TIGSource Forums

I am having studying Game Maker Language and still want to make games right away and that desire took me to Scirra Construct, have any of you used it and published games made in it? I guess the best Construct made indie game was The Iconoclast

I have yet to see anything made with Construct 2, and as it is HTML5 only I haven't used it myself either.

Construct Classic AFAIK is what was used for The Iconoclasts.

C2 is bs
CC is neat but there are problems you have to be aware of and know how to work around

that said, it will not help you make games more than gamemaker does. You should stick with game maker and try to finish something

Yeah, also what moi said.

GameMaker is IMO a better solution than Construct if only for GML, which will help you learn some programming concepts and make it easier to transition to something more advanced later.

Realized that in some times.


Sounds more promising though learning to program than playing games is enjoyable!

Thank you guys!

I strongly disagree that C2 is bs. I utterly love it. If you can't stand making games without typing your code, you actually can type and edit events with the keyboard. If that's not enough, then maybe it's not for you.

As for construct classic vs construct 2, I've extensively used both and I can tell you C2 is far, far better than CC in almost every way. The only things CC has over C2 anymore is code execution speed (C2 is fast enough for the vast majority of games on desktop. Mobile games need to be simpler, but that's a HTML5 problem that's becoming less of a problem as stuff like cocoonJS and others accelerate HTML5 and hardware/software improves) and a few more features (most of which C2 simply hasn't had implemented yet, like EXE export and being able to edit files on disk at runtime, both of which are showing up soon).

C2 is much more stable at both edit and runtime, much smoother to work with, allows export to many, many more platforms and it's updated an average of once a week - meaning it's actually not uncommon to report a bug and have it fixed within a week!

To me, it's a joy to use. It's easy enough for an artist and versatile enough for a programmer (doesn't do what you want? Program it yourself with the SDK). Almost any 2D game can be made with it, and it's incredibly fast to get something up and running.

I dislike HTML5 games, so I quit C2. If it had EXE export, I'd probably pick it up again.

CC is very buggy, but it's very easy to use and apply proper programming techniques. Compared to say, Multimedia Fusion (never tried GM)

EXE export is showing up in the next version, which should be released somewhere in the next 2 weeks I'm guessing (they're adding a bunch of stuff to it this version like shaders and such so it's taking a little longer than versions usually do).

EXE exporter? It'll be with awesomium or some shit like that or will it be native?

It's a wrapper using awesomium, so it's not native, but apparently it has better performance than any of the other options out there for displaying HTML5 content, like chrome.

Hello, I think that GameMaker is better. It is because many GameMaker books are available!
http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showtopic=539399

Moreover, the user base of GameMaker is bigger.

That's crap. Crap and more crap.

Why, exactly? It improves performance, deters people from running your game on shit browsers, allows WebGL shaders, reading & writing to disk, and so on. If they made a native .exe exporter then every single plugin would have to be re-written, which isn't happening (see: MMF2) They also plan on Mac & Linux exporters with Awesomium.

Aside from that it would seem the OP wants to jump in to making games right away. GM is obtuse and it takes forever to make the simplest of games in it.

I quite disagree there. I find GM to be quite streamlined for what I use it for.

I just meant that GM has an unnecessarily high barrier of entry; you can't just pick it up and get to work like you can with C2 and some others, and that would appear to be what the OP is looking to do.

So, in terms of accessibility, I have to hand it to C2. In terms of power, GM. For the time being  ;)

No, they can easily create a wrapper to a language that can be compiled to .exe without too much trouble, but instead rely on something that is nothing more than a cut down browser. Hey, I'm ok if that's what they want and users accept. For me, it's a half-assed effort. Opinions we all have, and this one is mine.

C2 is great, but it would be top of the class if it wasn't for that quirk alone.

what, you don't like playing choppy games?

Probably, but they are just a 2 man team with much more on their table than exporters, so eh. I don't really see anything wrong with the direction they're going.


I take it it's been a while since you've played any C2 games...With WebGL and Chrome, performance is pretty much the same as CC's, and without the ridiculous input delay.

Would be easier to illustrate with an actual example to a C2 game, since we've all got browsers and can try it out immediately :P

Last C2 games I've played were really choppy, but that was when I was using Windows Vista.

I think you're underestimating the difficulty of that task.  Ashley (C2's main dev) has said that it would take months - possibly even a half year (and since he's done it before with CC I think his estimate is probably pretty accurate) and as Tokinsom said, all the third party plugins would be incompatible.  They haven't completely ruled out the possibility of doing it eventually, but for the time being there's much more important stuff to do first and they can make an EXE wrapper much faster, so why not?


The main differences between construct classic and C2's rendering performance as far as I can tell are:

 - CC had double or triple buffering (not sure which), which helps to make the frame rate rock solid but is what causes the input delay of a frame or two while C2 does not (I'm hoping it's added as an option for the EXE wrapper for those who want it)
 - CC relies on its own renderer whereas C2 has to rely on whatever renderer the browser is using (which the EXE wrapper helps with by making sure everyone is using the best one)
 - Chrome's renderer isn't as fast as CC at drawing lots of objects (CC was highly optimized in making draw calls efficient), but it can draw plenty enough per frame for most games (not counting offscreen objects here, just drawn ones).

Javascript is a whole other matter, but browser makers are in an arms race to improve their browsers on both fronts, with them trying stuff like entirely new garbage collection techniques to improve speed and minimize/eliminate gc pauses.


Here's one: http://www.scirra.com/arcade/addicting-rotary-games/848/airscape

Plays very smooth on my machine, AMD athlon 64x2 4400+, 9800gt, 32bit vista, though not at full screen - performance in chrome varies depending on how large the browser window is, because it's apparently drawing the whole window with the GPU, so even if the game window is only 640x480 there'll still be a performance hit by rendering the rest of the window, so if your GPU isn't up to it, if you shrink the window to the size of the game screen it helps more.

This is all with chrome though, again apparently the EXE wrapper has better performance, so it's worthwhile checking again once r100 comes out.

As much as I want a rock solid 60 fps at all times myself even with thousands of objects on screen (which even CC can't entirely manage - it occasionally has hiccups too when a lot is thrown at it or some background process monopolizes the CPU for a moment), I think it's worth having less objects on screen to get a game that runs on practically everything with the same code base - and lots of people are working on making it better.

See where I want to get at? FUCK CHROME! I don't like Chrome, I hate Chrome, Chrome can lick my intestines.

I don't want to like Chrome to like HTML5. I'm fine with Firefox, I'm fine with my setup. Using a new browser because of C2's games are better there (or HTML5 gaming in general, that doesn't interest me in the least) is bull.

HTML5 is an illusion for now and a far cry of what it can be in the future. C2 has all the features HTML5 can provide. Time to expand C2 and make it awesome. Making .exe exporter is a good start.

CHROME CAN SNIF MY PUBIC HAIRS!