I notice that alot of new games that are made was made in v2.72? Is there something better about that version?
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)
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.
Ahh, So that's why.
I'm not switching back to the old one but now I would like to see this "interaction editor".
It's still available for download (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/ags_272.zip) if you want to try it.
I tried using it again a couple of years ago, hated it when compared with 3.xx.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
/me just remains silent as he is using the V2.6X branch...
@Khris: When you put it like that it does sound like you have to do a lot for something so simple. :D
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.
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?
"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.
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 :P
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.
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.
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.
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.
A more constructive post:
One of the main objections to the interaction editor is that it required a lot of clicks and kind of masked the script so it was a pain to switch between the two.
But should it be re-introduced, it could be done the way it's done in Flash: That is, you have your script window, but you also have a tool bar to insert instructions graphically.
I could see why people miss the IE if the auto-complete window and parameter tool tags didn't exist. But they do, and scripting isn't like coding in notepad.
Back when I discovered AGS, the current version was 2.61 or 2.62 which didn't have the sleek oo commands it does now. Yet the IE actually pushed me to learn the language faster because it was so clumsy; implementing something as simple as a basic interaction with a variable to not do stuff again the second time takes several minutes. Plus, the available commands are very limited.
On the other hand I knew BASIC and Java at the time, so I can't put myself in the shoes of somebody who never programmed before.
Quote from: Khris on Wed 02/03/2011 10:44:40
I could see why people miss the IE if the auto-complete window and parameter tool tags didn't exist. But they do, and scripting isn't like coding in notepad.
One should not underestimate the usefullness of having the purpose of the function explained in plain English, like in the interaction editor :
"Pick up object X" is one billion times more understandable for someone who's never programmed than "object.pickup(index_objectX);"
When I started to try AGS I was kind of put off by the interaction editor. I want to see the code and not some click stuff (I have to admit that I'm software developer).
When I heard there was a new version coming soon, I stopped trying the old one and directly started with AGS 3.0.
I admit that coding might be a problem for people not used to it. A code generator might be a solution but probably hard to implement correctly.
Khris, if I recall correctly, you didn't need variables at all for that situation. in the area for that interaction, you'd just select the "First time player does this action..." and then choose whatever you wanted the game to do only the first time the player did that action. And then didn't the code get automatically generated and included in the script file?
As for the monsieur's idea, I'm not sure that'd be such a great alternative, because the whole point of the interaction editor for newbies is to not need to see all that weird scary code.
Quote from: Ouxxey_games on Wed 02/03/2011 10:49:32
"Pick up object X" is one billion times more understandable for someone who's never programmed than "object.pickup(index_objectX);"
What about oWrench.PickUp(); or player.Walk(...);?
That's pretty much plain english, isn't it?
What I gather from having been helping newbies for several years now is that most of them don't have any trouble with the commands themselves, just with when/how to use them.
They don't screw up the order of the Animate parameters or use too few, they put Animate inside repeatedly_execute and wonder why nothing happens.
I don't see how clicking stuff together would have made things easier here.
The way I see it, the IE helps with typing, not with coding. A big difference.
Babar:
I don't see anything of the sort; there's an action "Add score on first execution", but that's it.
Actions do end up as script commands though, my mistake.
Quote from: Babar on Wed 02/03/2011 10:59:15
As for the monsieur's idea, I'm not sure that'd be such a great alternative, because the whole point of the interaction editor for newbies is to not need to see all that weird scary code.
I was trying to explain why the interaction editor doesn't necessarily mask the code (which scares the developers) and why the code shouldn't necessarily crush the interaction editor (which scares beginners). In flash you can actually hide the script and use only the toolbar to scriot your events.
Quote from: Babar on Wed 02/03/2011 10:59:15
if I recall correctly, you didn't need variables at all for that situation. in the area for that interaction, you'd just select the "First time player does this action..."
...that's what I was emphasizing just before. Plain English is so much more re-assuring than script, even though it does the same thing.
Maybe that's my coding problem! When I was told about AGS it was around 3.1 and I learned a little by editing the demo quest and watching the tutorial on youtube. However as I looked at the videos I found my self making a small game and see new things that wasn't seen in the videos.
I honestly don't believe that scripting would be a reasonable deterrent from the 3.0+ editor (Note: a lot of you have been referencing the engine, which has been upgraded in various ways, but it's the editor that's used to make the games :P) for anyone who doesn't simply refuse to learn scripting. As Khris pointed out, the object-oriented functions that AGS has do make the code much more like "plain English". For example, "Tim, could you walk to (X, Y)?" translates rather simply to:
cTim.Walk(X, Y);
And, I dare say, it's reasonably clear what is taking place. I do know there are some who are nay-sayers of OOP, but to me it does make things very logical, and organized.
Personally I think the single biggest reason why anyone would use a prior version of AGS in favor of the latest version is simply that they have become comfortable with what they have, and don't see the point in "upgrading", particularly if it means they would have to change their workflow (which is reasonably significant between 2.72 and 3.0+). As someone already said, "If it's not broke, why fix it?"
It's not to say that one editor is better than the other, that's a matter of opinion. The IDE of the 3.0+ editor does have a lot of features that make it very nice to work with (multiple scripts open at once, ability to specify names for interaction event handlers instead of arbitrary and meaningless function names generated for you, the streamlined interface which makes itself comparable to Visual Studio, etc.). However, the 3.0+ editor does not have everything that the 2.72 editor had, such as the Interaction Editor (which, despite its simplicity (meaning lack of features rather than ease of use), was still considered quite useful by many), amongst other things.
The 3.0 Editor was designed to make using AGS more efficient, and personally I think it has succeeded rather well in this regard. Not everyone will agree with that opinion, but that's why it's called an opinion*. So, in short, again, I think the only real reason anyone is using 2.72 is familiarity and/or refusal to upgrade and/or learn the scripting language. For some it might be sheer hard-headedness, but for that I refer back to the fact that it is simply a matter of opinion*.
*"Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong," The Only Thing Worse Than Beating A Dead Horse Is Betting On One by Relient K.
I still use 2.72, for many of the reasons listed above. I've been making Barn Runner games since 2003 and I can work 2.72 in my sleep. Staying with the old AGS means all the old modules I wrote for my games import easily to the next one in the series. The same shooter code I used way back in Don't Jerk The Trigger of Love appears in Fully Automatic Mojo with only a few tweaks here and there, and that's very handy for me.
I have AGS 3.x and I play around with it quite a bit. One of these days, when I'm finished with Barn Runner, I'll start my next game series from scratch with 3.x. Until then, I'm going to remain comfortably stuck in the past. ;)
I use 2.72, although I've never used the interaction editor even once.
First, when 3.0 came out, I couldn't use it since .NET wouldn't run on my computer.
Second, the interface of 3.0 requires more mouse clicks for common tasks than the 2.7 interface, which I find inconvenient.
Third, there isn't any functionality I need missing from 2.7, so I don't have a reason to upgrade.
And fourth, as far as I know 2.7 games work under Linux and 3.0 games don't.