How come people still use AGS v2.72?

Icey · Wed 02/03/2011 02:11:10

I notice that alot of new games that are made was made in v2.72? Is there something better about that version?

ThreeOhFour · Wed 02/03/2011 02:23:50

Well, it still has the interaction editor, which means less coding... sort of. Other than that, AGS 3.xx is much nicer to use (and I don't really like the interaction editor anyway)

Ryan Timothy B · Wed 02/03/2011 02:29:35

It actually surprises the hell out of me why people are too stubborn to learn the new editor and drop the interaction editor. It has so many new and much nicer features.

It almost seems like it's disrespectful to the work CJ does to update AGS when I hear someone say they're still using an older version. But that's just the way I see it.

Icey · Wed 02/03/2011 02:35:29

Ahh, So that's why.

I'm not switching back to the old one but now I would like to see this "interaction editor".

ThreeOhFour · Wed 02/03/2011 02:40:05

It's still available for download if you want to try it.

I tried using it again a couple of years ago, hated it when compared with 3.xx.

Icey · Wed 02/03/2011 02:45:11

Hum, It just looks simpler. But that probably way he called it the interaction editor.

If you were to start a game in the and switch it over to 3.2 would you still have every thing in the game?

MillsJROSS · Wed 02/03/2011 03:29:01

Who wants to learn a whole new engine, when their old engine is already worn in?

I remember being miffed when CJ went from our DOS version to a windows version. I moved on, of course, and fiddle with the new versions as they have come out. If someone likes 2.72, though, I have no problem with them using it. I think the new version is better, but if you were already able to create what you wanted in 2.72, why learn something new?

Icey · Wed 02/03/2011 03:39:19

Hum, True.

I don't think I'ma even try it because it seems like its just missing something(A lot things) that makes it AGS to me so I'ma stick with 3.2

I just thought it would be easy to make a game in there then switch it over into 3.2 an then polish everything but even saying that sounds lame.

Khris · Wed 02/03/2011 03:59:28

One reason I can think of is all the bugfixes since then.

Studio3: Don't start using 2.72. I can see why people used to it keep using it (on second thought, I can't), but there isn't a single good reason to go back, especially not if you started out with 3.

The interaction editor makes you click yourself through several windows and choices for something as simple as adding a player.Walk(...) command.
Implementing conditionals is an even bigger pain.

Also, I'm pretty sure all the commands inserted by that massive clickage are lost* should you switch to 3.X. What's not lost is the scripted stuff, but the sole point of the interaction editor is to avoid scripting. And if all you use is the RunScript action, the IE obviously has no benefit whatsoever compared with the way this is done in 3.

EDIT: *clicked commands do NOT get lost.

Akril15 · Wed 02/03/2011 04:51:49

I'm not using 2.72 anymore (except when I need to nab old code/graphics/whatever from a game made with that version), but I was reluctant to switch to 3.x for a long time because I was so used to 2.72 and I wasn't that comfortable with the new interface. Come to think of it, I still feel a bit of nostalgia for 2.72.

When I was working on my first game, the Interaction Editor was a pretty helpful stepping stone to basic scripting. I started out using the Interaction Editor exclusively, then as I got more adept at scripting, I began relying on it less and less until I was barely using it at all. It really helped me get into the whole game-making thing, and I don't know how I would have managed if I had started making my first game in AGS 3.x.

Gilbert · Wed 02/03/2011 05:09:29

* Iceboty V7000a just remains silent as he is using the V2.6X branch...

Icey · Wed 02/03/2011 05:23:24

@Khris: When you put it like that it does sound like you have to do a lot for something so simple.

Grundislav · Wed 02/03/2011 05:36:10

I still use 2.72, but I've tried out the latest versions of the engine and have sort of started to learn it. Any future games I make will definitely be with the new version.

However, I haven't made the switch because I'm paranoid that my old code won't be compatible, since the game I've been working on for the past 2 1/2 years is done from a scripting perspective, and I don't want to break anything.

Icey · Wed 02/03/2011 05:41:21

Thats sorta what i was thinking. Peple was working on games in 2.7 and didn't switch it over to work in 3.x

also, Why didn't you make a copy of the game folder and open the copy in 3.x and test the game in there?

voh · Wed 02/03/2011 06:15:59

"If it ain't broken, don't fix it" applies here.

Massively.

Also, though I used the interaction editor back when, I didn't mind its removal. Without it, I actually started to understand the inner workings of AGS much better, and this has improved my grasp of AGS massively.

Phemar · Wed 02/03/2011 07:25:06

I always thought the interaction editor was a silly idea. Even though I still haven't learnt the new AGS (haven't made a game in years, so there's been no need), I can see the appeal of version 3 and why it's a lot better.

God the last game I made was in 2.62

Gilbert · Wed 02/03/2011 08:00:04

It may not be a good idea in a programmer's view, but it can certainly help make lives of average users easier, if only it was not severely limited in functionality.

Yes. It was removed mainly because it's a bit useless, but the reason for this was that features of the editor were added in a much faster pace and it was really hard to keep the interaction editor part updated to a friendly and useful status. So, when the editor received a complete rewrite in V3.0, instead of trying to update this part to keep up with the other features it was removed in favour of the plugin system that theoretically people can implement similar helper features themselves using plugins.

It had the same fate as the original drag-and-drop graphical script system (which IMO was even better) and both got dumped because of the same reasons.

WHAM · Wed 02/03/2011 08:32:34

Personally I thought the interaction editor was a good thing for a beginner. I started to use AGS with the 2.72, and used the interaction editor to practice some basics. I created things with the interaction editor and read the script that the editor produced to learn some commands.

The I implemented similiar commands by writing them into the script myself and started to get the hang of what is now known as "old style code".

Then, as I encountered issues, I posted them on the forums and Khris and others in the beginners-tech section pointed me in the direction of the newer object-based scripting. I then started to learn that and now I am beginning to get pretty good at doing stuff in AGS.

A similiar system that could implement object-based script would definitely lower the bar for beginners, in my opinion. It's not perfect, but it can help the newbies (like me) to get started.

Babar · Wed 02/03/2011 09:07:33

I use +3, but I still miss the interaction editor. While obviously I don't *need* it, it did simplify a lot of things for me, and was definitely the appeal for me when I started out using AGS- it was a lot easier to get into, as you didn't HAVE to learn a new scripting language to get most of your basic stuffs done. This wasn't true for any of the any other adventure game engines out at the time (except maybe klik & play, but that had it's own weird problems).

Seeing as how the editor has become opensource, it'd be nice to see the return of some sort of interaction editor.
Perhaps the whole thing could be streamlined now, so that when new commands are added to AGS, or commands are edited, a short description of the command is has to also be given, and then what this interaction editor would do would be to go through all the commands, list them in categories according to their superclass so that the AGS game maker can then chose them from a list, put in values for any required variables, and make games like that.

Monsieur OUXX · Wed 02/03/2011 10:32:56

I've read "I'm shocked by how people are too stubborn to learn scripting".

I am shocked by how so many people neglect the importance of an intuitive GUI. It's like we're still in 1990 and the UNIX guys try to explain you that vi is simpler than Eclipse and if you don't understand that you're a loser.

If you want an application to be very popular, you have to make the learning curve as smooth as you can. Otherwise, you end up with version 3.2 not used, and people still using 2.72. that pretty much says it all.