Well... I don't like Godot.
Looks to complicated and it's all scripting.
Even though I know scripting (php, python, pascal, js, vb etc etc)
I don't want to do all scripting for a game... I want building to be visual.
That is why I considered Construct 2.... But can't invest in a stand alone I believe will disappear.
And I am not doing a subscription and get nothing for it at the end.
Tried Unity and Real... nice and powerful. But their licensing and splash screen puts me off.
You can only make games with Unreal (per license)... and Unity is going the expensive subscription too. But you can't make non games without getting enterprise license (CHA-CHING $$$$)
These big game giants are making it harder and harder for newbies to obtain... what are these people thinking??!!
I am looking for something that not only designs games, but can also do interactive content (not games) and output to html5 and standalone exe.
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too
Nothing in life comes for free. Version 3 of Godot will have built-in nodal-based visual coding, but I think even then it is probably too much work for you.
Most Game Maker developers code with scripting as well - it is more flexible - as Havok explained too. You will not get very far without scripting in Game Maker.
If you want a drag and drop / Event Based system GoDot is not an equivalent or alternative to Construct.
They are building a flowgraph system but it looks even more complicated than the code. If you want this type of thing + 3D then both Unreal and Unity + GameFlow or Unity + Playmaker is much better imho. I've used both and got some gameplay demos out how I wanted it with realistic amounts of effort. a day or two's work with some tutorials etc.
I thought so at first too when I opened Godot the first time; until I created a first small game in it (tutorial). It may look complex, but really is not: just a different approach. For example, you want the camera to follow the player? Just parent the camera to the player. Change some camera settings, BAM! working scrolling.
The animation timeline is a huge time-saver: no need to programmatically control a lot of stuff. And the beauty of Godot's timelines: they are stackable! Anything can be animated. IK boned characters are built-in, with control over animation blending. And the 3d features obviously offer a much greater scope in possibilities.
But yes, the initial investment is much deeper - not unlike Unity (which I also tested, and I even purchased Playmaker for testing). I did not like Unity for 2d game development. I like having 3d options (like Godot), but I prefer to work in a dedicated 2d dev environment (just like Godot, Fusion, Construct).
I also think that the more complex a game becomes, the harder it will become to control in Construct. I read a number of accounts from experienced C2 developers here about how larger projects become much more difficult to maintain. Godot is more geared towards larger game development. You can tell because variables can be exposed to an object's GUI in the editor, and it is even possible to run functions while editing ("tools mode"), and of course the excellent scene-based workflow (which I think is even better than Unity).
I chose Godot because I do not like renting software, and I need good native exporters. And after trying out the visual editors in Construct and Fusion, I prefer simple scripting.
Of course, there will always be trade-offs. The initial start-up in development will take more time in Godot than Contruct, I think - but I am confident that Godot is the better choice for (semi)larger projects, and for my project.
But this is good, isn't it? At least there are so many alternatives, so everyone can make up their own minds. For me, after working for a couple of years in Visionaire Studio, I really like working with Godot. But for others who do not want to learn scripting, Construct, Fusion, of Buildbox (just checked that one out) will be a better choice. But in that case you will have to invest money. As I said, nothing comes for free.