Originally Posted by -Adam- Now Construct is MANY advantages over MMF2, for example, with Construct a person can do physics without any difficulty. This is done with an easy to understand panel that handles physics with no problem. If you try to do physics with MMF2, you have to spend a great deal of time understanding and working with the physics extensions that are available for MMF2. Creating good physic code in MMF2 is NOT easy!
Why do you expect game making to be made easy for you? If you really want to make good games you need to be willing to learn, its not handed to you on a plate.
Isn't your post contradicting itself a bit?
You say that Construct makes Physics easy (IE: the feature is handed to you on a plate) and that Physics are very hard to pull off in MMF, yet you use this as an argument for "learning" to use Construct as not everything should be handed to you on a plate?
Actually the first paragraph isn't mine, I just didn't quote it properly.
I think it's obviously difficult to make a single product that will please both lazy beginners and advanced developers - there are just going to be too many compromises.
For anyone serious about making decent games, MMF2 is clearly better than Construct, while Construct may have more noob-friendly features.
Where Clickteam have gone really wrong, is with TGF2.
It *should* be noob-friendly, with solid built-in movements, physics, etc...
But it isn't - it's just as complicated and requires just as much effort to make a game (if not more, since it lacks extensions) as MMF2.
Anyway I haven't used an MMF physics extension and I haven't used Construct's built-in physics, but looking down your nose at the latter is just ridiculous - in either case you're using someone else's engine which is typically the done thing when implementing physics in a game. Construct just happens to do it better, as it does many things
Everything except having the huge resources of extension equivalents and built in tools that make it useful for rapid prototyping. When you're choosing to use a tool like MMF2 or Construct over say C++, the advantage is faster development time and ease of use, at the cost of power and efficiency. MMF2 has vast advantages over Construct in terms of ease of use and faster development due to the resources already available to it. Construct has marginally higher efficiency and power, but not on orders of magnitude. Its the same level of abstraction and high order- its not like you're working in machine code.
Take, for example, Microsoft Windows 7. Someone could create a new operating system from scratch that was far more efficient and elegant and secure than Windows by abandoning the huge feature bloat in it and starting anew. But its that same feature bloat, and the fact that its engrained as an industry and personal use standard, that makes Windows so hard to replace. Would you start programming games that could only run on a Unix box? Neither would I.
Because being new and shiny just isn't enough. Theres such a wealth of benefits to the age of MMF2 and its community. And construct may indeed be a stronger, more efficient and sleeker engine- but it doesn't have the same resources at its disposal. And I applaud them for the job they've done on it, and indeed in years to come Construct may reach a phase where it is a serious contender. But from a strictly utilitarian point of view, theres no reason to develop in it over MMF2 yet. The facts that its not stable and has a horrid pricing model and that construct 1 was a dropped project are easy and cheap ways to detract from Construct 2- easy to score points, but the underlying issue is really just that of community support and resources.
Construct is great, but the only thing it has going for it in these discussions is wanton fanboyism, something clickteam supporters are just as guilty of. And frankly, that shouldn't be the case- they are not just similar products with similar communities, but rather the latter is largely the same. There shouldn't be any bitterness there. I think its more important to take a objective point of view and just look at what it has going for it, before you swear by either.
And frankly, by the time you are strong enough at programming to be able to argue meaningfully for either of them, you should already be primarily C or Java or SQL or whatever, anyway.
Can't quite agree with Pixelthief, although many of his points are valid. Of course there are reasons to choose Construct over MMF. Some of which he mentions himself. Not only are we talking a "stronger, more efficient and sleeker engine", but also a vastly superior event editor and easier syntax. It gives me a headache trying to achieve even a remotely complex event structure in MMF's editor. There is a reason many of the current Construct users are former users of Clickteam products. Just like myself. Which has nothing to do with fanboyism, but common sense to choose the superior tool. Like others have already mentioned, I would only use MMF for the ability to export the game to different platforms. That's the main thing it still has going for it. A temporary advantage, seeing the multi-platform design of Construct 2.
I don't want to diss Clickteam or put Scirra on a pedestal, I couldn't care less. If Bin Laden made the next great WYSIWYG game creator app, I would be all over that. One has to use the tool that does the job best, it's as simple as that.
And if you still sport the opinion that Construct 1 isn't up to the task of creating a game of commercial quality, you probably haven't seen the following videos yet:
The Animations in Yokai totally let it down. The character moves faster than his running animation. Also, you're pretty much going by the artwork, claiming that they're "commercial quality", but if you take that away, they're pretty much regular platformers that could quite easily be made in MMF2.
I can translate pretty much any algorithm into any programming language, be it from C to MMF2 to Construct to Lua to Java. They are all just different syntaxes doing the same thing. I can't imagine that a talented coder would have any problems understanding what makes MMF2 tick and provide any disadvantage over Construct in terms of grokkability, considering its set up with specifically that in mind. In fact, quite to the opposite, the core reason for using either product being rapid prototyping, it is, by general, far easier to do such things in MMF2, where default movements and extensions are plentiful to cut down on coding, which is precisely the point.
Its not an argument about which is a stronger or more elegant language with greater power for talented programmers. To be honest thats almost antithetical
Originally Posted by -Adam- you're pretty much going by the artwork, claiming that they're "commercial quality", but if you take that away, they're pretty much regular platformers that could quite easily be made in MMF2.
I was going to say this earlier, but figured I'd just get called an asshole for doing so, LOL. Thanks.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Ski
