I guess I'm not clear on the process, though... Maybe I spoke too soon and should have learnt more about it before posting my thoughts...

Ah, who cares about such trivial things as "facts" anyway? I learned all I needed about this by briefly skimming through two whole blog comments and filtering it through my residual prejudice of GameMaker. It's more fun that way

where's Rich?

He was eaten by a goose.

There is no doubt that the people involved are potentially committing a criminal offense...

Um... If the criminal offense is "potential," as in it may or may not be a criminal offense, then logically speaking there is doubt...

Anyway, Mr. Duncan seems seems like he's just blowing a lot of hot air. From what I can see they don't really have any legal grounds for a lawsuit. They're just upset because they'll be losing money. I'm sure Adobe is upset about FlashDevelop/Flashpunk and the like, but what can they do about it? Not much.

Anyway, it's not going to do anything but hurt GM's reputation further if they continue to pursue this.

<img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/529356/letmegetthatforyou.png">

Hehe, sorry... couldn't resist . Anyway no offense, but yeah, DirectX pretty much means that you can't run Construct on a Mac. I heard a rumor somewhere that C2 might be able to do something about that... I dunno...

Well it is limited tho...

You can only offset x, or y, not both at the same time, and you still cant change the angle.

Not sure, I haven't tried it, but you may be able to do a diagonal with a distortmap.

Huh? Not only can you do all of that, you can do all three at the same time if you want:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/529356/tiledbgo ... dangle.cap

Unless you mean you can't change the angle of the object itself. In which case, no you can't. But you can change the angle of the tiled image within the object, which is pretty useful.

Aeal5566 and ansmesnobody made one called "Subject 66." Here's the thread:

You might want to talk to them if you're looking for tips, or the kinds of problems they ran into, etc.

But really, Davio's right. While you can make a point and click of that style, Construct isn't exactly set up for specifically making those kinds of games. You might want to check out AGS, I've heard it's pretty much the standard for that sort of thing.

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/

Also, not really an engineering thread, moving to OT.

Since red and green colliding is something that can only happen once in any given tick, you only need one collision check. What you're doing is finding the first event that returns true and shutting off all collision checks that follow it by using "Bump = 1"

Anyway, you need to think a bit more logically.

Do they collide?
    YES
        Is the speed between the two equal?
            YES - Knock them both back 50
            NO - Check who is faster
        Is red faster than green?
            YES - Knock green back at red's speed, knock red back 50
            NO - Do the opposite
[/code:yk2pb1go]

<img src="http://i54.tinypic.com/1zqdlcm.png">

Now, keep in mind that there is a bug in the platform object whereby it's speed is not constant*.  It's continuously fluctuating.  So when both players are running at what [i]should be[/i] full speed, one will almost always be going slightly faster than the other.  This means that the one who is slightly faster will get the advantage.  But this way the advantage will at least be random, instead of always favoring whoever gets top pick in the order of events.

*(To test this, move both of your players to the right.  Keep holding down the movement keys.  You can see the space between them will grown and shrink.  Eventually, one may even catch up to the other.)

He probably did a forum search and gave up when he saw this topic instead of making a thread in H/T to ask for help...? I'm guessing.

It's all good <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" />

What the hell? Where did this thread come from? Oh, uh...

2007? Nothing happened on this feature? Shame, scrolling backgrounds need to be made easy please.

Um... dude, this feature has been available for a thousand years now <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" />

Path movement is overkill for something simple like that. PR's solution is the most efficient.

>

> > Shall I finished my epic project on paper and so some artwork to go with it and then look for a company that would make it?

> >

>

> Will never happen.

>

Nice one! XD

It's true. Game companies just plain aren't interested in anyone's ideas. They have teams of people that they pay to come up with ideas for them, and even then only a very small fraction of those ideas ever get used.

There are two ways to get a video game company to listen to you:

1. Go to work for them. You have to start at the bottom doing shitty grunt-work for several years. And they don't listen to grunts. Grunts are there to make assets and program the ideas that the company already has. If you're really, really excellent (as in better than all of the hundreds of other people you work with) then maybe you can eventually work your way up to a position where they will start listening to you. And even then, AAA titles aren't designed by one person... if they like your idea at all then it will be passed to a committee where all of the details are going to get changed in order to make it more marketable, and your idea will no longer be your idea anyway. Also, they get all the rights to it.

2. Make your own hit game that makes a shitload of money. Money talks. When they see the giant pile of money that you made with your game, then a big name studio might be a little more likely to listen to you. But even then your game is going to get passed to a committee where all of your ideas get changed.

Basically the only people who are allowed to make a game exactly the way they want to are indies, and they have to do it on their own.

At any rate, 99% of being a solo game designer is trying to keep yourself from getting too epic. You have to learn to work within your means or else you will never make a game. My advice is to take your best 2 or 3 ideas from your epic game and throw the rest away, and make a smaller game with that.

> You need slightly more time to react to the mines. They go off way to friggin fast imo. Or you could start them off slow in lower levels and make them quicker in higher ones. And give them some kind of visual clue as to how much time they have, like a number that counts down or a meter that ticks off notches or something.

>

Not so sure about this. I like how the mines work right now. You come too close, see the light turn red and boom. Do you suggest making just the time longer they take to detonate or changing the range within mines detect the player too?

I meant just extending the time a little. At least on early levels. You don't want to completely brutalize players right off the bat, let them get used to the mechanics before you ramp up the difficulty. Otherwise you risk them losing interest right away.

But then again maybe it's not necessary. I think most of my frustration over the mines was the aftermath of not being able to finish the level, and having to exit to restart (I didn't know about the Home key at that point either ). If that part is addressed then the mines might not be so bad.