[Azu]

Construct 2 is good for making HTML5 games and all that, but other than that, I'd go with MMF2 or Game Maker. MMF2 is cheaper than Construct 2, but only by like 10 bucks or so. If you're into learning coding, then I'd try something like XNA or if you can wait for the port Sonic Worlds is built. I haven't try Unity, but from what I hear is nice, but I'd recommend UDK, it's not that hard to learn (aside form scripting)

This post has been edited by Azu: 13 June 2013 - 08:36 PM

[Thousand Pancake]

This is only speaking from personal observation, but:

Game Maker:
Pros: Very powerful, well suited for many different types of games
Cons: Runtime is buggy, somewhat slow, tempermental with certain systems

Stencyl
Pros: Editor supports all desktop OSes, exports to Flash and desktop
Cons: Potentially limited, simple actions can be needlessly complex to program

GF2/MMF2:
Pros: Stable, good extensibility, relatively easy to use, interesting option for legacy systems
Cons: Expensive, most export plugins also cost money, runtime can be slow for action games with complex physics and/or lots of things going on at once

Construct 2:
Pros: Easy to use, powerful runtime, exports to many, many platforms out of the box
Cons: Also expensive

Unity:
Pros: Easy to use, good for practically anything, exports to a lot of stuff
Cons: Designed for 3D games, not 2D; potentially expensive

Game Editor:
Pros: Editor supports all major desktop OSes, uncluttered UI, self-contained runtime avoids pitfalls with porting
Cons: Exporting options limited, crappy community, development is slow

[Mr Lange]

Thousand Pancake, on 31 July 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

This is only speaking from personal observation, but:

Game Maker:
Pros: Very powerful, well suited for many different types of games
Cons: Runtime is buggy, somewhat slow, tempermental with certain systems

Stencyl
Pros: Editor supports all desktop OSes, exports to Flash and desktop
Cons: Potentially limited, simple actions can be needlessly complex to program

GF2/MMF2:
Pros: Stable, good extensibility, relatively easy to use, interesting option for legacy systems
Cons: Expensive, most export plugins also cost money, runtime can be slow for action games with complex physics and/or lots of things going on at once

Construct 2:
Pros: Easy to use, powerful runtime, exports to many, many platforms out of the box
Cons: Also expensive

Unity:
Pros: Easy to use, good for practically anything, exports to a lot of stuff
Cons: Designed for 3D games, not 2D; potentially expensive

Game Editor:
Pros: Editor supports all major desktop OSes, uncluttered UI, self-contained runtime avoids pitfalls with porting
Cons: Exporting options limited, crappy community, development is slow

I'm gonna add on to that a bit.

Game Maker:
While Game Maker is very powerful, it's a bit lopsided in the features it has out of the box. For example, it gives you great tools for handling movement, but if you want collision detection you're on your own since it has no routines or anything other than some raw functions for checking collisions. Making a platformer for example means you're not much better off than just learning a language raw, because you have to make a good collision system yourself. It's strange how they make some things very accessible for beginners while leaving them to fall flat on their faces when it comes to important features that a beginner would need.

MMF2:
I wouldn't suggest this for game development, mostly because it's actually more expensive than Construct 2, which is more recent and probably more capable. MMF2 is very old and has needed a lot of external support to bring up the slack, mostly in the form of extensions and plugins. The full version of Construct 2 is cheaper, more robust and flexible, and unlike the aging MMF2, it's undergoing heavy development so it's seeing a brighter future.

Construct 2:
Depending on your needs you may want to try Construct Classic, which is now open source and still very powerful, although development on it has slowed to a crawl, if not a complete stop. The editor is a little buggy on occasion, but I've found it to still be a powerful game dev tool, just as capable as Game Maker and in some ways more capable than MMF2. However it only exports to PC exes, so you don't have much in the way of cross platform support. If you're willing to shell out the dough, Construct 2 is the way to go.

Unity:
I'm moving to Unity and leaving all the other programs behind. The more I study it and learn how to use it the more I realize it's far more capable than all of the other programs. Despite the 1,500k price tag, they do offer a free indie version with some of the modern graphical powers cut out, but most of the program is still intact. Also it is actually far more capable of 2d games than the other programs, provided you know how to bend it to your will. Honestly I don't see any reason to go with the others aside from using them as a low barrier entry to learning game development. I recommend at some point you move to Unity, if not right away.

Game Editor and Stencyl:
Just avoid these. They are not worth your time.

[Aerosol]

You make that sound like a cake-walk.

[Black Squirrel]

Strictly speaking Unity is probably the more "professional" of the set above, although I'd argue it's entirely unsuited to hobbiest game development and little projects you want to get done quickly.


Another possible option is to go down the Python/Pygame route. That's what the Rasperry Pi endorses, so there'll be schools across the land teaching that stuff to kids. Again it depends entirely if you want to do programming as a professional career - Python's ultra-simplfied user-friendly syntax is lovely, but it won't teach good coding practice, particularly if you start using classes. Pygame is a wrapper for SDL, which is a top choice for cheapo game development in C++ - you lose speed, but you keep functionality.

(also Python forces correct spacing with code, which is something Game Maker doesn't bother with (and at least half of Game Maker users))

[Mr Lange]

Black Squirrel, on 01 August 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

Strictly speaking Unity is probably the more "professional" of the set above, although I'd argue it's entirely unsuited to hobbiest game development and little projects you want to get done quickly.

Depends on your experience. It's probably the fastest pipeline possible for game development of any kind given the power that program has. While in Game Maker you can slap together a space shooter in five minutes because the interface lets you, Unity has a much more balanced approach that is ultimately far more flexible. You can still produce good games very quickly. This is why I encourage learning it, as well as Java which it uses.

Black Squirrel, on 01 August 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

Another possible option is to go down the Python/Pygame route. That's what the Rasperry Pi endorses, so there'll be schools across the land teaching that stuff to kids. Again it depends entirely if you want to do programming as a professional career - Python's ultra-simplfied user-friendly syntax is lovely, but it won't teach good coding practice, particularly if you start using classes. Pygame is a wrapper for SDL, which is a top choice for cheapo game development in C++ - you lose speed, but you keep functionality.

(also Python forces correct spacing with code, which is something Game Maker doesn't bother with (and at least half of Game Maker users))

I wouldn't bother with Python, it's doing its own thing. The language is completely different from C and Java. Python is an interpreted language, so it generally runs much slower than compiled languages like C++, and there's only a couple worthwhile engines out there for Python programmers, like Blender and Panda3D. Languages like C++ and Java are more powerful, much faster, much more capable, and naturally used the most in game development anywhere. You're better off learning one of those, or more than one if possible.

[winterhell]

Don't use Java for games. C++ and C# are better alternatives.

[Mr Lange]

winterhell, on 01 August 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Don't use Java for games. C++ and C# are better alternatives.

While C++ and C# are better overall, Java is a much easier language to learn and has similar structure, so it's a good start. Also by using a hardware accelerated engine through Java you can get around a lot of speed it lacks compared to the C languages.
This is another good reason to learn Unity, because it allows you to code in Java or C#. You don't even have to use the same language for every script (though in practice it is best to do so).

This post has been edited by Mr Lange: 01 August 2013 - 06:26 PM

[.Luke]

While Game Maker fills most of my 2D needs, and one specific 3D case, Unity sounds more and more appealing with everything I read about it. Me and a couple guys want to make the jump to 3D with Unity, in the near-enough future, so these facts are encouraging to read, Mr.Lange. I wouldn't mind learning Java either, since it has way more applications beyond the games space as well.

The price tag for the full version still sounds the most painful of other options, (Although still not as expensive as Autodesk Maya; $3,000+ nearly made me fall out of my chair.) but I'm glad I could easily avoid that, until I can justify affording it. I'm very surprised the indie version isn't stripped bare like other game development software.

[BlobVanDam]

.Luke, on 02 August 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

While Game Maker fills most of my 2D needs, and one specific 3D case, Unity sounds more and more appealing with everything I read about it. Me and a couple guys want to make the jump to 3D with Unity, in the near-enough future, so these facts are encouraging to read, Mr.Lange. I wouldn't mind learning Java either, since it has way more applications beyond the games space as well.

The price tag for the full version still sounds the most painful of other options, (Although still not as expensive as Autodesk Maya; $3,000+ nearly made me fall out of my chair.) but I'm glad I could easily avoid that, until I can justify affording it. I'm very surprised the indie version isn't stripped bare like other game development software.

The main limitation of the basic version of Unity is the lack of graphic effects such as full screen shaders, and the more advanced lighting/shadows, but luckily you can get a feel for Unity and learn how to use it with the free version perfectly fine to see if it's for you before deciding whether it's worth investing more in it. I've been using Unity for a few years now, and developed my game to a playable level, and I haven't had any problem sticking with the free version. Then if I decide to take the game further, then I can get the full version and add in the eye candy!
And with the latest version now supporting iOS/Android/Windows Phone 8/Blackberry publishing in the free version, along with adding basic hard edged shadows, it's become a lot more appealing.

It's definitely not aimed at the same market as programs like Game maker (which I found very easy to pick up and starting making games with when I briefly used it ages ago), so there is a much steeper learning curve, but on the other hand it's a lot more powerful for making games, and there's a lot of stuff out there to help you learn, and a good support forum. And it's becoming more popular for developing bigger brand games, and I'm seeing an increasing number of jobs for Unity coders locally.


Obviously I'm biased by the fact I spent a lot of time using Unity, but if you have any interest in making 3D games, I can't recommend it enough. If you're only making 2D games, I'm not sure it's the most ideal solution as I've never tried using it for that, but there are plenty of quality 2D games that have used it.

This post has been edited by BlobVanDam: 02 August 2013 - 01:31 AM

[Mr Lange]

.Luke, on 02 August 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

While Game Maker fills most of my 2D needs, and one specific 3D case, Unity sounds more and more appealing with everything I read about it. Me and a couple guys want to make the jump to 3D with Unity, in the near-enough future, so these facts are encouraging to read, Mr.Lange. I wouldn't mind learning Java either, since it has way more applications beyond the games space as well.

The price tag for the full version still sounds the most painful of other options, (Although still not as expensive as Autodesk Maya; $3,000+ nearly made me fall out of my chair.) but I'm glad I could easily avoid that, until I can justify affording it. I'm very surprised the indie version isn't stripped bare like other game development software.

Maya ($3,675) is 3D content software, doesn't develop games at all. And like BlobVanDam just said the free version of Unity is still almost as capable, it only lacks the more advanced graphical features and much of the cross platform options, along with a few of the bells and whistles (the Mechanim plugin, audio filters, advanced profiler, couple other things I can't remember). This is all the more reason to take up learning a program like Blender too, which is nearly as powerful as Maya, 100% free, and is fully supported by Unity for handling content. The pipeline of getting assets from Blender to Unity works like witchcraft.

This post has been edited by Mr Lange: 02 August 2013 - 03:22 AM

[.Luke]

Yeah, both Unity and Maya are two completely different programs, but I was glad the former didn't cost as much as the latter. Something tells me there has been more expensive propriety software before, but it was my first realization that Photoshop is hardly the most pricey thing around.

And it's good to know Blender cooperates with Unity seamlessly, since I do plan on learning to use that for 3D modeling. Other alternatives either aren't as powerful/outdated, or are beyond the price range of what I would be willing to throw tons of money at. Blender's interface seemed a little overwhelming, like GIMP was at first, but that shouldn't be a problem once I have more time to play around with it.

Also, all those other extra features in the full version sound pretty nice, but ultimately, those would be side benefits compared to the multi-platform options that I might need later on. (Which I'd want to wait a while for, since Linux support is still in a preview stage.) In the meantime, Unity's free version will be more than powerful enough for the kinds of 3D projects I'd want to bring to life, and when I can justify porting anything finished to more platforms than Windows, I'd go for those additional advantages. Thanks for the insight, the both of you.

[Falk]

http://www.nightligh...m/files/ww.html

If you want an example of 2D in Unity.

It's not exactly as bloated as people make it out to be, unless you misuse the fuck out of it. (Which pretty much means avoid Java :V)

[GameNerd Advance]

This is my face when people refer to javascript as Java.

...

And yes, I came out of lurking just to express my disapproval at this.

[Mr Lange]

GameNerd Advance, on 25 August 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

Spoiler

This is my face when people refer to javascript as Java.

...

And yes, I came out of lurking just to express my disapproval at this.

WELL SORRY MR PEDANTIC yes they are quite different and Unity uses javascript and not Java. I think we're all on the same page anyway.

This post has been edited by Mr Lange: 26 August 2013 - 03:10 AM