5 Reasons why Construct is better than Game Maker
January 5th, 2009 by Philip Gamble
| Categories: Game Maker alternatives
Construct is a free open-source DirectX game creator with a drag-and-drop interface.
Last weekend I spoke with one of the people behind the project, Ashley Gullen, who asked me why I thought Stencyl [official website] was so much more well known than the Construct project which has got considerably further along its development. Unlike Stencyl who consistently refuse to give details of their release schedule Construct is available for public download now.
Clearly I wasn’t going to miss this opportunity to take a look at Construct (current release 0.98.3), and I liked what I saw. Construct, which has support for integrated Python scripting, has a PowerPoint style layout and several advantages over Game Maker.
1. Behaviors
Frequently used object actions are precoded in Construct as ‘behaviors‘.
Want your player to to have 8 directional movement – simply select the ‘8 direction’ behavior and set up properties such as maximum speed and the rates of acceleration and deceleration.
This saves time when you want to prototype or make a quick start to a project without having to set 8 different events and actions as you would in Game Maker. A physics behavior is also bundled.
2. Layout Editor superior to Game Maker’s room editor
Whilst Game Maker may require different sprites for each direction an object is facing Construct doesn’t.
All objects can be rotated after you have placed them on a Layer (Construct’s equivalent of Game Maker’s rooms) and at any angle you desire. Resizing an object can also be done directly on layers and you can also zoom in and out of layers – something not possible in Game Maker.
3. Built in Object types
Construct has built in object types that make it easy to add different elements to your games.
Want to add text to the screen? Simply drag the text module to where you want it and change its properties. Want to use input from a webcam or output data in a Bar Chart? – easy. There are currently 60+ and anyone can write a plugin to add functionality to Construct.
4. Active development
Construct is actively being developed based on the suggestions and ideas of users of the software.
5. 100% free and Open Source
Game Maker is neither of these and Stencyl have announced that their project will no longer be promoted as open source.
I await your ‘10 reasons why Game Maker is better than Construct’ posts…
I don’t think any of these reasons show that Construct is any better than Game Maker. It looks exactly like Game Maker, only a little bit easier to use for beginners. With those built-in “Behaviors” and “Object types” you can only make default games.
- If you want “Behaviors”, just copy the code of an example on the web.
- If you want a better room editor, just make a level editor for your game.
- If you want “Object types”, learn how to write your own code or use DLL’s.
I believe the program has some benefits indeed, but you are mentioning the wrong ones. You could say the scripting language is better, or say it has a better plug-in system. Now you are telling us the program is better for people who can’t do anything themselves and still want to make games. In other words, the same kind of people that edit the GM tutorials and post them on Yoyogames.
“Whilst Game Maker may require different sprites for each direction an object is facing Construct doesn’t.” – This is not true. You can use the instance creation code to change image_angle.
I am impressed.
As an experienced GM and GML user, I don’t particularly see much use of Behaviors (since they _seem_ more tied to the d&d side) FOR ME. Similarly, the “Layout Editor” seems more like a convenience than anything else (correction, Phil: GM (starting v6) can allow you to create multiple directions using the image_angle rotation.. but the difference is, the angle cant be changed in the room editor itself). However, the area that REALLY appealed to me is the “Object types”. I’m also impressed that such an open source project got as far along as this, with such quality. I will definitely be trying this out… now I just have to learn python
BTW.. the submit comment button.. am I right in thinking it exactly resembles Facebook buttons?
btw… you didnt put any direct link to Construct’s main site
What is their coding language?
OH! and.. layers doesn’t seem to be Construct’s version of rooms.. it seems to resemble Game Maker’s “Tile Layers”, but with the ability of holding objects as well.
This is not actually a post about why Construct is better than Game Maker, but rather “nifty features that Game Maker should work on”. Overall, it comes down to which programming language is most flexible. I didn’t even see you mention any of the programming aspects?
Reason number four makes me confused. What kind of argument is that, how do you think Game Maker is developed. How do you think Windows is developed, Game Maker has the definitely larger community of the two programs.
Certainly wasn’t intentional, but yes it does. Was included with the new theme.
@Eyas
There is a link right under the top screenshot,
and here: http://www.scirra.com
I am not interested in other languages, and or why they are better than Game Maker.
I am interested in Game Maker, note the name here: Gamemakerblog, not Constructblog.
he should place a for noobs at the end.
Phil; great post, I look forward to trying out Construct, thanks for the pointer (though I agree, the stuff you mentioned doesn’t appeal to me, I just want to hear more about its integration with Python!)
@Caniac: A man in a large black top-hat is going to show up at your house and ban you from the internet
. That is all I have to say on the matter.
@hardcoregamer: Yes, and no. I agree, I would not want to use most of these features, but they do simplify Game development and the “room editor” certainly does look more flexible (which is great for more advanced users as well).
Point 4 is a good one. Two years and a dedicated company like YoYo Games has yet to implant a single new feature in Game Maker. I know they’re working on things but it’s moving slow compared to this indie project.
Also, how is the performance compared to GM?
See, the difference is that it’s _built in_. I see none of this _built in_ to GM, and that’s what makes it nice. It makes it much faster to develop nice games.
He did say that it has a better plugin-system and scripting language. You’re just purposely interpreting things your own stupid anal way. Just because it’s possible to make something quickly and easily doesn’t mean that something will be good, as we know from GM.
If GM should work on them, that makes Construct better, no? And reason number four is more about listening to users and about Stencyl not being out.
Well, note the title of this post: “5 Reasons why Construct is better than Game Maker.”
Looks pretty cool. The room editor is a huge improvement over GM, and the behaviors thing is basically Stencyl’s snippets idea only working, which modularizes the game engine extremely nicely.
But the thing is. Does Construct have the web capabilities of GameMaker? Can people play the games online? Because that’s the easiest way to get your games to an audience.
Hey, it’s Ashley here, from Scirra. Cheers Phil for the cool post
I just thought I’d clarify a thing or two – firstly, Construct uses events as its main programming method. It’s not, primarily, a scripting-based tool. Try out the Ghost Shooter tutorial at http://www.scirra.com/tutorials to get a feel for how things work. There is Python scripting – but it was bolted on to the event system and, ahem, broke in a recent build so you can’t actually use it right now. But we’re hoping to fix it soon :-\
Also it uses a DirectX 9 renderer with support for pixel shader 2 so you can do effects and stuff. There’s more info on our site. Anyways I’ll stop spamming Phil’s blog, always more help on the forums!
Scripting’s broken? That’s not too good. But it does sound like an interesting program. Probably not something I’d use for serious work, just a fun toy to mess around with.
Let me not get ahead of myself, though. I haven’t even downloaded it yet, and writing long paragraphs of criticism/praise is a silly thing to do when one has not done the necessary research.
Well, as I say, it’s not a scripting tool, and I don’t think many people were using Python anyway – you can do 99% of stuff in the builtin events. Still, Python is a very good language, so it’ll be working soon I do hope!
I went to the scirra site downloaded Construct and proceeded through the Ghost Shooter tutorial.
I am extremely impressed. What struck me as the most impressive was the performance of the game, the smoothness of motion. It just doesn’t have the jitteryness that I see so often in Game Maker.
Construct isn’t without it’s flaws, but as expected, don’t expect most commenter’s here to accurately describe them. Typical GMC mentality is to, comment with authority, without actually trying it.
I found my biggest hindrance was culture shock, I’ve grown quite accustomed to how GM does things, the foreignness of Construct was alarming at first. This shouldn’t be considered a flaw in Construct.
It was mentioned earlier that because of the use of “behaviours” and “object types” one is limited to creating only “default games”. What a crock of shit. My impression of “behaviours” and “object types” are built in, somewhat complex actions, that execute at speeds that similarly created GM equivalents can’t touch.
One severe flaw with Construct is lack of project management. For a project of any size, I can foresee 100s of objects scattered all over the Layout Editor and 100s of events listed sequentially in the Event Sheet Editor.
I really am excited Construct, but not immediately. With a little maturity and feedback from those who have created larger projects, I expect Construct to be a viable alternative to Game Maker.
YYGs de facto monopoly might very well come to an abrupt end.
Let’s all hope so,
, well, I mean, there sites cool and everything, but I think that they go about issues the wrong way, or don’t do anything, I mean, March of last year Sandy said that they will stop the decompiler, a year later, an second version has been released and nothing has been done about it.
I mean, someone from the community has released a tool, and it hasn’t fully stoped the decompiler, I mean, it can slow it down and slow down people who are reading it, but YoYo really should hurry up and get things done!
YoYoGames.com isn’t there job, GameMaker is, not some stupid website. I do think that the website was a good idea, in some ways.
I think that they really need to be more organized then they currently are, and work on GameMaker! They could have two separate teams working on the Mac port and GameMaker 8 for Windows.
If you read an article in GameMaker Scope Magazine’s issue 6, you can find out a lot of information about the Mac version, and how [i]well[/i] it’s going…
Anyway, more on topic, It looks quite promising, I think I’ll download it and give it a go!
-Matt
Yeah, cool article!
- Pixel shaders are modern technology, used in many commercial games, used to improve visuals of game, used to express developer ideas – construct is modern. Gamemaker is not.
- Builtin physics support. Inovative usage of physics is trendy. Gamemaker is not.
Im just waiting for new GM version
@Denis
It would be easier to put this online than GM, because there’s not a separate window for the loading bar.
Wow, this looks pretty good. I might try this out.
Been using GM for a few years now and just chanced upon this article (don’t remember what I was looking for).
Anyway, downloaded it and tried it out for a while. REALLY short summary: it has potential, but isn’t there quite yet. Theres a lot missing. Keep an eye on it and see where it leads to, or if you know python, why not try helping out? In any case, there’s a lot to be done. END OF SUMMARY
Details:
There are many useful built-in features for games and applications alike. I make both, so some of those non-game oriented things catch my eye. The “file spy,” for example. It keeps track of new files and file changes in a given directory. I know I can already do this in GM, but it’s certainly easier here. There are numerous other things in there as well, most of them being predefined objects with a bunch of variables for you to change. This is good for simplicity, but not as versatile as scripting.
Speaking of which, I’m not saying that Construct doesn’t have scripting. I just can’t test it right now, since it’s “broken” right now (see Ashley’s post). I obviously can’t say much about it, but I can make some if-then statements: IF it’s pure python scripting THEN it will be waaaaaaaaay faster than GML, but will also be that much more difficult to learn. It’s a double-edged sword, as they say. If it’s a new language built on python, then (assuming it’s well done) it should be fairly easy to use (like GML), and it should still be faster. In my opinion, the latter would be better for this program, since it’s geared toward beginners (like GM).
The image editor is great. GM doesn’t have a very good image editor. I can tell it’s not completely done being worked on, but that’s to be expected (the flood fill needs a little work). By the way, if anyone wants a good, free (external) image editor, I highly recommend GraphicsGale.
The physics system is fast and well done (it’s in 2D side-view).As for collisions…I’m afraid GM wins that battle by a long shot, at least for now. Rectangles and ellipses work fine, but if you want something a little more complex, you have to place the collision points yourself. Obviously, if it’s an animated sprite, those points will not move to new positions as the sprite changes. These things are done for you automatically in GM (with precise collision checking). Remember that I’m talking about the physics system here, not the normal collision system, since they appear to be two separate things in Construct. If the physics engine gets automatic by-pixel collisions working, it will be pretty much unrivaled. At least in side-view. GMPhysics is a wonderful engine, and supports soft bodies, but Construct’s physics are built-in, so they’re a lot faster (just from all of the GML calls to the DLL). As far as 3D, I don’t think there’s a built-in physics engine. GM doesn’t have one built-in either, but it has a dll available for it.
As far as the other behaviors, they ARE useful, but what what if you’re looking for something that’s not there? At this point, it goes back to the manual scripting. That’s going to be an essential part of any comparison…so this one’s on hold for now.
As for the webcam thing, I’m sure there’s a way to make the camera do more than take a still image in Construct, but I haven’t found it yet. I’ve got the webcam working perfectly in GM (with a dll, of coarse, but there’s no lag at all). I just found it in the last few days, so I haven’t played with it much yet, but I might find some good uses for it.
Um, the “multiple sprites for each angle” thing makes it obvious that you haven’t used GM very much…
draw_sprite_ext(sprite_index,image_index,x,y,1,1,direction,c_white,1)
Stick that in any object’s draw event in GM and it will have image rotation identical to that used for Construct’s 8-way movement. No offense intended. Just want you to try both programs first.
Moving on, I think you’re absolutely right about the layout editor being better than game maker’s room editor. The controls are very streamlined and easy to use. The scaling and rotating are nice features, too. I also agree that the layers are a very nice tool. They can be used to compensate for any clutter due to massive numbers of objects, as well as other things, of coarse.
“Active Development” isn’t the right term, but I know exactly what you mean. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if GM8 didn’t come out until a year or two from now. I hope it comes sooner, but I don’t expect it to. I haven’t been tracking the progress of Construct, so I can’t say a whole lot about it, but I think they’re doing a pretty good job so far, especially if they’ve gotten this far since 06 or 07 (their website is copyright 07). Keep up the good work, Ashley!
AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!
Ahem, I accidentally pressed the submit button before I was done…
Anyway, one last subject: Open source is awesome! That’s all I need to say about that.
And the end summary…The two programs are actually pretty different from each other. GM is based on scripting (you can make games with the drag-and-drop, but all the pros are into just using scripts and code blocks) and Construct, as said by Ashley herself, is NOT based on scripting. Hopefully, the fact that it’s open source will draw in plenty of people to help out on the project, like when Linux went open source. I have no more time. See you all later.
PS. If you haven’t tried Construct, go try it!
If you haven’t tried GM…go try it too!
I know python and I tried construct and cannot seem to get it right away… so, construct is NOT for the faint of hearth(also not for absolute beginners), while game maker has a rather nice learning curve.
But the only thing I wanted to add is that Construct is technologically more advanced and (correct me if I’m wrong) uses dx9 and benefit from shaders. If you want to make games for fun, get GM. If you want to make games for learning, get Construct.. If you want to make money out of something like casual games, get GM(uses dx8 so is more accessible). If you total this out there is a 2:1 score. But if you add that no knowledge is too much, if you are an expert in GM, try Construct…
It seems like it would be much better for beginners, but I’m sticking with Game Maker. If I was 4 years less experienced with it though, I’d definitely be trying this Construct dealy.
Is the title, ok?
It says why construct is better than game maker but at the end it says game maker is better than construct confused whatever
@hey
The post does not say Game Maker is better than construct. Other commentators may have expressed this view, but the article does not – instead focusing on the benefits of Construct over Game Maker
Hi, Sol here from Scirra
I am a moderator on the Scirra boards. Just thought I’d pop in and thor wmy 2 cents into the conversation.
I have been an indie game developer for years… while never being any good at programming, my artistic skills have been my strength. I have always had to rely on a “WYSIWYG” game creation tool of some sort to produce my game ideas, since C++ or OpenGL (or anything like that) is WAY beyond me.
I started with many familiar products from Clickteam, as well as GameMaker. Personally I found GameMaker way over complicated (as in, not hard to use, just way more complicated than it needed to be… in fact, it felt that it was made to be super complicated so the developers would laugh at you) and Click products under powered.
Construct came along, and even though it is still in beta, it has come a long way! It is a very robust and powerful program, with virtually zero limitations (in terms on 2d development). In fact, myself and a few other team members just came up with a solution to a super complex idea (problem) we had, which at first, we didn’t think was going to be possible! But we did it!
I highly recommend Construct to anyone with programming deficiencies (like myself), or even if you are a more advanced programmer you can still use your fancy math skills to make IK chains and other crazy stuff that I don’t particularly understand.
Anyway, don’t knock it until you try it… I bet you guys will who are of the opinion “I’m not oing to change my mind etc because X program is better by default etc etc” will change your tune if you give Construct a go!
Oh and, it’s not a “toy” by far as I noticed one user commenting… give it a try, you will be suprised!
Anyway, signing off for now
Hope to see you in the Scirra forums making some cool projects!
~Sol
I tried using construct and it’s actually quite impressive, I feel it will eventually beat Game Maker into the ground. Because it uses DirectX you can create much more impressive effects than you could in Game Maker. Even the choice for a scripting language was better, I hope python is fixed soon. Right now, it seems the only logical way of creating RPG Dialog for games.
RPGs are always hard to make in any maker with the exeption of RPG Maker. The physics are just incredible, even this makes Game Makers physics look like a joke.
Ok, I’ll stop blabering on how I think Construct is in fact better, just head over to the forums!
I found some arguments for all/most of these:
1. First of all, set behaviors and actions will cripple your coding, and no matter how many set “actions” or “behaviors” you have, you will need to use code at some point in time.
2.Actually, as many people said, GM can rotate with image_angle, but additionally, GM can give depth freely during game play (I forget the code…),As far as the zooming in and out of layers, GM can be made to do that as well.
3.The only thing of interest is the “object types”. However, only if they fall in line with the “solid” “not solid” category. Otherwise, see 1
4.Most things are being based off ideas of others in development, GM8 is currently as well.
5.GM is free in lite version, and doesn’t cost too much for pro. While you don’t get much in lite, it still has everything you need to make a great game… with some skill. Obviously, if yoyo gave out the script, it would be very easy to hack pro, and give it away free.
On the bright side for construct, It seems better for beginners, or as nintendo would put them, “the casual gamer”.
@Serenade
1. Spoken exactly like someone who hasn’t actually tried Construct. I challenge you to make something like my current project using game maker. Here is a link to the thread: http://www.scirra.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3316
2. You can do all of this with Construct using as little as 1 event.
3. Solid and not solid? You can make object types as whatever you want… you aren’t limited to such basics.
4. Of course they are… nothing in this world is 100% original, as it has all been done before. “I’m sorry Mario, but our princess is in another castle…”
5. Construct is free, always, for any version.
6. It’s far more powerful than I think you realise. Why don’t you try it out and see for yourself instead of assuming and posting based on that assumption? Here is the link to the site again: http://www.scirra.com
~Sol
wow, it shows how much GM mentality and ignorance is shining through in this argument.
you guys only believe that things have to be done the GM way.
from what ive read, all GM users think that scripting is essential in construct, they believe that things are done the same way as in GM. all i can say is your wayy outta the ballpark with that. Scripting in GM is the way things are done in GM. in construct, events do everything. they’re not crappy GM drag and drop events. events, are actually wayyy more powerful than in GM. theyre so powerful that they even overshadow the scripts in construct “hence the reason theyre still broken”. everything can be done using events. you can make any behaviour using events. you can even make your own 3d engine in construct using only events, and thats not an exaggeration. its already been done using about 15 events, and maybe 50 actions within them in total.
believe me, im known on the forums for the complicated stuff i do, and i use 100% events.
Honestly, I can see where all the hate is coming from. It’s because of people being too biased.
However, considering the fact that I have been using Game Maker for over 5 years…. I can honestly say that this software really has potential. The only concern that I have is the runtime speed.
Game Maker’s “drag-and-drop” really doesn’t come close to what I assume Construct has. The Game Maker “drag-and-drop” is nothing more than coding but without the typing.
Although…. after trying out Construct for no more than 1 minute I must say. The work environment is pretty much like game editors (e.g. Star Craft Editor, etc.)
However, Quazi…. I must say. You may be right about Construct’s interface beating Game Maker’s drag-and-drop.
But I would have to say…. GM’s drag-and-drop is practically useless, in my opinion. Also, GM’s scripting in no way can ever be overshadowed by Construct’s point and click.
GM’s scripting is practically simplified programing and you can’t beat programing. That’s where everyone here is coming from.
Here is my unbiased opinion:
For simplicity, Construct. But I still have doubts, because although you do not need to learn how to code you’ll need to learn how to use Construct. By the time you do, you’d might as well have learned how to use GM’s scripting (which overpowers Construct in a heartbeat).
Overall, Game Maker is better. Construct is good for beginners. Quazi, you’re also being biased at Game Maker. You look at GM like a similar program as Construct. It isn’t. People that really understand GM’s capabilities know that Game Maker can do absolutely almost any kind of 2D project. I think Construct can, too, but not at a large scale.
Heh, I can’t believe this thread is still going
Don’t let this turn in to a flamewar, no need for hating other products, there are definitely pros and cons to both sides. Plus I think everyone on both sides is inherently biased, because with a large investment of your time in to one particular program, everyone likes to think they invested that time wisely.
I don’t think anyone has made a significant game in *both* programs which means nobody is really qualified to say (how can you comment on something you have no experience with?). I’ve never used Game Maker (it doesn’t work on my computer for some reason) but I’m interested in what made it so popular. I’d be really interested to read a comparitive review of making a simple game in both game creators from an objective standpoint.
However, I will add I don’t think Construct is JUST for beginners: I’m using it myself for a large and ambitious project which everyone will hopefully see soon, and having written the runtime, I have more than enough experience to make the whole game in C++ with DirectX 9. It’s quicker in Construct, though. So I don’t think it’s something for advanced users to ignore, either.
“Also, GM’s scripting in no way can ever be overshadowed by Construct’s point and click.”
this is exactly what im talking about. you dont understand that the point and click in construct is actually as powerful as any scripting could ever be. just trust me, you really dont understand where im coming from because of your inherent GM experience. up to now ive been able to make many kinds of 2d and even some 3d games using the event system. I can make any 2d game using it, as most others would be able to, and id be able to make it quicker and better than it could be done in GM. ill even make it a bet if you want and well have a lil competition.
“GM’s scripting is practically simplified programing and you can’t beat programing. That’s where everyone here is coming from.”
you have to realise that the event system in construct, is also simplified programming, except instead of typing all of your action and condition declarers you can easily use block of visual text which is easier on the eyes and much faster.
you can beat programing, programing is long tedious and repetitive. if you couldnt beat programing, C++ would have never been invented because of machine code, python would never have been invented because of C++ or java, and GM would never have been invented.
Ive seen most game maker games, and theyre not very impressive to say the least. even the good ones suffer the same troubles, and my first game made in construct was of much better quality than any GM game ive ever seen.
im not here to bash GM, but you must realise that GM is not at all the best game maker out there, and you should actually look at a program for more than 1 minute before calling it a beginners toy.
“GM’s scripting (which overpowers Construct in a heartbeat).”
and how exactly does it do that. give me any way it does this and im 100% certain that i can show you a way to do it in construct which will be simpler and take less time