Holy shitballs, I knew Construct 2 was gonna use OpenGL as a renderer, but it exports to HTML5 too - and potentially every platform under the sun. Some of you will know Construct, the open-source game maker by a few bedroom coders. Personally, I think despite all the bugs, it is an absolutely awesome piece of software, but some of its main problems included the aforementioned bugs, lack of ability for collaboration with team projects, and the fact that it uses DirectX, limiting possible platforms. The developers realised from their work on the project and from constant feedback, was that Construct 0.X was technically flawed. I figured they would start on Construct 2 with a new, technically superior codebase, rather than try and slog it out for a 1.0 release. That, is pretty much what they did, which was a smart move. With Construct 2, they're making it better for themselves and users, with a far better codebase (hopefully), and fixing bugs will be much easier this time, too. They're already doing much better. The public preview of Construct 2 is extremely primitive compared to its predecessor (not surprising, as it's basically pre-alpha), but one of the most surprising things about it is the HTML5 support, which allows web support and support for every platform that can use web browsers that can use HTML5, meaning that Construct already starts out with an export format that is multiplatform, a smart move. However, that doesn't mean that Construct 2 is just for web games. Using its "Modular Export" system, further down the line, there will no doubt be exporters for Windows EXEs, Mac, Lunix, iPhone, and potentially every platform under the sun, allowing C2 to be able to adapt to new technologies in the future, and third parties will be able to make those exporters, as well. Other new features include: Checked builds Unicode Support XML Data Format Project Folder Structure (plus the optional single file format for smaller games and demos) Improved UI OpenGL Folder hierarchy for projects There is both a 32-bit and 64-bit native version of the IDE, so 64-bit users can enjoy improved performance. Portable Installation There's a new "configurations" system. You can edit multiple configurations (ie. tweaked arrangements) of your project, for example, to create a demo of just the first three levels - within the same project as the main game. The x.xx.xx version number system has been dropped. "1.0" is an arbitrary milestone - not only was it a bit of a fiasco with the previous version, but software rarely reaches 1.0 and stays there, so "1.0" hardly means "done". To reflect this, releases will simply be numbered (1, 2, 3, 4...). There is no backwards compatibility with Construct 0.x, but this is something that was necessary, since 0.x was technically flawed. Here, a HTML5 test demo. Normally I'd say don't bother trying anything more than messing around with C2 right now, as there's no point, but doesn't stop people from TRYING, though, I mean, someone's already made a basic platformer and Asteroids in this thing. Severe limitations does not seem to stop anyone, it seems. The Construct community has a habit of looking at limitations, scoffing, and then proceeding to do it anyway because they can.
Will the IDE itself be compatible for linux? I've been looking for a good graphical game dev IDE for linux for a while now.
Sadly, no, the IDE is still Windows-only, but the IDE uses OpenGL rather than DirectX, so I imagine it would be easier to port over, and more compatible with virtual machines.
At least I can actually use this version, I can't download the latest Direct X on my laptop, currently my only computer.
Well, right not it's not useful for anything substantial, heck, there isn't any variables... Though, as I said, that hasn't stopped the Construct community from laughing in the face of limitations once again. Seriously, some people there have a habit of doing stuff that Construct shouldn't be normally capable of doing. QuaziGNRLnose alone has pulled out a 3D thumb wars game, 3D lighting and Verlet physics, <a href="http://"%20<a%20href="http://www.scirra.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8126""%20target="_blank">http://www.scirra.com/forum/viewtopic.php?...mp;t=8126"</a>" target="_blank">physics-based hair/fur</a>, and other stuff that makes me wonder if I'm involved in a community of mad computer scientists.
I'm still unsure how I feel about this. I've used the 0.x series for two years and I feel like C2 is a step in a direction that might not be for me. Namely, by focusing on HTML5, I'm afraid that they're making this more of a tool for simple games like Flash. We won't be getting back our pixel shader effects and web performance just isn't as good (I think it's expected that a simple 2D game will run okay on a Pentium 4 class computer, but even the scripting on Facebook makes my 1.6ghz P4 laptop choke so I expect very little) I was making a pretty large game that used many of Construct's features, especially graphical ones, but I'm afraid C2 isn't going to supply the features or performance I need. I guess I might need to learn something else. For now I'll wait and see, though.
If you read my initial post carefully, as well as the topics in the Preview forum, HTML5 is merely the starting export option. C2's "Modular Export" feature will allow exporting so C2 games could potentially be played on every viable platform. HTML5 is a good multi-platform start because C2 isn't even close to features that HTML5 would be incompatible with. Having other export modules will obviously be necessary as C2 becomes more and more functional, but right now, C2 is hardly in any state to actually make anything more than demoes and whatnot. Scirra-developed or not, there WILL be a Windows EXE export module, and lots more. Right now, it just isn't needed.
Maybe I'm confused and making huge assumptions but I figured that these different exporters (like EXE) would actually just be HTML5 wrappers. Namely, just an HTML5 build inside what's basically a web browser with only HTML5 parsing. And won't the feature set, then, overall be defined only by what HTML5 will support?
The IDE itself uses OpenGL, which means the HTML5 export module is just that - a module that exports to HTML5. HTML5 is a starting point for exporting, it wouldn't make sense to not include stuff from 0.x that doesn't work in HTML5 because of the limits of that specific format.
C2 going primarily HTML5 does make sense from a forward-thinking perspective, though I'm a little worried they're thinking too far ahead. Right now this kind of browser tech is a bit bleeding edge and will take a bit of time to mature. However, depending on the browser you use, it is getting fairly close to a desktop experience in terms of capability. Heck, somewhere along the line they could implement it using WebGL and get things like shaders and basic 3D support back.
It's quite neat and, if I may say so, amazing they managed to create a game-maker-like program for <canvas>. (Even though it's all basically just javascript) Unfortunately, I concur. <canvas> is less consistent than Flash. Although the example results equally in all browsers (bar some difference in the display of text), I'm quite worried this will differ dramatically with more complex games. But I hope I'm wrong here. Regardless, it's quite neat what they're aiming at with this.
Speaking of WebGL, Ashley on the official forums mentioned that the HTML5 exporter may also include WebGL, but the major, major MAJOR problem is how likely Microsoft will support it with IE... I would really hope that Microsoft actually uses WebGL, but they really like to ignore what everyone else is doing and do it their way.
I have messed around with Construct a lot, and I really do like it. What has kind of ruined it for me is, when it comes to the actual game desiging/programming part, the UI serves to be counter intuitive, compared to a program like Game Maker. And I would use Game Maker if it weren't for it being so damn slow and limited. I hope shit like that is addressed in C2, since now they are sort of making it from scratch and have nothing to lose with lack of backwards compatibility and what not. My attention has really gravitated towards Unity these days, especially considering their indie version is now free.
This is really cool stuff. I've been using Construct for about half a year now, and I've found it to be more accessible than any other program I've used before. It's not the most stable program, but it seems like C2 is going to fix that issue, anyway. Can't wait to see more.
Well its hard to explain, but the interface in Construct for building events and actions (the code if you will) is awkward and counter intuitive. With Game Maker I can dive in and start making things right away, but with Construct I have to bend over backwards and do acrobats with my mouse to put shit together.
Well, you're gonna hate MMF, because it's far, far worse. I'm pretty much used to the Construct way of doing things, and I really don't find it counter-intuitive, but, different strokes for different folks, I suppose. Okay, yes, you have to move the mouse more, but considering the sheer amount of possible conditions and events, it can't be helped, GM would be like that if it had nearly as many conditions/events. If there's anything it has over GM, it's that you can actually make something with genuine substance without having to use the scripting system, whereas GM's event system has severe limitations. Thankfully, behaviours can help considerably with the workload, so there's that, too. Really, there's a lot about GM I find rather inferior to how Construct does things. On another note, Construct 2 R27 is out, now with Variables, or in this case, 'Instance Variables'! Also, new demo. Seems that Ghost Shooting is popular with Construct demoes.
Thanks for saving me, I was just about to try out MMF2... >.> Considering what you say, I guess I will have to give Construct more investigation and experimentation.
