Construct 2 - Only A Toy?

The way I see it, no tool is perfect, you have to beat it into submission in one way or the other. And I agree that C2 is not perfect, I'm just trying to see the silver lining through all this bitterness I've seen towards C2 not being a cookie-cutter program made for everyone and all (it isn't, it has limitations just like everything else). What I mean is that if there's a feature missing, make it yourself. For most programs I've used I have wanted to do a specific thing only to look it up and see that it isn't part of the suite, so I either change my design or try to find a way to bend the program to do what I need. It is very important to understand the scope of the suite you work with, never expect something of a program you use, always read the manual, do your homework and you'll spare yourself the heartache.

+1

The way I see it, no tool is perfect, you have to beat it into submission in one way or the other. And I agree that C2 is not perfect, I'm just trying to see the silver lining through all this bitterness I've seen towards C2 not being a cookie-cutter program made for everyone and all (it isn't, it has limitations just like everything else). What I mean is that if there's a feature missing, make it yourself. For most programs I've used I have wanted to do a specific thing only to look it up and see that it isn't part of the suite, so I either change my design or try to find a way to bend the program to do what I need. It is very important to understand the scope of the suite you work with, never expect something of a program you use, always read the manual, do your homework and you'll spare yourself the heartache.

+1

And if all else fail, learn to code and make it yourself.

Maybe I'm just easily impressed, I don't know. I think C2 works just fine for what you pay for it.

C2 can do a lot, I agree and think its reasonable priced. My point is just that regardless of whatever product you buy, that being a car, a beef whatever, you pay money to avoid having to do something yourself, its no different with C2, its a product like everything else, if you make a game then that's your product and people will complain to you whenever they think you did something bad. They paid for it, because they didn't wanted to make it them self.

But following the forum, there is a tendency i think, that when people express there view about C2 they get flamed or as you write "just learn to code", but C2 state on the front page that no programming is required. So guess that a lot of people choose C2 so they don't have to code. So at least to me, it seems perfect valid to state ones view about C2, whether you care to learn to code or not.

"just learn to code"

That's not what I said. I said that you have to learn the program, its ins and outs, understand its scope and if there's a feature you want but the program doesn't support, you either make it yourself, or move onto another thing that suits you better, but only as a last option hence "if all else fails". I understand that the point of paying for something is for someone else to do it for you but it is also the buyer's responsibility to understand what (s)he pays for. Construct 2 does exactly what it says on the can and if you want to go beyond the scope of the suite you have to make yourself uncomfy and write your own stuff, but only if you want to go outside the scope.

...when people express there view about C2 they get flamed or as you write "just learn to code", but C2 state on the front page that no programming is required.

This is also what I've said earlier. You're repeating my posts but putting it in another angle lol.

Guess people now are too offended of what I already said to continue the discussion in a constructive way, instead they blindly defend C2 with all they got and bullying the OP with their "high fives" to each other.

"just learn to code"

That's not what I said. I said that you have to learn the program, its ins and outs, understand its scope and if there's a feature you want but the program doesn't support, you either make it yourself, or move onto another thing that suits you better, but only as a last option hence "if all else fails". I understand that the point of paying for something is for someone else to do it for you but it is also the buyer's responsibility to understand what (s)he pays for. Construct 2 does exactly what it says on the can and if you want to go beyond the scope of the suite you have to make yourself uncomfy and write your own stuff, but only if you want to go outside the scope.

I completely agree with that you of course have to do your research, before just throwing yourself into something, at least to some degree. I have used C2 for a long time now, a little over 2.5 years I think. And still some of the issues I stumble on are objects that I have used a lot of times, but just certain feature that I haven't had use for so haven't been an issue before. So expecting a new person to make a comprehensive judgement on whether C2 can do what they want or not, is not easy I think.

And notice lots of people asking whether some sort of project is possible in C2 or not, before they throw them self into it. And its even hard for the more experience users to give them any clear answers whether its possible or not. At least I find it very difficult, because you have to try to judge whether something that they are trying to do, will work based on your own experiences with C2 where you ran into something that was simply not possible and made you drop your a project.

For instant the path finding, which is one of my favourite topics. A new user will have a very hard time judging whether it can do what they want it to. And on the surface it seems to work fine, but with experience you notice the problems. That just can't be solved regardless of you can code or not. And see no reason to defend C2 in regards to something like this, as a game engine and knowing that path finding plays a huge part of a lot of games, it should have been designed correctly the first time. But expecting a new user to figure something out like that, I think is beyond what you can expect.

> ...when people express there view about C2 they get flamed or as you write "just learn to code", but C2 state on the front page that no programming is required.

>

This is also what I've said earlier. You're repeating my posts but putting it in another angle lol.

Guess people now are too offended of what I already said to continue the discussion in a constructive way, instead they blindly defend C2 with all they got and bullying the OP with their "high fives" to each other.

Well since I don't hold any specific views on C2 other than I like it, I guess we agree on something then

I don't see myself as defending the suite, I think its imperfect, I've already said as much. My point is that if you are to spend $100 on something, you do your research, there's even a free version to try out if you want, and the manual is up for grabs. Maybe I just assume too much from new users? I don't know, I'd like to think that most people are smart and make sure that they make the right decision through research and asking questions. I don't want people to feel ripped off, so make sure you know what you're getting yourself into, from experience I know how bummed you can get when you expect to much from something. It's really the only advice I can give.

And regarding the pathfinding, I can completely back you up that it's kinda wonky and hard to use. For my game I wrote my own pathfinding method through events and it worked out fine for me. I honestly don't know, I'm used to dealing with roadblocks like this, maybe I'm just jaded. Maybe C2 really is a very bad suite and I'm just the sucker who tries to make things work in other ways. Maybe I'm also a bit biased since I've done a bit of coding in the past.

Guess people now are too offended of what I already said to continue the discussion in a constructive way, instead they blindly defend C2 with all they got and bullying the OP with their "high fives" to each other.

I'm not offended. I own most of the competition software (wasted lots of money).

But, there is nothing constructive about your limited viewpoint, as I see it, you have no experience with other software to make assumptions on c2 and

I don't blindly defend C2, I happen to prefer it out of a long list of 'really' buggy software, yes more buggy than C2.

But I have the viewpoint of owning and using other software.

C2 has issue (no denying that), but so do all other softwares.

But, I say again disappointment comes from 2 things:

(1) The inability to use the tool.

(2) The realization that it is limited.

You are sounding more and more like a (1).

I started using Construct, when Construct was still just Construct and version released was 0.0.18 alpha. That was 6-7 years ago. It took me a while to work trough it. Then c2 came out, changed few things, but brought a lot of original ideas with it, and I still had quite a lot to learn "(partly due to the fact that eng is not my native tongue ). No I can make any game I think of in c2, but don't have time! So My advice to you is to assume you'll need at least several months to get good with it, and do it asap cause later you might run out of time.

Guess people now are too offended of what I already said to continue the discussion in a constructive way, instead they blindly defend C2 with all they got and bullying the OP with their "high fives" to each other.

I'm not offended at all, let's keep on this constructive discussion. Nobody defended C2 blindly. Accept that this community loves this software (which they expressed) and will not see it as a toy, but we can still talk about it's issues and strengths. Both are interesting topic, and since my research subject is based on visual programming I believe it's important to see both sides of the coin.

Guess people now are too offended of what I already said to continue the discussion in a constructive way, instead they blindly defend C2 with all they got and bullying the OP with their "high fives" to each other.

Please, don't victimize yourself.

You've been the actual blind-blaming person this whole topic.

There are 8 pages now of constructive posts debating actual issues with Construct 2 and all you have been able to establish as far as you are concerned is :

* You are inexperienced with C2. Most people in this topic are. And to experienced people it's obvious that you are missing the point of most of the posts of this topic.

Issue is, you are inexperienced and missing the point, so how make you understand you are missing the point ?

Especially since you are "disappointed" and that any critic towards your capabilities, experience or expectations feels like bullying to you it seems.

* C2 is not behaving as you expected to (apparently to read your mind and make the game you are thinking about, on its own without you having to do anything else than look at it because that is somehow how it was marketed to you, or what you understood from the marketing.)

Have you picked C2 and followed the beginner's guide ? Have you had a playable game by the end of it ?

If yes, marketing was right and that's how C2 helps out making games. From there you build up your experience by tackling more and more complex projects.

You learn more and more. You manage more and more. Yes, it requires to put efforts and learning in though.

If you failed at getting a playable game, the forums and the community are here to help out if you can provide a clear question to a clear issue, and not just some vague finger pointing in a "I need to vent" post.

If you haven't taken the time or consideration to go through the first basic tutorial, don't blame the software, blame yourself. You have to learn to crawl before you walk, that will be the same in any engine, language, creative endeavour.

This has been pointed out several times through this topic, yet you still apparently blatantly ignore it.

The topic is full of people with various experience cheering on you to keep up, put some effort and assuring you that in the long run you may do the game you want with C2.

Yet, you whine, you blame and you outright insult them (as "blind defending" "fanboys").

Don't you see how you are making yourself sound and look through this whole topic ?

Wow, what a tone from a moderator. Worst reply in this thread so far. I feel your hostility man, you need to calm down a bit.

You assume lots of stuff about me, even though you don't know me. Yes, I have read the:

* beginner's guide.

* manual.

What made you come to the assumption I haven't? I've already told you in at least 2 posts that I have months of experience of C2 and that I was very serious of creating something in it first and then buying it if I managed to finish a product. This didn't happen and I DO have the right to say so without you waving with your moderator badge and trying to show your authority by kidnapping this thread and lower the quality of the discussion.

If I was Scirra I'd take this very seriously if a moderator brings a bad tone such as yours to a discussion. We are your customers and we have the right to say what we feel about your product, both good and bad! End of story!

Mr X. stop toying with this program and actually try to use it decently

And Mr X. something tells me you are throwing in this topic intentionally .... your replies are intentionally spiting some members and mods ...

Smells like you failed designing something and now try to seek attention for your lack of skills, blaiming it on a perfectly good toy

For me its been one of the coolest toys I ever had

*halfway the business license and counting*

Congratulations on "*halfway the business license and counting*"

I came here as a last resort before I leave C2. Maybe I could get some direction, some help, some motivation to keep struggling, something... I don't know. Your points of views, your experiences and stories... maybe could help.

The thing I expected the least was that a moderator would piss me off like this. Seriously, what a bad customer support! It's not the first time he has this arrogant behaviour towards me. He really hit the last nail in the coffin...