>
> > godot already has visual scripting, however it is not the same as construct.
> > Godot's visual scripting is similar to Unreal's blueprints
> >
>
> From the looks of it I'd rather go with scripting.
> I would have concerns with lag in the editor with all the extra rendering involved.
>
I gave Godot a go because it was supposed to be like python, but it just gave me nightmares of gml. By the way, for all of you who are going to leave Construct because you don't want to pay for the sub, I highly recommend NOT going to any of the free engines. I've seen more crashes on GDevelop than when I went to a demolition derby, but do as you wish and remember you can play Battlefield 1 with 8 gigs of ram and a GTX 660.
I dont recomend gdevelop either, just saying it's the closest to construct.
As for Godot - it is probably the best choice atm for me. Gdscript is incredibly simple to learn and use and very powerful. Godot has too many advantages to list in one thread.
If you want to really use python, that is being added to godot as well:
as demonstrated this year at godotcon
All in all, I think that even if godot cost 200$ for a license, I would still buy it over construct2 or even fusion. It has three times more features and can build native games with no need of containers. Don't be mislead by the 'free' label - what it really is is open source - which means owned by the community and people who use it - not a developer who can change the licensing type and price on a whim every year. It means that if someone wants a feature - they can add it or hire someone to add it - that is one hell of a deal if you ask me <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">