1. You should be able to make any kind of 2D games with both engines.

2. My guess would be the answer written by —

3. You can do it with C2, I think you should be able to do it with Stencyl as well. I haven't tried this function yet.

4. Both should be able to handle your game in regarding performance. The main question here is: How well you can design your game? Even the best engine can lag your game if you use up the device's resources.

I only tried Stencyl for a short amount of time, but I moved back to C2. It can be my personal preference for C2, but my causes were:

• C2 is faster in development and easier to use.
• C2 has much more appealing license plans (I don't like the subscription version that Stencyl uses).

I'd love to say that sit down to C2 and start the development with it instantly, but I guess it would be best to think out a simple game idea, whitch you can make in about a day and try both engines. The one that fits your needs more will be the winner. Both of them have a great free version.

Still, I would say this: subscription pricing, as a concurrent alternative to a flat fee, might open the door to potential customers unwilling or unable to shell out for a full license all at once. Just a thought.

Subscription licenses are a good idea, but only if:

• There would be regular, one time buy licenses too, just like now. Don't forget the users who don't do full time development. Their projects can last even a year or more.
• Keep the offline license validation engine (or how do you call it?). Online can be a bit more secure, but I love the concept of the full usability offline.

Looking at C2, there so many things that van be improved and streamlined before C3. Let's not just hype for c3 yet. The year has only started. Let's make out of c2 best that it can be, improve performance, behaviors and plugins.

I totally agree. C2 is still have field to improve. It's a great (and probably necessary) step from Scirra to start planning C3, but don't just hype it yet.

And for the dark UI, I'd also give a +1, but it should be avaiable in C2 too.

...Haxe is a real candidate as it provides ways to have different native targets. One of the haxe frameworks, snowkit ( http://snowkit.org/ ) is heavily based on webgl standards and deploys to windows, mac, linux, ios, android in native and to webgl too.

I'm not sure how Scirra could do anything with Haxe, but if they can, please do so. Haxe is good framework and could solve a lot of the export problems.

glerikud

You worked with unreal engine 4 or/and cryengine too? You work with unity free version or pro? I wanna know which one of these is easy to learn and offer better conditions.

I'm currently learning Unity3D free version, and based on the tutorials I've linked in my previous post, it's not that hard (especially if you have some programming knowledge already). From the Unreal Engine, Cryengine and Unity trio, the easiest one is of course Unity. The other 2 was meant for big companies who have tons of programmers (you can still manage with them too, but they are harder). Unity is one of those ultimate indie tools whitch are powerful and easy to learn. If you want to talk about it more, let's continue it in PMs, because this topic is not about 3D engines

Godot i didn't know. This program based on scripting. Scripting is a problem for me, i have to learn. Blendergameengine (basic) is simpler but phyton script is difficult? Every 3D program is based on scripting. Q3D compare with blender, do you really think q3D is better? Blender examples: yo Frankie! Super Blender Galaxy. Orbito.

Eventually you can't avoid scripting with professional 3D engines. There are alternatives coming up, like Q3D, CopperCube or Spark Game Engine, but they'll all have to reach a stage where they can challange the better and currently widespread engines. I'm not saying witch one is better (Blender or Q3D), because I haven't used them for game creation yet. If you want to stick with C2, then I guess Q3D is a better bet for you. But in my opinion Unity is not that hard either, so you should check out their video tutorials here.

IMO we should drop the 3D requests already. I can totally agree with the users who posted these kind of opinions: C2 is for 2D and if you want to do 3D development, you should move to a different engine (like Unity, Unreal, Godot, etc..). If you really want to stay with C2 and do 3D, then try the Q3D plugin. 3D is complicated, way more complicated than 2D, and also, it takes up way more time (just think about creating the models). I'm not saying that 3D game development is not a good thing to do, but it's not for C2.

I think C2 is one of the best 2D game engines, and using HTML5 is rather an advantage than a disadvantage. I can think several ideas that I'd love to see integrated into the engine, but I only stick with the one I think is the most important: Hire more people! If you want to be able to keep the pace of the game engine market, and also if you want to satisfy the community, you'll need more people. Scirra stated before, that it's not an easy thing to do, because C2 is a pretty complicated software. Ok, I can agree with that, but the market and the community demands the bigger updates and redesigns of various parts of the engine. I'm not saying Scirra should hire 10 programmes instantly, but 1 or 2. Don't think too long on this. It's a step I think you must make very soon.

Just to note: I tried the Airsape Steam demo, and it works just fine.

For the developers who say you can't make any serious game with C2: Yes, you can. The engine is fully capable for that, even with the use of wrappers. And don't forget, the overall game depends more on the developer, than on the engine.

You could set the object's position with the touch object's coordinates. For example:

Is in touch (Touch oject) - Set position: X: Touch.X; Y: Touch.Y (Sprite object)

Also, you can use the Touch object's coordinates with a movenment behavior to create a smooth movenment.

Awesome tool, thank you.

Download the file, than scan it with and antivirus AND a malware scanner (I recomment MalwareBytes Anti-Malware).

Hi!

I guess you can't avoid that filesize with Intel XDK, because it wraps up your code with the Chromium browser. So that 17MB is your game + the browser.

Even 80mb shouldn't be a problem with today's internet connections. And you can pack a complicated game into 80mb.

After you set up the Admob object (providing it with the necessary ID's), on the event sheet you'll need to preload the ad, and when it's ready, you have to display it. For example if you want to show a banner ad:

System -> On start of layout: Admob -> Preload banner ad

Admob -> On banner ad received: Admob -> Show banner ad

Keep in mind that the ads won't show in preview mode. You have to export it with Intel XDK to test the functionality (and you only have to set the Test mode to false in the object's properties when you are ready to publish your game, otherwise a test banner will show in the exported app).

I just learned this recently with the help of this awesome community. Indeed, the Admob manual page could use a better explanation.