GameMaker and Construct are both game development engines that cater to users with varying levels of programming experience. Here’s a comparison based on key aspects:

1. Learning Curve:

  • Construct: Known for its ease of use, Construct allows users to create games through a visual interface without the need for programming. It uses an event-driven programming model that simplifies game logic for beginners.
  • GameMaker: While GameMaker Studio has a steeper learning curve compared to Construct, it still provides a user-friendly drag-and-drop interface. It also offers a built-in scripting language called GameMaker Language (GML) for users who want to delve into programming.

2. Programming Language:

  • Construct: Primarily uses visual scripting with events and actions. Users can create games without writing code, making it accessible to beginners and educators focused on design rather than extensive programming.
  • GameMaker: Offers a visual scripting system, but also includes GameMaker Language (GML) for users who want more control and flexibility. Learning GML can provide users with additional capabilities for advanced game development.

3. Platform Support:

  • Construct: Allows for exporting games to various platforms, including Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS, and HTML5. The browser-based nature of Construct facilitates collaborative work.
  • GameMaker: Supports exporting to platforms such as Windows, Mac, Android, iOS, HTML5, and consoles (with specific licenses). It has a broader range of deployment options for various platforms.

4. Pricing:

  • Construct: Construct offers a free version with limitations on features and exports. The paid versions, like Construct 3, come with additional features and the ability to export to more platforms. Pricing may be more budget-friendly for educational institutions compared to GameMaker.
  • GameMaker: Recently, GameMaker Studio 2 has introduced a free version for non-commercial use. It also offers paid versions with additional features and platform exports. The cost of the paid versions should be considered when comparing the two.

5. Community and Support:

  • Construct: Has an active community and provides resources like tutorials, forums, and documentation. Construct’s community is known for its helpfulness.
  • GameMaker: Also boasts a strong community with forums, tutorials, and extensive documentation. Given its longer time in the market, GameMaker has a larger user base.

6. Flexibility and Complexity:

  • Construct: Designed to be user-friendly with a focus on simplicity. It’s suitable for beginners and for creating 2D games. However, it may have limitations for users seeking more advanced features.
  • GameMaker: Offers more flexibility and can handle both 2D and basic 3D game development. It caters to a broad spectrum of users, from beginners to more experienced game developers.

Both Construct and GameMaker have their strengths, and the choice between them often depends on the specific needs of your educational program. If your focus is on design and simplicity, Construct might be more suitable. However, if you’re looking to provide students with a bit more flexibility and the option to delve into programming, GameMaker could be a viable alternative, especially considering the recent announcement about its free version for non-commercial use.

Construct 3 Free Version

Construct 3’s free version is more akin to a demo than a fully usable tool, which is regrettable considering its considerable power. The engine offers built-in Flash-like animation through timelines, visual programming, support for tilemaps, Z elevation, and a host of other useful features. It includes a somewhat limited animation and drawing kit but incorporates essential mechanisms such as Line-of-sight, A* pathfinding, TiledMovement, Perlin Noise, and more right out of the box.

Notably, Construct 3 provides an exceptional 2D toolkit, enabling deployment across various platforms with a single codebase seamlessly. Leveraging web technology from industry giants like Google (using Chrome as a Game Engine and Renderer) and Microsoft (deploying lightweight with Web2View) contributes to its efficiency. The engine positions itself for long-term success by anchoring to a future toolset, as evidenced by the recent introduction of WebGPU, showcasing its immense potential.

One standout feature is the engine’s flexibility in integrating JavaScript directly into events or loading entire external scripts. This capability proves invaluable for handling intricate details within the engine’s visual interface.

The absence of a traditional Object-Oriented (OO) structure is viewed as a major advantage, making programming more productive. Construct 3 adopts a partially procedural approach with additional gadgets that mimic OO functionalities, such as families and templates that can be creatively used to establish object-type hierarchies. This departure from traditional OO structures is seen as a refreshing change, eliminating unnecessary bloat and enabling developers to efficiently translate ideas into reality.

Despite its strengths, Construct 3 has some persistent drawbacks that can be frustrating:

  1. Array and Data Structure Handling: Managing arrays and data structures through the event sheet is often cumbersome.
  2. Lack of Enum Type: The absence of an enum type for variables makes reliance on strings potentially risky.
  3. Limited 3D Capability: Construct 3’s 3D capabilities are currently subpar.
  4. Occasional Issues: The engine being closed-source occasionally poses challenges, leading to difficult problem-solving situations that require workarounds. This closed nature is considered a significant flaw in Scirra’s overall approach.
construct 3 right for game development?

Choosing the Right Game Development Platform for Education: A Comparison of Construct, GDevelop, and Gamemaker

If the budget constraints make Construct’s education pricing unfeasible, GDevelop stands out as a highly affordable and effective alternative. Even when comparing the education pricing of both platforms, GDevelop emerges as the more budget-friendly choice. While expressing a fondness for Construct, it’s acknowledged that its pricing may not fully meet expectations.

Construct and GDevelop share a similar approach, emphasizing visual and high-level programming. Both employ an intuitive “If This, then That” sheet approach, enhancing the ease of understanding. The absence of intricate code in favor of easily readable commands, such as “If Player collides with Coin > Add +1 to coin_Total global variable,” simplifies the learning process.

Gamemaker, with its appealing new pricing structure for education and personal use, offers a different experience. While incorporating a visual drag-and-drop component to ease newcomers into game development, it essentially mirrors the structure of its GML programming language. For individuals unfamiliar with programming fundamentals, navigating the drag-and-drop nodes may prove as challenging as working with the programming language itself. Unlike Construct and GDevelop, Gamemaker requires users to program everything without the convenience of easy Behaviors or similar features for basic functions.

Choosing between the platforms depends on the educational goals. If the aim is to teach programming fundamentals, options like Gamemaker or Godot (which is entirely free) may be more suitable. Microstudio.dev, another free option with built-in programming tutorials, is also mentioned. On the other hand, if the goal is to ignite excitement about creating things without delving deep into programming complexities, GDevelop stands out as an enticing choice.

Empowering Future Careers with Construct: Teaching Students In-Demand JavaScript and TypeScript Coding Skills

If you’re going to do any coding, Construct employs industry-standard programming languages such as JavaScript and, more recently, TypeScript. These languages are widely recognized in the job market, providing students with skills directly applicable to their future careers.