Leaving C2 for awhile. My opinions and thoughts.

jayderyu I would lose 9/10 posts I make on this forum if I didn't copy first and get ready to paste. I've never seen a forum so picky...

Excal

I agree with most of your points. It would be interesting learning with someone, but there would need to be good communication otherwise we'd just be doing it alone essentially. It might be hard to get going.

As for most people wanting a skilled programmer, I don't know maybe there are more artists drawn to C2 than programmers. I'm good with computers, but I'm no programmer. I figure I could learn it. It might take a while though. C2 is straight forward enough that I can get "most" of what I need, but I keep needing to look for tutorials, example capx files, or forum tips to do the advanced stuff (usually one problem at a time).

It's difficult to say how well a team will work together. If there are two artists, I can see some problems. There may be style differences for example. One person may be an expert at anatomy, and the other can only do cartoony work. This would lead to a visible difference if both artists did characters for the same game. Now, if one guy did backgrounds and the other did characters, maybe it would be better. I'm not sure.

I think that most people that come here already have either a vision of what they want to create or inspiration to do a certain type of game. That's just my theory of course, but it would seem odd for someone to want to get into making games if the had no idea what to make. Now, if they simply had a hard time deciding what to go with, then that's fair enough. I have to make choices and prioritize and settle on something as well.

When you say you want to make the game more accessible, and the other guy wants it more narrow, well it's really hard to say which I'd prefer. I hate casual games. Or rather, I hate it when they dumb down a game to make it appeal to wider audiences rather than sticking to their guns. It would be like Skyrim vs Dark Souls. One game is trying to be more accessible, the other is trying to kick your face in. I fall into the latter category. But like I said, it really depends on what you mean by accessible. I didn't know if you are talking about difficulty or just making the gameplay more intuitive.

I do agree with your points. I'll admit, I work mostly by myself with C@, but I'll digress back to the point in a second. Having better collaborative efforts would drive C2 in a much better direction. That extends past the program though. Having some form of modularity, especially being able to import layout and event sheets, should be a standard thing. Having access to the app directly to design an application behavioral plugin would be cool (Eg, allow native access for Spriter to C2).

I think SVN is pretty standard past that though. It should be all that's needed. It ***** to set up if you've never set up something like that before. I personally prefer Git. But a system like that is standard in the dev world. It shouldn't be shied away from.

Where collaboration could be better is better community software. The forum software is lacking. Thankfully, Tom intends on updating at some point. God knows both Ashley's and Tom's plates are full though so it might take a while. Desura has things like personal blogs, news, and such. This community needs more of the same. On top of a more feature packed and efficient forum software base, the community needs a better way to display projects, art, news, videos, files, etc... I came to C2 and became quickly disappointed in the community support software. (That is not a bash to the support Ashley gives in the community. That is by far the best I have EVER seen)

With that said, I do have hope for the future. I see both Tom and Ashley working hard and they have come a long way for a two man team.

I do wish there were more assets for sale. Personally, my artistic skills ***** I can photoshop and adjust and image to suite my needs without a problem. I understand that 2D art is more prolific than 3D assets. It's more distinguishable. That's not to say that someone couldn't put up a flora pack with 50 different leaves and stems though. The consumer can edit the leaves as needed and build the plants from the pieces. The same could be done with character models and platform pieces. OpenGameArt is cool, but it's still very limited. Most other free, and even paid assets, have me feeling the same way.

Music and sound effects I'm a bit more iffy with. Some really good free music and sound effect places already exist unlike 2D art assets. Still, it would be cool. Also, if it puts more money in Scirra's pockets, then cool!

All that, and my point in my first sentence above, bring me full circle back to my main argument though. The barrier for entry is way to low. I tried C2 because they had a free version. I spent the $100 USD on it simply to keep playing with it. In the world of hobbies that is cheap. I know to a teenager it could sound expensive. Even to a college kid a $100 can be a lot. But in reality, it's not. I guarantee just about any working adults budget could be changed for a month to come up with the (technically) $120 USD (not $100 as I mentioned).

I also am in school for CIS and information systems. I have a solid programming foundation. I was amazed to how easy C2 is to use. It simply makes sense. Anyone coming to C2 with an okay foundation in computer science knowledge will pick up C2 insanely fast. The barrier for entry is so low though, and the UI is so well done, that it is deceptively easy to use. I do agree that the games I see being put out barely scratch what C2 is capable of doing. I believe it could do so much more. I also think it might be attracting some of the wrong crowd though because of the low barrier.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking anyone using C2 at any skill level. In fact, I would encourage people to play with it. It's an amazing tool to learn the logic side of computer science. (I'd say better than Scratch and even Basic or Python as taught in courses). I think users are slightly deceived because of how damn well done the UI is designed. It really is a **** piece of design. Users HAVE to approach C2 with a sort of programming mind set. All the better if it's a bit OOP in nature (using various event sheets and groups properly for pseudo inheritance and class principals).

In fact, the only direct 'coding' crossover event system I've seen missing (and I'm aiming this Ashley here) is the ability to do and/or blocks in the event system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found it's one or the other which kind of impedes on some logic.

I do think, going back to my points above, that a personal file repository on Scirra for others to upload and use CapX, assets, and such would be awesome. In fact, if people are interested in the idea, I don't mind cobbling together something on a paid hosting somewhere for C2 users. I would even be happy to invite Ashley and Tom to be admins, if for nothing else to alleviate some of their workload until they can implement something official into C2 and give the community a good stop gap for right now. I'd want to see interest though before investing the time.

Anyway, sorry for the book. If you've made it to here than you have an amazing attention span!

Please use mepis to respond to me. I have a bad habit of missing replies otherwise.

mepis

I disagree with the target level and the price. I think it's a great target and price. I think though the potential is not leveraged enough. An asset store for free and cost items would do wonders for Scirra team.

Also some one tried to make a repository before. But unfortuantly it's not adopted enough. Mainly due to Excal's point. Dev/users just don't use much outside of the IDE. The access isn't convient enough or there is a mental block to using them. the asset store needs to be integrated to the IDE. but it's awefully nice of you to consider.

Maybe offer a code build that can be integrated into C2.

jayderyu - Yeah definitely convenience is a huge deal, every single click you can reduce is a big deal when it comes to getting people to learn tools. But it's just not something that's missing from C2 and is not difficult to use. The main problem is no-one taking advantage of it, which stems a lot from it seeming like a lot of work. I worked with Excal a few times earlier on doing the 'copy your work over' approach and it was hell. It was just never made obvious how easy an SVN is to set-up, and when you look for collab solutions on the forums, you mainly find 'CANNOT DO! NOT FOR TEAMS! PREPARE FOR HELL!', instead of a whole bunch of 'oh just do this'.

So, I think instead of adding features it's far more efficient for Scirra to shove what's available in people's faces. I mean come on, look at the insane amount of effort people go to to try to get their games working on mobile, and then those same people think an SVN is too hard.

Excal - I think the 'help me make my game' is a legitimate way to go, but only if you have enough experience. As you said, when you team up you feel you're all dragging in different directions, which is not a good way to go! So from the start it should be understood who is the designer, and that person should set out the systems for the rest to work off. Sure, the others should give their ideas and try to put as much of themselves into the game as possible, but the lead really needs to be able to say 'sorry, but that's not the direction of the game.'. This is the best thing for the game and those trying to learn.

Also different specialities are a must - I love making experience systems and in-depth damage systems, but as soon as it needs to be represented on screen productivity grinds to a halt. Whereas there are many people who only want to lay down images on screen and have them work. Of course it helps if everyone understands how and why other things are done, but specialisation streamlines production in a big way.

I do think it would rock the house if there was a 'module capx' section of sorts. I've learnt so much from people posting answers to their own questions when they find them, but you need to ask some specific questions in searches to come across these gems. I made this system for example, that lets you easily manipulate arrays and would love to get some feedback on it, but I don't really know where to post it and don't see many getting use from it after a day or two when it sinks in the forums. I've already expanded it to have many more applications (like pushing on axis even when duplicates, acquiring indexes of Y, etc.), and it only requires you to have functions and a family, nothing more. And the thing is, even though it's great for me, I have no idea if something similar is out there or where to find it if it is. For all I know I've just wasted a heap of time on an inferior version of something someone made months ago.

And actually I believe modularity, as totally fantastic as it would be, is easily second to multiplayer. Everyone wants to make multiplayer games, and currently they can't. Not many people want to collaborate, but they can. So modularity is clearly a second place here, although a massively important second place.

But whatever the case or viewpoint on all of the above, this is definitely a conversation that needs to appear more often with C2 :)

In my opinion, modularity should be before multiplayer, and then maybe more users could put forth the work into community multiplayer efforts; that multiplayer will benefit far more from modularity if modularity is implemented first.

Modulairty before Mulitplayer. Even once MP comes out it's going to be simple P2P. Much of the advanced stuff is still going to be on the developer heads. Think of the Web Audio Api that C2 uses.

Modulairty will allow better community shared developement where as of this moment now. It's going to be the same problems. Everyone needs to start from near ground zero and build up on there own. And when some one does share it's going to be forgotten or lost.

Asset store + Modularity is the key for growth.

Also on a note. There is no reason that MP can't be done now. As the prior poster noted he is doing so NOW. I wrote a Photon Plugin in one day and ran a very servicible top down shooter. I can run my server now and we can play NOW. there is no need to wait for later when the tools are around NOW. It's just no one will use them for various reasons.

Don't get me wrong. i will see peoples capx and help them out and they will be filled with plugins. But then I have to have spend the time installing these plugins manually :( or the helpee needs to remove them :(.. where as an integrated module asset store could allow a download of such plugins(if allowed) and this becomes less inconvient.

Modulairty should have highest priority.

edit:

I agree with Datawolfpad. Websockets are fine for real time games. That lie needs to end. TCP isn't good for real-time competative shooters and Stree Fighter like games. Everything else can get away with it. Heck most RTS online games still run TCP.

edit again:

Here is the thread I started last month for the call

scirra.com/forum/suggestion-a-call-for-modularity_topic79249.html

I still stand by this :D

Would be great if you could simply export an eventsheet(s) or export layout(s) (automatically taking the resources such as variables and or objects along)

And upon import have it check the differences like with svn.

A side by side coomparision of differences in codes and objects.

And with a click of a button import parts (events or objects) or with another click have it accept all the changes.

That would greatly aid working together/collaberation.

— - And I rebuke! ;) So far multiplayer requires coding to some degree. The fact that 'not everyone can do it' is against the mission statement of Scirra and excludes the bulk of their users. If you don't mind dealing with websockets you won't mind using Unity, so why use Construct? There is no argument that modularity would be awesome, but as long as a massive feature like multiplayer is still absent from events, it needs to take second place.

I could go on about it for hours, but honestly I see it as plain as that, need over want.

lennaert - why not just use an SVN?

lennaert - why not just use an SVN?

For me personally, I dont need it.

But in general to the topic at hand:

Its not "from" construct 2, and ltos of indies with look at it with terrified eyes not udnerstanding what it is and what it can do ...

svn is just the server element of it, it requires configured clients with network conectivity etc etc etc ...

For some, a piece of cake ... for the vast majority using construct 2, abracadabra.

Having something like an importer exporter included in your tool will make it far more accisble and a lower bar to cross when starting out with it.

There are so many options for svn like methods, but being able to select 1 or multiple events, sheets, or objects or layouts from you familair tool, exported to a single file on your desktop which can just as easily be imported or emailed or placed in a dropbox, that would add to the freindly user interface/usage construct 2 has already been offering.

Modularity not only helps in collaboration, but everyone. I was always using oop software, where you structure your code in modules, just like the good old term "black box": You develop it once, store it somewhere and access it from any of your projects. No need to re-invent the wheel - and that's the bad thing about C2. You're forced to do all those standards that you use in your projects over and over again.

Sharing those snippets is a great side-effect, but imagine the decrease in development time for yourself in future projects. You actively help decreasing the time with any module you can store to create your own (or shared) library of algorithms, functions, helper code, etc.

Of course this is nothing new to Ashley. He's working with such software to develop C2. And so he might also see the amount of work and time it will cost to implement it. So much time, that C2 wouldn't grow on features during the time, which isn't good for selling arguments.

Yes, modularity is the most important thing right now. The sooner it comes, the faster the community output will grow. And that is also a great argument to sell a software ;)

lennaert - Yeah I see what you mean, but I'm saying that it's not magic at all and the difficulty level is vastly less than you imagine. Really, it just takes a minute. The lack of selling this is a fault of Scirra. Even though they wrote a good tutorial on it, it does look so big and daunting.

I do see how it being a lack of 'from Scirra' is a bad thing, it did turn me off for ages. But that is a cultural thing too, if every search for collaboration was full of 'so simple!' and it was on the front page when you visited Scirra, people wouldn't shy away from it. Again, as with a lot of Scirra's issues, this could be bettered with improved website organisation.

Also someone wrote here about being able to mess around with the UI (sorry couldn't find it again) - this is actually my dream ^^ I have such extensive engines and transporting them between projects is easy, but I want to make it easier for my team to use by making pop-ups, increasing the height of variable entry fields, etc.. But, I can see that's not a priority.

tulamide - It's nothing new to anyone ;) It would be fantastic. But I said my piece and really have nothing new to add.

Except! The new Ludumdare is coming up, anyone want to try making something? DrewMelton - I could do with some sound and art, 3 days to trial some teamwork ;) lennaert - can try out an SVN! C'mon community, let's be a community :P

Tobye

I have seen so many people go apenuts over something as simple as setting up a client ...

when I look in the "how to" section, ... and see some request about certain minor problems .... I can imagine the ranting newbs will do with their hands in their hair throwing fits cos they dont understand :)

For instance, an issue I ran into when direting iterns for a company I worked for as head IT, was that manuals I created to instruct them became outdated pretty fast. (program updates etc etc) and the level of easyness from a tutorial/guide was suddenly undone, untill the documents got updated.

Here is why I think having an integrated something will help out greatly, as it would be part of the tool, with its own continously updating manual.   :)

Ah well, so many options ....

On a side note:

Recently with the updated group naming system, when I need to copy something from on project version to another version, I benefit greatly how it adds numbers to the group names.

Since I place near everything in a group, I can simply copy an entire group right below the other, and simply move parts from the copied/imported group to the other, eventually deleting the added group.

Been working great the last few days :)

lennaert - Yeah I see your points and they are valid, but considering small team size of Scirra they are better off making additional programs more accepted when they are easy to use (heh, funny how we talk about how lots of people on Scirra don't collaborate much when it's actually kinda the same as the Scirra team themselves ^^). And client is just download > new folder > create checkout.

And I am also really liking the group system, just for 'not having to remember' reasons.

— - Yeah dissect away! To answer:

I think the whole idea of C2 is to not have to be 'serious enough', and infact it is on the verge of revolutionising the way games are built. This is a lofty thing to say, and is a whole other thread to go into, and who knows what Scirra think, but it's clear at the very least their market is people who want to make things happen without being time invested. I for one very much want multiplayer and have no idea how to go about it even though I'm very comfortable with C2.

And yeah Unity is more complex then a multiplayer, but not by so much. I have jumped on unity and done some tutorials and got stuff working, but I can't say the same for C2 multiplayer. What I should say is if you are willing to get into multiplayer, you are more than likely willing to keep going and learn unity (especially after reading so many threads about experienced C2 users doing exactly that). And unity does have (or will soon have) 2D.

And lastly huge so will attract and maintain more community (albeit of lower to mid-range users) than modules. I don't think modules are really going to attract new users, as you don't even know why they're good until you start using C2. Also if they develop modules then release multiplayer, there is a greater risk of huge, time consuming breaks occurring (well I would speculate that at least).

And still no-one for LD? C'mooooon! ;D

A few things...

Modularity would be great, but the big thing standing in the way is you can't introduce completely new objects at run time. In other words you need to be able to reference things that may, or may not exist.

More assets sounds like a good idea, but that can lead to some bad things you find in all asset stores. Usually they wind up being the front end for someones portfolio, in that they will add cheap graphics, but they will be largely incomplete in order to get some more work.

Secondly, art is not reusable, in other words, a Pacman platformer is not a good idea.

Lastly, multiplayer really must be server based. You can't do reasonable security in p2p, and a database is necessary for a ton of basic features.

However, a server based game is a different animal, and you have to do several things differently, the foremost being actual code.

Im not even going to address svn, as that would have to be a layer added on after all those other things are taken care of first.

Edit:

I will say I absolutely hate working on other peoples event sheets.

There's usually a few unneeded "for each", and I hate it when people put multiple conditions at the top level