|
Posted By
|
Message
|
AshleysBrain
Registered
23/08/2007
Points
127
|
3rd March, 2011 at 18:44:44 -
@Cecil, there is no functionality difference, no gimping, no splash screen, no forced credit, no royalties - it's just a different license. Exactly the same software, just a cheaper license for indies who might not have much income.
I'm sorry you're peeved over going from free and open source to the licensing system, but we've actually worked really hard on 0.x (it's over a quarter of a million lines of code) and just about could cover the website hosting cost from donations, so we never actually earnt anything from it. To be honest I think what we are doing is perfectly fair - once the product is mature I think it's a very fair price, and we're not tieing it up with DRM or copy protection either.
- Ashley
www.scirra.com
|
Hagar
Administrator
Old klik fart
Registered
20/02/2002
Points
1692
 
|
3rd March, 2011 at 18:59:09 -
Originally Posted by Sketchy
I like that it's going to be based on html5/canvas, but unfortunately they're keeping the ribbon interface, which means it will still be a steaming pile of crap. Too bad...
I absolutely detest ribbon interfaces... 
n/a
|
Johnny Look
One Happy Dude
Registered
14/05/2006
Points
2942
|
3rd March, 2011 at 19:14:18 -
I don't understand what's so wrong about the ribbon interface, specially since you barely use it in construct. Also I don't see how a bar in top of the program make it a "steaming pile of crap", but perhaps that's just me.
n/a
|
Cecilectomy
noPE
Registered
19/03/2005
Points
305
       
|
3rd March, 2011 at 19:20:46 -
agreed with above.
the only reason i don't like it is because I'm used to having toolbars, and using menus. I have no idea where anything is in Office now.
n/a
|
Silveraura
God's God
Registered
08/08/2002
Points
6747
       
|
3rd March, 2011 at 23:21:13 -
Programing in C++ is free and has a world of more flexibility than MMF2. Does that mean it sucks even worse? 
Just keeping things in perspective here. No need to hate.
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame
|
alastair john jack
BANNED
Registered
01/10/2004
Points
294
  
|
3rd March, 2011 at 23:48:49 -
The ribbon thing is minized most of the time, except for the brief moment of creating a new project or opening one. uh oh!
lol
|
Hagar
Administrator
Old klik fart
Registered
20/02/2002
Points
1692
|
4th March, 2011 at 00:13:51 -
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIREPrograming in C++ is free and has a world of more flexibility than MMF2. Does that mean it sucks even worse?
Just keeping things in perspective here. No need to hate.
I was talking in general about ribbon interfaces (does anyone prefer Office 2007 or later over 2003?). For example in office 2007 do I really (please tell me if I do not ) have to sacrifice that much screen space for styles? As far as I know I have no option to set it back to the 2003 method of choosing styles which took up a lot less screen real estate. This is my big gripe against ribbons, I have no control (as far as I know) on optimising the interface for things I use often. These things I would have as toolbars, and items I use rarely I would leave in the menus. It's as if MS just had to change the interface to make office look new. Thank god I hardly use office these days, LaTex for the win !
My job involves programming in C (no object orientation), assembly and VHDL. Not one piece of professional software I use for my work features the ribbon interface, because engineers know what works - its kind of part of the job description  .
On that note I keep threatening to make the jump to SDL/Irrlicht.
n/a
|
Sketchy
Cornwall UK
Registered
06/11/2004
Points
1970
|
4th March, 2011 at 00:44:34 -
The fact that the ribbon interface wastes a lot of space is just one of the reasons it sucks. Minimizing it may solve that one problem, but the fact remains that when you do use it, it sucks.
If the best thing you can say in it's defense is basically "well you don't have to use it very often", then why bother changing it, bearing in mind pretty much everything else is just a direct rip off of MMF to begin with?
My guess is they think it somehow looks more modern/professional, because Microsoft use it - and to hell with functionality/productivity. It's just retarded...
@Hagar:
I think 2010 is supposed to be a little more customizeable, but 2007 really isn't. There are actually third-party programs you can buy though, that will give Excel 2007 the 2003-style menus and toolbars. Just goes to show how much many people hate it...
Personally, I uninstalled 2007 (came bundled with my new computer), and replaced it with 2003. 
 Edited by Sketchy
n/a
|
Johnny Look
One Happy Dude
Registered
14/05/2006
Points
2942
|
4th March, 2011 at 01:26:20 -
Originally Posted by Sketchy
If the best thing you can say in it's defense is basically "well you don't have to use it very often", then why bother changing it, bearing in mind pretty much everything else is just a direct rip off of MMF to begin with?
Would you call openoffice a ms office rip off ?
You seem to forget construct is free and developed by volunteers, your tone make it look like a big ass corporation stole an idea from a small and poor company in the hope of making big bucks when all they did was provide everyone with a free (and imo improved) alternative to mmf2.
Until now you haven't provided a decent reason why construct sucks so bad in your opinion.
n/a
|
UrbanMonk
BRING BACK MITCH
Registered
07/07/2008
Points
49567
     
|
4th March, 2011 at 02:23:23 -
Originally Posted by Johnny LookUntil now you haven't provided a decent reason why construct sucks so bad in your opinion.
I disagree with your opinion on his opinion. 
Originally Posted by Johnny Lookfree (and imo improved) alternative to mmf2.
Improved?  Not by a long shot, it's more buggy than the first release of vista.
PROVE ME WRONG BABY! 
I do like the HTML5 bit although its a bit slow atm.
n/a
|
Sketchy
Cornwall UK
Registered
06/11/2004
Points
1970
|
4th March, 2011 at 02:37:57 -
Obviously it's hard to call one office suite a rip off of another, as there have been many rival companies gradually perfecting them, over a very long period of time. No one company can really take the credit for inventing the modern office suite.
In the case of "game makers" though, Clickteam single-handedly invented the genre with Klik 'n' Play, and while MMF2 is much more powerful, the concept and interface is virtually unchanged. The makers of Construct just ripped off that concept and the bulk of the interface, while adding very little themselves (apart from the crappy ribbon). I hardly think it's a coincidence that the designer of Construct was himself, a long time kliker.
You seem to forget that it shouldn't matter if it's a "big ass corporation" or "small and poor company" - they should all play by the same rules.
Your tone makes it look like you think it's okay for volunteers to rip off a big ass corporation, but not the other way around?
Even if they were making no money at all out of Construct (and they obviously intend to), they're still depriving Clickteam of income. If you reproduce someone else's work, you should expect to have to pay them for it - even if you then pass that copy on to someone else, free of charge.
My personal experience of Construct:
Obviously most of Construct is copied directly from MMF2, so it's neither better nor worse. Flexibility/performance isn't an issue either - there's nothing you could make in Construct that you couldn't make in MMF2, and perhaps vice versa (apart from MMF2 having more export options, and crashing less often).
So, you have to focus on the differences.
The Construct interface is bad. Not just the awful ribbon, but all of it - simple tasks like coding an event take more clicks, or require a double-click when a single click could have been used instead. It's stuff like that - many small details, that eventually start to stack up. The whole point of these kinds of programs is that they are supposed to make game-making quick and simple - and Construct just doesn't.
Basically, with a few exceptions, everything that's the same is the same, and everything that's different is worse.
n/a
|
![]()
Ski
TDC is my stress ball
Registered
13/03/2005
Points
10130
  
|
4th March, 2011 at 03:00:36 -
For once I agree with Sketchy. What also saddens me is the lack of loyalty in the community. Its amazing how many faults people list with Click products as soon as a clone arrives on the scene, as if using it will suddenly help develop their game making skills, even though they've been using click products for years and still release perfectly mediocre games that could be made in KnP.
Or they release no games at all, but still like to spout off joining in the debate because they're technical nerds and only give a shit about the interface of the product, or experimenting with applications which get abandoned because they lacked programming knowledge (but its actually MMF's fault! )
n/a
|
Johnny Look
One Happy Dude
Registered
14/05/2006
Points
2942
|
4th March, 2011 at 04:00:36 -
urbanmonk:
Buggier doesn't necessarily mean worse, and other than the occasional weird crash when exiting the program I don't recall experiencing any other bug or crash with the last build.
If I wanted to point out what construct has that mmf2 doesn't I could start with default movements that actually work, built in physics, object selection that doesn't break if you use many objects, built in pathfinding etc...
sketchy:
"Obviously it's hard to call one office suite a rip off of another, as there have been many rival companies gradually perfecting them, over a very long period of time. No one company can really take the credit for inventing the modern office suite."
I don't know how openoffice is right now since I haven't used it for some time, but the interface in most if not all applications used to be exactly the same. They even supported ms office's formats. It's not just that they are both office suites, they are simply identical. It's as much as a rip off to ms office as construct to mmf2.
I spoke about open office like I could be talking about any other open source software that is based on a commercial product.
"In the case of "game makers" though, Clickteam single-handedly invented the genre with Klik 'n' Play, and while MMF2 is much more powerful, the concept and interface is virtually unchanged. The makers of Construct just ripped off that concept and the bulk of the interface, while adding very little themselves (apart from the crappy ribbon). I hardly think it's a coincidence that the designer of Construct was himself, a long time kliker. "
What about game maker and the other countless game makers that came after ? The interface is different but the concept is the same. Should clickteam sue them all ? Would construct be acceptable to you if they changed the interface ?
"You seem to forget that it shouldn't matter if it's a "big ass corporation" or "small and poor company" - they should all play by the same rules.
Your tone makes it look like you think it's okay for volunteers to rip off a big ass corporation, but not the other way around? "
Taking the openoffice example, it's ok to rip off Microsoft but it's wrong to rip off clicteam ?
"Even if they were making no money at all out of Construct (and they obviously intend to), they're still depriving Clickteam of income. If you reproduce someone else's work, you should expect to have to pay them for it - even if you then pass that copy on to someone else, free of charge. "
They aren't reproducing someone else's work, they did everything from scratch. The only based themselves on mmf2's interface not because they wanted to rip off clickteam but because it was the interface they were familiar with.
But this isn't about construct copying the interface or not. If construct sucked so much as you said, it wouldn't be a problem for clickteam. The problem is construct is good actually, if clickteam can't cope with the competition that's their problem.
"there's nothing you could make in Construct that you couldn't make in MMF2"
That's not entirely true. For example, try stress testing mmf2's object selection and it will eventually break. Try doing the same with construct and it will work all the time. This, along with the built in RTS/pathfinding movement make it possible to make a full scaled rts in construct while in mmf2 sooner or later the game will break.
"The Construct interface is bad. Not just the awful ribbon, but all of it - simple tasks like coding an event take more clicks, or require a double-click when a single click could have been used instead. It's stuff like that - many small details, that eventually start to stack up. The whole point of these kinds of programs is that they are supposed to make game-making quick and simple - and Construct just doesn't."
The interface isn't bad, it's identical to mmf2's. If anything you're not used to the few differences between both, but they aren't enough for anyone to claim one is great and the other is terrible.
You probably tried construct with a certain mindset, and when you're convinced that the program had to suck before you even tried it then it will suck for you.
"Basically, with a few exceptions, everything that's the same is the same, and everything that's different is worse."
This sums up your entire post well. You said construct was a pile of crap, but judging by what you just said construct is, barring some slight differences, is identical to mmf2.
Your problem isn't so much about construct being bad or good, it's that according to you it rips off clickteam, hurting them.
Clickteam going under can be frightening thought to a lot of people and I can see why.
Adam:
"What also saddens me is the lack of loyalty in the community. "
Loyality to who ? Clickteam ?
Usually it's the client who expects loyality and support from the company, not the other way around. I'm not used to lick anyone's boots, specially if I don't owe them anything.
Edited by Johnny Look
n/a
|
Silveraura
God's God
Registered
08/08/2002
Points
6747
|
4th March, 2011 at 04:07:32 -
Originally Posted by DCI Hagar
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIREPrograming in C++ is free and has a world of more flexibility than MMF2. Does that mean it sucks even worse?
Just keeping things in perspective here. No need to hate.
I was talking in general about ribbon interfaces (does anyone prefer Office 2007 or later over 2003?). For example in office 2007 do I really (please tell me if I do not ) have to sacrifice that much screen space for styles? As far as I know I have no option to set it back to the 2003 method of choosing styles which took up a lot less screen real estate. This is my big gripe against ribbons, I have no control (as far as I know) on optimising the interface for things I use often. These things I would have as toolbars, and items I use rarely I would leave in the menus. It's as if MS just had to change the interface to make office look new. Thank god I hardly use office these days, LaTex for the win !
My job involves programming in C (no object orientation), assembly and VHDL. Not one piece of professional software I use for my work features the ribbon interface, because engineers know what works - its kind of part of the job description .
On that note I keep threatening to make the jump to SDL/Irrlicht.
I wasn't responding to you. I agree with you.
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame
|
Cecilectomy
noPE
Registered
19/03/2005
Points
305
|
4th March, 2011 at 04:28:29 -
I have never really made anything worthwhile or complete with either mmf gamemaker construct or otherwise. I have made a few odds and ends here and there but nothing on a grand scale. I've always wanted to but i just get bored after awhile. I tend to code more technical things, like engines, widgets, plugins, etc, or just try to see if something is possible. I also don't limit myself to Game Making Software. I am currently working in XNA and as a game making framework its pretty badass. Lots of code to work from on the internet, and its super easy to use.
With that said, the only reason im interested in products like these is to see what its all about and fiddle around with the software. Maybe put out a few technical pieces, help other users complete their own projects, solve problems, etc.
As far as the interface being "crap", well thats your opinion, imo its far better than mmf, aside from the ribbon. I also think MS KNOWS that its kind of crap because their mainstream software uses it but their developer software doesnt. Developers would be outraged if Visual Studio or Expression Studio used the Ribbon Interface.
n/a
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
Post Reply