports the first day but from what I see Scirra has closed about half of them with the same response that is should be fixed in the next release or can't do anything about it or your computer is the problem not C3.

I thought Scirra said they had internal bug reporting built into C3 so they could get accurate bug reports to fix problems?

Anyway, the Scirra response to most of these C3 bugs seems to be the same as we got with bugs in C2. That does not bode well for getting problems fixed anytime soon.

Just my observation.


Yeah, been looking through the bug thread too, and just reminds me why I left C2 some two years back.

So just going back to 3D land now.

Happy game making everyone. Just remember to disable all your useful add-ons, so you make your game - lol.
If it can be done, someone on the web will show you how to do it!

CDASI Games Mentality Break Splat-a-bug FlapFleet Challenge
B
34
S
12
G
7
Posts: 358
Reputation: 7,148

Post » Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:12 pm

I entered the beta having no intention or reason to upgrade, so my feedback may or may not be much use.

PROs
- In general, it's a great technical achievement:
- The app is always the latest version, with no downloading or waiting. Though I hope in future versions it tells you that it's updated itself, and what's changed.
- The precision upgrades to behaviors like Physics and Bullet (are these changes coming to C2?)
- The UX upgrades: editing arrays and dictionary in particular

CONs
- In general, many attempts at simplification have become reductions in the experience:
- It looks like Construct for Kids. It just doesn't feel professional, if that makes sense, especially coming from the crispness of C2. The UI is way too big and clunky - the fonts are too big, the padding around them too great, and the grey bars around each window are so thick. For example, the palette windows: the section titles sit in these large, grey blobs, and the options in the palette have little grey blobs indenting them.
- Perhaps another example over-simplification: things are in strange places. For example, right-clicking a layout lets me Edit the Grid, but not show/hide it. I have to 'edit' the grid to do this, despite showing/hiding the grid being a much more frequent user behavior than setting the grid width/height.
- It feels like I'm clicking around a lot to get to what I want to do. For example, I can't seem to have the animation properties and the colour palette open at the same time.

OVERALL
I'm not sure who this was built for. It's technically fantastic like this to have a game editor in a browser, but it looks and feels much younger and lesser than other game engines (not just C2). So for existing C2 users, there's nothing showing me why I should move my work to C3 - why would I upgrade, and pay more, for a lesser experience? Do I have to be around for that one week at the end of the beta, when everything is unlocked? And the first impressions it makes to new users isn't nearly as strong as other engines. I guess it's good for education and kids?

My two cents: I would reconsider launching this before it has matched C2 note for note. I would spend the first year with C2 users alone, giving them full access, letting them build plug-ins, style options, and new behaviors. Let them build it like they build their games and apps. After those users have expanded it and all the bugs have been ironed out, then I'd launch it and charge for it. Then there would be a community, an experience, to subscribe to.

Just my perspective! Regardless I hope the team is proud of what they've achieved, and of course, wish Construct all the success in the world. I'm a huge fan of C2 and hugely appreciate the work that it must take. Thanks for helping creators create.
B
21
S
5
G
3
Posts: 66
Reputation: 2,848

Post » Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:49 pm

After reading through the impressions of many C2 game developers I know and trust it looks like most of us have the same complaints and concerns about C3.

I would like to suggest Scirra reads through this feedback and consider doing something that will help those of us that do not have a desire to move to a browser based subscription engine and may now be considering leaving Scirra altogether.

Put the new features and exporters you are including in C3 (many that we have asked for for years) into C2 or create a package of those features and exporters as an addon for C2.

I would happily pay another $99 (no subscription) for a package of working features and exporters for the existing C2 engine and I think most C2 game designers would be willing to support Scirra in that way.

As it looks, Scirra is going a direction with C3 that most of your C2 users are not thrilled with to say the least and this package idea would be a way to keep the people that has supported Scirra with our money and through designing plugins and promoting you in our games happy and shows you have a long term interest in supporting C2 and we will not be abandoned.

I know Scirra has invested a lot of time into C3 and you are hoping it will be popular and be the next big thing and that is an admirable project but if you lose your C2 users in the process was it worth it?

I would appreciate @Tom & @Ashley to read and consider what the users have said on this thread.
Banned User
B
27
S
7
G
58
Posts: 1,229
Reputation: 34,780

Post » Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:33 pm

brushfe wrote:- It looks like Construct for Kids. It just doesn't feel professional, if that makes sense, especially coming from the crispness of C2. The UI is way too big and clunky - the fonts are too big, the padding around them too great, and the grey bars around each window are so thick. For example, the palette windows: the section titles sit in these large, grey blobs, and the options in the palette have little grey blobs indenting them.


+ 1

lamar wrote:I would happily pay another $99 (no subscription) for a package of working features and exporters for the existing C2 engine and I think most C2 game designers would be willing to support Scirra in that way.


+ 1
B
34
S
4
G
1
Posts: 41
Reputation: 1,851

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:49 am

Yeeeah I'm probably never going to go with C3, unless there are extremely extraordinary circumstances, because I don't like the idea of a subscription model with no purchase option. I don't make much money as it is and what if one of the years into it I don't have $99 at that time? I guess I'm just going to have to put all my stuff on hold for a month or more.

lamar wrote:I would happily pay another $99 (no subscription) for a package of working features and exporters for the existing C2 engine and I think most C2 game designers would be willing to support Scirra in that way.


+1 x 1000
Last edited by corlenbelspar on Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
B
45
S
13
G
1
Posts: 236
Reputation: 4,010

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:56 am

I played around for couple of days with C3 and at this point its not even close to C2. It feels like this is a very first version and Scirra just starting to create an engine. I meean look at Buildbox or New Game Maker those are really next gen engines and a big step forward from their previous versions. I am beta testing Buildbox 3.0 and just wow 3D support, nodes etc. So I dont get it why you re-invented C2 in web version rather then creating C3.

You could face lift C2 add proper export and Mac support and you are golden.
B
14
S
2
Posts: 21
Reputation: 744

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 7:48 am

foxium wrote:(...) C3 (...) at this point its not even close to C2. It feels like this is a very first version and Scirra just starting to create an engine.


Exactly this, at the moment there is an astonishing amount of bugs... I'm wondering how much time will be necessary to have a full working version
B
34
S
4
G
1
Posts: 41
Reputation: 1,851

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Karlacarpenter and 2 guests