The problem is that, there are many game engines and tools out there which already contain
all the features that GD can ever offer plus have huge community with many tutorials and examples.
I think, with pure features can’t make GD more popular at this point as there are already plenty nice features implemented in GD for free. Regarding features, the only thing could help if you can implement a feature that is make GD really unique at some point. How about 3D? At the moment there is no such 3D game engine that is using events. There are some that using logick bricks and such, but none of them using events the way as GD, GS, Construct, Clickteam. In my opinion an event based 2D, 3D game making tool would be very interesting. I don’t tell you here to implement a UDK or Unity quality 3D engine (at least not yet) and don’t even to make your own, in my opinion a 3D engine with basic features would do to start with, and there are some free 3D engines out there Directx, OpenGL, WebGL, also 3D physics engines. In my opinion 3D is something to worth to consider even if you port GD to the web, especially if you port GD to the web. A tool to make 2D and 3D games in your browser using events no coding required, can be very attractive and unique as of now there is no such tool in browser nor on desktop. Even tools that can be used for 2D and 3D is rare, normally they are separated tools under the same name or separated scene editors inside the tool. In GD, 2D and 3D scene editor can be integrated in one through layers. Every scene would be 3D basically, but If you create a 2D layer you can edit the scene on that specified layer only in 2D as is now and you could also use 3D objects but only place them in 2D space similar to boxes now, if you create a 3D layer, you can edit the scene on the specified layer in 3D normally means we can fly around inside a 3D space and place 3D objects…etc. This way we could also use 2D layer on the top of 3D layer (or vice versa) to make UI, map or a game inside a game for example, basically anything. I know, it would be awful lot of work to do, but something like this would be really exciting for me even in browser.
The other thing is the number of tutorials and examples and showcases.
When I was looking for a “way” to make games for the first time in my life, the first thing I was looking at (and sometime still),
is the examples shipped with the tools. The second thing I was looking at is the showcases and the third thing is the number of available tutorials and also the subject of the tutorials. In the first place I was choose which had more and better.
So even if you decide to port GD to the web, need tons of examples for everything you can imagine shipped with GD out of the box. Not only a few that demonstrate the core features of the tool, also need to cover as many subject as possible.
And the same for the tutorials, GD need tutorials not only how to do basic staff to get started, also how to make
certain things and games. If the community is not actively making tutorials and examples and showcase, you should.
With (and this is the key word here) many demonstrative tutorials, examples and showcases could convince people to give GD a try and use it for a bit and hopefully GD and the community can convince some of them to stay, grow the community and make GD more attractive by making even more examples, tutorials and showcases.
Really this is a symbiosis that GD need to achieve. Tutorials, examples, showcases make people interested, features make people to stay.
more people make more examples, tutorials and showcase which makes even more people to be interested and so on until make it
so popular such as Construct, Game Maker and Clickteam Fusion is today.
Also, a tech demo with good quality graphics and sound maybe could help. Not a complete game, but a nicely designed gameplay and level to play.
So whatever you do, implement 3D or not, make GD as webapp or not, you should push examples and tutorials at this point in my opinion.
Regarding the pathfinding what I’m saying is that, if the obstacles are too close to each other the pathfinding can’t find a
way between them even not if there are plenty of space.
If you still don’t understand what I mean, try this game and imagine the enemy tanks are using GD’s pathfinding system.
Battle City.
nesbox.com/game/nes/battle-city/ … 44050a55d5
Note that, I don’t mean that to use your pathfinding system to make Battle City, this is only an example for spacing between obstacles.
As you can see, the space between the obstacles just as big as wide the tanks are. The pathfinding system in
GD can’t find a way between the obstacles in such case sometime even not if there are plenty space. If you lower the border, that can make the tank overlapping the obstacles.
The first versions will be developed by a team of 3 persons including myself so as to have a first working application as soon as possible.
I want to make games for the thing, not make games on the thing.
