AGS 2.72, 2.62 vs AGS 3.03

Joseph DiPerla · Wed 09/07/2008 14:04:03

I noticed several users here still use the older versions of AGS. This might stump some of us as to why. Some of us know. But I am personally curious as to why many people here opt out of using the latest versions of AGS. Is it because of no Linux/Mac support? Is it because of the change in the scripting? Is it because of the lack of the interaction editor? I am curious to know your opinions...

Eggie · Wed 09/07/2008 14:20:31

I stopped using the interaction editor pretty quickly after getting into AGS, still, it not being there is slightly frightening.

One thing I'm not to keen on is the tabs, I keep forgetting to close them.

SSH · Wed 09/07/2008 14:22:18

Why do you need to close tabs?

The scripting hardly changed from 2.72 to 3.00 anyway

Gilbert · Wed 09/07/2008 15:03:11

V2.62

Good enough reason:
D.O.S.

In fact my game in production (stalled atm) uses V2.6SP1 and I decide not to change to any new version to finish it.

Akatosh · Wed 09/07/2008 15:35:09

I'm just more used to the old interface, and I can't stand the shiny "professional" Web Two Dot Zero aura of the new editor. The change from 2.71 to 2.72 was bad enough.

Snake · Thu 10/07/2008 13:05:27

I agree with Akatosh.

I use v2.72 and have been using it since it's release (compiled CoF with 3.x to solve a slow-down issue).

I remember being scared shitless when the first Windows version of AGS came out. I still used the DOS version for while after. I also hated the switch from v2.71 to v2.72 only because I had finally gotten used to the programming code where I knew it like the back of my hand... and then it switches entirely. Blargh.

But to be perfectly honest, 3.x is just too goddamned different. I've downloaded/deleted it several times only because I felt like I was trying a whole different authoring system. I just keep getting lost all too quickly every time I open it up. Like said previously, I'm too used to the old interface - I can whip around in that damn thing like a snake (no punn intended).
And I fucking HATE how your game is in a window while testing it. And this may be a small thing, but even the options tree being on the opposite side of the screen irks the shit out of me.
I realise there is probably a way to change these, but I haven't looked... since I don't use it. It would be nice, though, if there was an option to make the interface the same as v2.72.

I'm sure there will be a day where I'll muster up enough balls to give it another whirl. Maybe it'll just turn out to be like it was with switching from DOS to Windows. I can be a little dramatic about little things sometimes.

All in all I'm just very comfortable with v2.72 and scared to continue using v3.x

--Snake

SSH · Thu 10/07/2008 13:29:17

Quote from: Snake on Thu 10/07/2008 13:05:27
And this may be a small thing, but even the options tree being on the opposite side of the screen irks the shit out of me.
I realise there is probably a way to change these, but I haven't looked... since I don't use it.

Sure is:

It HAS to run in a window when using the debugger, so that you can use the debugger. As the pic above shows, you can change its behaviour when NOT using the debugger...

Cino · Thu 10/07/2008 13:44:15

I don't know, I always found the 2.7x AGS too uncomfy and weird, the 3.0x versions are much more convenient to use and I never used the interaction editor anyway so I don't really miss that.

SSH · Thu 10/07/2008 14:29:03

Anyway folks, I blogged about this ages ago, and there's already a thread about it.

edmundito · Thu 10/07/2008 14:40:51

I always wondered why AGS 3.0 has the sidebar on the right by default, where traditionally it's always been on the left side. Personally, I like it on the left side (because I work with Eclipse a lot and mainly because it's what I expect on AGS). Like snake mentioned, these little changes here and there can annoy people who are experienced AGS users.

I haven't used it much because of time, but from what I've used it so far some of the things that annoyed me was that I couldn't figure out how to set the interactions in the room; it was not very intuitive at all in that regard. The interaction editor was not that useful to me, but perhaps ags 3's gone far off the other end?

Is there a transition guide from AGS 2.72 to AGS 3? That might be pretty handy. Maybe the question pops up the first time when you run the AGS Editor.

Joseph DiPerla · Thu 10/07/2008 16:17:14

That is interesting... Thanks for all your comments. This has been a curiosity for me as to why most people dont use 3.0 since it is far more feature filled and powerful.

As far as the interface goes, its no big deal to me. I like it better to be honest with you. But I guess a skinnable interface would solve most people's issue's with it? I still think its no big deal, personally. But I guess that depends on the users.

Yeah, I really miss the interaction editor, especially since I am not much of a c++/c# scripter. But there is an alternative: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=33637.0
which is a plugin for the editor. Its really nice!

As far as scripting goes, couldn't someone create a module which would allow you to have the old commands and functions and to work the same way? I agree, just when I started getting used to the language, it changed. But thats the way it is I guess.

Personally, I like AGS 3.0 and with the plugins and modules, it could only get better. The thing I really miss the most is the AGS Mac and Linux ports, which I hope they release again. I loved them, being that I have Windows, Mac and Linux machines...

SSH · Thu 10/07/2008 16:39:25

Quote from: Edmundo on Thu 10/07/2008 14:40:51
Is there a transition guide from AGS 2.72 to AGS 3? That might be pretty handy. Maybe the question pops up the first time when you run the AGS Editor.

RTFM! (that webpage is in the manual, too)

SSH · Thu 10/07/2008 16:43:08

Quote from: Joseph DiPerla on Thu 10/07/2008 16:17:14
As far as scripting goes, couldn't someone create a module which would allow you to have the old commands and functions and to work the same way? I agree, just when I started getting used to the language, it changed. But thats the way it is I guess.

Since AGS 2.70, and still in AGS 3.02 you can still use the old commands if you look in the "Scripting" section of the General Settings you'll see the "Enforce object-based scripting" and "Enforce new style strings" which you can turn off...

EDIT: ooops, sorry for the DP

passer-by · Fri 11/07/2008 18:43:26

Quote from: Joseph DiPerla on Thu 10/07/2008 16:17:14
This has been a curiosity for me as to why most people dont use 3.0 since it is far more feature filled and powerful.

First time I tried to upgrade an old game in the making to AGS 3, it couldn't find the plugins. Fixed that and haven't been able to save this upgrade ever since...
Not being good at coding to find what I've done wrong in 2.7, I just keep postponing the issue...

Dualnames · Fri 11/07/2008 19:03:53

Is there a transition guide from AGS 2.72 to AGS 3? That might be pretty handy. Maybe the question pops up the first time when you run the AGS Editor.

Took me twelve minutes to notice that 2.72 is 3.000.000 worse than 3.0. And i loved the version a lot. But the scripting is still based on the same things. Just to make you see the difference I transported lc 3 to 3.0 without editing nothing..it just re-compiled.

Buckethead · Fri 11/07/2008 20:23:56

AGS 3 is really not all that evil if you spend some time getting used to it. I have to admit that I first though "why oh why chris did you change?" But after a while I noticed it's really just the same. Only cooler and with some sweet new functions. It's just getting used to it.

jetxl · Fri 11/07/2008 22:01:37

I use 2.62.
Why?
I know how to program in old skool. It goes faster than in ags 3 which I'm not familiar with.
AGS 3 might have some cool feats but do you need them to make a good adventure game? Maybe.
I'll look into ags 3 once I get my creativity back again.

Quote from: SSH on Thu 10/07/2008 16:43:08
EDIT: ooops, sorry for the DP

Perv!

Snake · Fri 11/07/2008 23:08:18

Jet, I'm glad you said that since I have thought of the same thing too. If I don't use AGS 3 the only thing that stinks is that I won't be able to use any of the cool new features that will come out later on... or any new plug-ins that require 3.x or higher...

But exactly like you said, do we need all those things to make a good adventure game? Maybe. Or no. Cool new features/commands and plug-ins are great, but I can live without them myself. If I really get stuck then I post in the tech forum or think of an alternative. Look at all the great classics we've got that were made with earlier versions of AGS, even the DOS versions.

I really don't mean to poo on AGS 3. I'm sure I'll get used to it (like the other 2 times) when I give it a better chance. I just don't like change very much and AGS 3 has indeed changed the way I "AGS".

"The way I AGS"?? Heh, kinda sounds like a stupid commercial...

--Snake

paolo · Sun 13/07/2008 10:49:28

The only reason I'm still using 2.71 (the one you have to hand-crank to get started

) is simply that I started a game in it some time ago and haven't finished it yet! I suppose that might be true for other people too. But once that one's released, I plan to use 3.0.

Joseph DiPerla · Mon 14/07/2008 15:51:56

You see personally, I think that AGS 3.0 is easier as far as scripting goes. Its even more powerful in my opinion.

I mean most of the standard way of programming is there (Loops, ifs and's etc...) .

Just SOME functions changed in how they work. Personally I feel they are easier to use and cleaner.

But again, those functions can return with the use of modules.

And even though some features that are added are not necessary, it does make it easier to make your game and it makes it quicker too. Plus some features you just cant get around such as the newly added 1064x768 resolution support.

My suggestion, upgrade your 2.62 games with 2.72 as it will automatically change the code for you. Then do the same with your 2.72 game with the 3.0 engine and mess around with it a little. I think you will see that you will like it the more you use it...