Ashley Well, thanks for ruining my game Ash.... You see I decided to check the performance link you gave me, and I figured I'd take care of some of the easier ones, so I started with "Avoid objects with large areas of transparency." and guess what happened?!?!

After I shift+croped my assets every level that wasn't currently opened got fucked up! Weeks of work down the drain.... And of course I had to notice it only after I just finished the last level, saved and closed C2, so now I can't even go back and freaking undo it! I have to manually fix every element on each of those levels and reinput their normal/initial size.

Well mate, when you have any other bright ideas let me know, I'll be sure to jump right on them.

P.S. If I sound bitter, that's because I am.

Cool, thank you for the link Ashley , I'll be sure to give it a good read. And yeah, if I ever come across one of those examples I'll definitely let you know.

I know the feeling first hand zenox98 , I myself had to "downscale" my expecations a bit since I started this whole thing.

True that, you have a point Ashley . But looool how come you can get 20k sprites with 30 fps when I've seen other posts of people having problems with even less then 64 sprites? What is your secret, please teach us ohhh mighty grasshopper, or are we really just that bad at optimizing and "coding" our games?

Hmmmm, yeah, I guess those things should count for something... I still find the situation extremly funny/deplorable. It seems like we've gotten so far, but at the same time like we haven't really moved at all.

Hello World,

So your average smartphone/tablet is what, a few thousand times faster then a nes? So then how come we still have to worry about how many sprites we can display on the screen at the same time without lagging the game, and how come that number doesn't seem to have changed much since the nes era?!

brunopalermo Yeah, I know you weren't criticizing me, and I didn't mean to make it sound like I was attacking you, sorry if it came out like that.

Well you might be right, but I had to try. If I don't get enough responses/opinions then I don't know, heck maybe I'll just flip a coin...

Well thats exactly why I asked brunopalermo . Because the fact is that eighter option can work just as well with the type of game I am making. So at that point the only thing that matters, in my opinion, is what most people would enjoy more.

I know it's impossible to please everyone, so I made it a point not to obsess over that when I decided to start doing this. That being said if a person is gonna try a level a bunch of times, fail repeatedly, then has to quit the entire game because the levels are locked; if that person represents lets say 1 out of every 100 people out there, then cool, I'll lock the levels and not worry about it; however if that person represents 1 out of every 3 people out there then I'd rather leave the levels open.

That's why I am trying to get a sample of the public here.

So come on everyone, don't be shy, would like a bunch more opinions please.

P.S. A star system is an interesting idea, I'll look into that. Thanks Burvey , Aphrodite , Somebody

Hello World,

So this time I'd like to pick your brains from a gamers perspective, not from a developers perspective.

When you guys play games that have the "You have to finish this level before you can move to the next one" restriction, how do you feel about that?

a) It gives me a challenge, makes me feel like I have a goal to look forward to. So I try harder and end up playing more.

b) It annoys me, if I get stuck on a level I won't try very hard to pass it. So I give up fast and end up playing less.

Thank you all.

P.S. It seems like I don't have permission to create an actual poll, for whatever reason(sorry about that) so please leave replies with your thoughts, thanks.

K, thank you ErekT

I'd like to know the answer to this question too as it seems that saving/loading the game is messing with my global variables. If there ins't a way to do it from within C2 then where is it actually saved on the disk? So I can delete it manually. I checked the users folder (yeah, with all the hidden stuff showing) but I haven't been able to locate it yet.

One direction movement. Yeah, your idea could work, I'll test it out unless anyone comes up with something better, thanks.

Hello World,

So what I am trying to do is destroy objects when they find themselves a certain number of pixels behind a certain object. Now I know what you're gonna ask "Why don't you just use outside of layout behavior?" or "Why don't you just place an object outside of layout at the position you want and everything that collides with it gets destroyed?" I can't use anything like that because(unless I understood this entire part completely wrong) the way I set up my game, the layers themselves don't move, they are prebuilt and the scroll is attached to the player, so he travels through them.

So I played around for a bit and ended up with an event that basically says every tick if Sky.X is less than Playerbox.X-600 then destroy Sky. Now this works for a few seconds, but as the player travels more his X obviously changes and after a while the sky starts getting destroyed even when it's ahead of the player. So I guess what I need is for the sky to get destroyed depending on the relative Playerbox.X-600?

Not sure how well I explained it, let me know if I have to be more clear. Thank you guys.