How come people still use AGS v2.72?

[Monsieur OUXX]

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.

[Khris]

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.

[Monsieur OUXX]

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);"

[cat]

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.

[Babar]

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.

[Khris]

"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.

[Monsieur OUXX]

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.

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.

[Icey]

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.

[monkey0506]

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 ) 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:

Code: ags

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.

[Ponch]

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.

[Radiant]

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.