Although I put up nice looking screenshots with baked lighting it is a real pain and far from easy to get these.
I struggle with the sunlight flooding into interiors and it is an incredible amount of work to balance it out, I have even resorted to putting a large box over the scene in an attempt at getting rid of it but run into other lighting problems then, you can finally get it looking barely reasonable then drop in weapons and character and find these tied to the outdoor lighting and either too bright or too dark and have to balance it all out again.

I know it is in Beta and I know this could and probably will be fixed. So I have bit the bullet and waited patiently, this stopps when I see the product being marketed to teenagers as a game on Steam, which will bring a whole new mind set that screams for features I don't want or need and feeding the chickens will become a priority in future as the majority vote wins around here, the majority are no longer going to be the folks who were in from the start and funded the development of this with hard cash and gave up their time and effort trying to get a good working development tool.

My fear is that we long term users are now going to be in a minority when it comes to fixing things and seeing any features that really are required for this to be a viable game builder and I sense this in others here too.

It has been released to Steam as a sandbox game, suddenly, and with a change in marketing direction, which, when I look back seems to have been in the works for some time. While we funded and tested it and asked for things which have not really suited the plan. It feels a lot to me like the old days and has let me down when I believed that TGC had swung things around and were actually on our side of the playing field for a change. This has damaged any relationship between users/backers and TGC and the ominous silence is also reminiscent.

I don't want to hear from the middle man any more as far as this all goes I want an explanation and reassurance from the horse's mouth.

This criticism may not seem constructive to you all but to myself and others is perfectly valid, you can gag the negative comments round here or threaten to if you want but that isn't going to help much is it?

I'm happy to see that I'm in the majority and am surprised that most of this has only been aired now that I started a thread about it. Here I was expecting being some FPSC dinosaur and getting far less response but this is kind of monumental.

The reply we have got from TGC's The Next is disheartening aswell, I'd also like some statment about the points that have been raised numerous times and by that I don't mean anything about the steam community. How that community is managed has only been mentioned on the site in this rather large thread and is entirely trivial. What I'd like to hear is a statment from Lee or Rick as I now see that almost zero percent of the backers and this community (which is an exceptional one as far as game-engines are concerned) resonate with the new approach to what we paid for.

We try to be constructive but its hard to improve something that goes in an entirely different direction than what we originally backed, and I do mean entirely.

Telling us that its going to be exactly what we want is kind of a bold statment and threatening to close a thread where there is absolutely no name-calling or abusive behaviour is something I perceive as a mildly errected middlefinger. The Next has been a great MOD and very supportive to me and the community but that post of his was kind of a wash and I'd like (not demand) a statment about the actual points that have been discussed here.



-Wolf

I do agree with that.

Dave

I think you guys are misinterpreting what The Next is saying.
Devs walk a very fine line when communicating publicly. The Next is probably the only one who even attempts it. Jumping all over him is just going to make communication with the devs even more sparse.

Read between the lines...

This is not a threat. It's a plea. If the thread turns into pure flame-bait it must be closed per AUP. If it's closed, it is lost and wasted. I have no doubt that internally within the dev team there is division about many of the issues brought forward in this thread. Obviously they can not publically show dissent because it erodes confidence in the team. Topics like this help give those who are on "our" side ammunition to help steer the project as it moves forward.

Yes. That's a bold statement but I don't see it as a facetious one. The fact, however, is that if those who dislike things about GG leave now then their voices for change will also be lost because those inside the team will not be able to sufficiently argue the need for change.

Another thing I'd like to address is the overwhelming air of entitlement in this thread. Specifically from backers moaning about the price drop. When you back a crowd-funded project you are not simply pre-ordering a product. You are backing the development of a product. TGC has stated that GG will be their focus over the next DECADE. The road is incredibly long. I can understand the frustrations... Clearly I have them myself... And this is worsened with the refusal of TGC to honestly admit that this is not even remotely a Beta product but rather still in the Alpha stages and will be for perhaps years to come. The legitimate reason for backing a product at this stage is primarily influence but most backers have squandered that influence by simply cheering on the team and getting excited about handouts along the way. Others have taken the "it's only a beta so I'm not going to say anything critical" approach or the viewpoint of "it's a budget engine not meant to compete". To accept mediocrity is to foster it. That's on us.

All of this said, I would desperately like to see TGC being much, much more transparent with things. Transparency and honesty will go along way towards winning over those who have the potential to be the staunchest of allies or the harshest of critics. TGC really should have at least consulted with the community on issues such as product positioning. Hopefully they see that now. Word of mouth is the most powerful marketing tool available... but it's a tool that can cut both ways. TGC has long (at least publicly) considered "the community" to be it's greatest resource. It would be nice if they used this resource to help guide the product in meaningful ways that will win them success and product evangelists....

To folks like Wolf and Rolfy... please don't just get angry and bail. You have great power and opportunity to use your influence to improve GG. When potential users see the games and worlds you create they are blown away. You may feel that you are in the the minority sometimes but without users like you, the games we will see will mostly look like the games "you can make in 5 minutes and share with ur friends"... and nobody is going to be wooed by those. To the folks at TGC... recognize their value and don't let these users slip away and do not try to placate them with big picture fantasies. If you have a plan. Show it.

TL;DR: I'm probably becoming windbag hypocrite of some sort.

I am not angry Errant....just feel let down...as you know I have been a staunch supporter....not to the point I am kissing butt....but I have tried to show what can be achieved since FPSC Classic and not whined about lack of functionality. This has even been to display the 'fun' side of TGC products as much as the power....well, whatever is there I make the best of.

I was giving GG the benefit of the doubt and decided to wait until I could actually test it.

I am STILL trying really hard to give GG a chance and honestly, the editor isn't that bad - I also tested AGF Pro for 60+ hours and its inferior to GG in many ways. On the other hand, the more I build (or should I say PLAY under the new marketing?) with GG, the more flaws I find.

But what is completely beyond any doubt for me, is that TCG made the deliberate decision to turn GG into something, the Reloaded community did not want it to become and no matter how much jedi-talk about the visions TCG has for GG is posted on every board, it's all about the money.

Honestly I don't expect the company who abandoned their last product instead of investing time and money to fix it, to finish the job this time. Personally I came off well. I got tons of stuff for 14.99, the new zombie skins alone are a worthwhile addition to my FPSC collection but TCG has lost me for now.

Hi Guys,

Some valid concerns, and I know that Lee would have responded had he not been at GDC.

Sure, GameGuru could be considered a slightly different direction, but having been involved in this project from both sides, and having seen it develop probably as long as any of you, I am still a little surprised at the upset as Reloaded was and always was intended to an evolving engine. We talked many times about adding 3rd person, role play elements, vehicles, etc, and the Steam release has been no secret.

The re-branding of GameGuru simply reflects our desire to present the product as something that will be capable of a much wider range of genres.

We do however, stand very much behind the idea that GameGuru can be, just as Reloaded and before it FPSC Classic, considered as a sandbox game. Maybe this is the first time that such a concept has been voiced regarding the product range, but who didn't sometimes go into Classic, place down some characters and go blasting just for fun. Isn't that very much an example of a sandbox game?

With GameGuru you can create your own maps, click multiplayer and play games using the maps you've designed, with your friends online. Granted, you now require Steam, but this doesn't differ much from Classic, and most of you still viewed that as a game making tool. Steam also requires very little effort to host a game... I'm sure many of the older users remember the old port forwarding frustrations..

We certainly don't want any of you to feel we're not listening, but we do believe that this direction will benefit the product as a whole. We will still focus on the game development side, we will be adding hundreds of new LUA commands, we will add a full role play system, more advanced AI, an effective and diverse water system, lasers, tracers, better explosions, more advanced physics, particles and a lot more.... All of which were promised for Reloaded, and will be exactly what we will deliver.

We are also very much aware that performance needs work to accommodate all of this, and we will be working on that with every build. In fact the team discussed it only yesterday and are planning our next bout of performance improvements and how best to succeed while still pleasing those who want extra features.

Lastly, we'll admit that maybe in the past, support hasn't been to everyone satisfaction and we are aware that sometimes we could have been more responsive, but we are 100% committed to GameGuru, and have the largest project team any TGC product has ever had and we are all behind the development for the long term. GameGuru is here to stay and we would be pleased if you came along with us, but all users are entitled to their opinion.

Don't forget that GameGuru is an Early Access release and that your Steam key entitles you to a lifetime of free updates, so if you really feel GameGuru isn't what you want now, check back in a week or a month or 6 months and I think you'll all be pleasantly surprised.

SC

Completely understandable. The thing is... your work is brilliant.... maybe too brilliant. The thing is... we live in times where hard work and humble demeanours play second fiddle to squeaky wheels... so, you may find that you are working against your own self interests in some regards. If I am the product's producer or the engineer in charge of the lighting system... I look at your work and think to myself, "Wow! That looks absolutely fantastic! My work is done! Mission accomplished!". You have a classical art background that is such a rarity and clearly absent from the internal team. As such, you are one of the few who is qualified to bring criticisms and legitimate suggestions. My hope is that you will seize upon this for the good of us all.

What I would really like to see would be for TGC to bring several SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) into the development fold. Sort of a Community Council, if you will. I think it would go a long way towards bridging communication gaps and helping TGC to filter out some of the noise in order to build a successful product we can be proud to use and they can be proud to develop.

I haven't yet really dug into the latest versions, but some of the new features and added Lua commands, it seems much more capable than last time I tried it. I still see a lot of gaping holes in core features, but I also see a lot of potential to produce a good game even in its current form. All which would require a lot of hard work and innovation that most users aren't able to do. I haven't given up on Game Guru, but I realize it still has a long way to go. If what we're hearing from TGC is correct, perhaps the missing core features and performance improvements are merely a few months away. If that's true, then GG is certainly worth sticking with for a little while longer.

I have a really hard time with that "it's not an editor, but a sandbox game" jedi talk.

Techopedia has a very clear definition what "Sandbox" means in gaming terms, and GG does not match the description: http://www.techopedia.com/definition/3952/sandbox-gaming

So far I have only read TCG employees and their affiliates calling GG "a game, not an editor" or trying to label it "sandbox". Have there been any reviews from a known gaming site, a professional gaming blog or similar who agree with TCG on these matters?

I think i would be nice if we had a idea of what is coming in the next release ,when you guys agree what is in the next release let us no.At the moment all we get is (all i can tell you this idea is being discussed for the next release) Just my view .

(edit,we still need a post preview button )

Dave

I brought this up in another thread but what concerns me now... is what I was backing no longer feels like the same thing we are getting.

Most of the differences are really pretty semantic. At the core, I'd say it's mostly same but with a larger overall vision. The positioning is a bit different and the route maybe isn't as direct but I think the end goals are still pretty consistent. You have to sort of filter out all of the placeholder stuff to see that though... and there is a lot of placeholder stuff.


I have seen x9 and FPSC-in general referred to in this way many times by many users. Many of them well-known and respected by the community. Scene Commander kind of touched on this in his post. For better or worse, TGC has identified the fact that most users never finished games or intended serious projects with the engine. For many, it's long been "something fun to mess around in" and little more. I think there's probably a little bit of a disconnect there with the community though. I think a lot of users have taken that outlook because of shortcomings of the engine and rather than addressing those issues in an effort to elevate the engine to a serious tool TGC may have embraced the casual attitude at face value.

Actually quite stunned Errant, hearing all that from someone I personally look up to. Some earlier features already in GG were the result of correspondence with Lee and Rick, even just a start which Lee would then make even better. But then they got busy and seemed preoccupied with other things which leaves those of us who want to contribute something, with the feeling we are being a pain in the butt.

My fear is that now it is branded a Steam' sandbox game that all effort will switch to working on this aspect and TGC think it is all good as it is for now while they do that. So I understand where you are coming from.

Everyone who's checking back to the old FPSC WIP, Showcase or Product Chat forums can clearly see that there was never a lack of dedication, passion and serious intent to develop a game worth the name. But even the most dedicated, passionate and creative community members realized at some point that FPSC was not the engine to bring their visions to life.

I ask you, how many usable mods have been created by community members over the years and how many features have been introduced to FPSC after TCG abandoned it? Like RAWTEXT was coded for Fenix Mod in the frrst place and only later found its way into the official (or unofficial?) FPSC build. ALl that effort clearly has shown that FPSC was regarded a tool - and not a toy.

No one could have denied that, only ignored.

It seems we are in similar boats, Rolfy... I too was consulted earlier on in regards to the weapon system. During that time there was some good progress but that has teetered off to the point where I sometimes feel like I'm tossing bottled messages into a void. There are still many aspects left incomplete and though I am told these issues will be addressed in the next push, I see the same promises about many things so I am not overly optimistic. When it was mentioned in blogs that a community member was being consulted regarding the lighting, I was hoping it was you. And while I am sure you had great positive influence on the process, I can't say that I felt that influence in what was received in regard to default settings and capability. That must be at least a bit frustrating to you.

My hope is that as additional funding comes in they are able to delegate core components of the software to additional engineers... and that those engineers will work closely with those of us who know those areas. I can relate to the business and preoccupation. Lee is great to work with when you have his focus. But he has an incredible burden of so many responsibilities that it can become frustrating. I really enjoyed my experiences in Classic when working with Airslide, Hockeykid, Plystire and s4real on mods. Later I also enjoyed working with Scene Commander in the last official stages of vanilla. In all of those cases, I felt it was easy to communicate and improvements could be made very quickly and with a good feedback loop. I think that proper delegation of core systems to engineers working closely with community members could make for similar experiences in the GG era.

Rolfy; you are FAR from a "pain in the butt". I've always valued your contributions and insight.

Time to check my email and cancel my subscription!


EDIT: I posted this in reply to the last post on the previous page; I didn't realize there was a second page, sorry. GOOD READING!!! Informative at the very least!

Nope wasn't me...no ideas either on who they consulted.

Thanks Keith

Yes, Rolfy, you are far from it... We Fox's on the other hand... we would be labeled as the "pains in the butt". And that suits us just fine.

What we are hearing is "please hang in there. We are certain that you will be pleased if you just give us a bit of time". I have stated before, I develop software and understand the time spent and people happy/frustrated all at once. But something that tweaked at me was this...



What, by your definition, is long term? 6 months after you decide to start a new project? I ask because as a still-developing in Classic user I posted regarding an issue in Classic that no one would have caught until it was brought forward (during your transition to GG) and we still have no resolve to that issue, except to be told there is "no support". So now I am left to "guess" at what the issue is and how to fix it. I have done this twice now with the software of the company and it takes time and money from my work. I'm no basement hobbyist- my time and no money means we have to pick up the slack elsewhere.

Are you saying that support will be available for a long term period, or does it end at a set time? I ask because some issues cannot be detected until an actual deployment. So for us, I do a development for a school client, it is deployed, it works for a year, then you decide to work on something new, school dev stops working, we track issue and report it, and poof- nothing. If you do decide to switch, will you *consider* keeping documentation somewhere for people to reference? Because it is a pain when you try to find info on a product that you no longer support because it's been changed/removed from past links.

And for the record, that was not a complaint, as such to keep the discussion going...

Darn, there goes my pain in the butt reputation I was allowed to wallow in for a few brief seconds, now everyone knows I come blubbering to the den when anyone is bad to me around here, thanks guy's.

On topic, if they consulted a community member on lighting it was most likely a tech mind and not an arty one. Maybe both in one head....whatever just like anyone else around here I have not had much clue what goes in, till it goes in.

Ok, that makes sense. Does incite curiosity though.

Gameguru is not like a Sandbox game, I played The Asylum yesterday, changed the environment , made it darker and put red fog in it so the zombies coming out of the dark or red fog looks more horrifying. At the end of the game I put three zombies with more power and speed as end bosses. It really did not look like a kids game anymore.

Perhaps I am a bit slow, blinded by the science., do not understand the official description of the intended features and use thus far, or I am just stupid.

I must admit that I am unclear as to the TGC vision and intended design of the new GG product in one particular feature :

i.e. The ability for an end user/game player to edit a game you make and distribute.

I thought I had already asked the question and or made suggestions regarding this but it is unclear to me at least what the intention is.

A simple question really I believe....that perhaps TGC could be specific about so its clear to me.

If I make a game of any description and distribute it.........

Will GG allow me to prevent my end game players editing my game?

Thats it.

Yes, that has always been the plan exactly the same as FPSC classic

Sorry, Perhaps I should be more specific as I am not sure i have even made myself clear....

I do not mean Protect the game and assets.....

I mean prevent end user game players from editing my game when in game play mode?

Prevent any internal game play - game level or other content editing so that the game designers game level designs and content cannot be changed at all in any way by the game player/end user?

i.e. A game player/end user can play your game and that is all?



So does that mean we will have two options when publishing a game?

Option one - allow editing?

Option two - no editing allowed?

Thanks

The plan is if you build a game and distribute it players will not be able to edit the game as you created it. GameGuru itself is a cross between an engine and sandbox game, basically an easy to use engine. That does not mean that what you create has to be a sandbox game.

As far as I am aware there are no plans to allow editing in final built games, they are your own game, maybe there will be an option to allow editing at some point.

I'd like to toss some of my own thoughts into the ring.

I understand the project is all subjective and the creators should have free reign in development... but I feel a cycle has been completed once or twice that should give us a little bit to worry about. First of all, look back to the Kickstarter campaign. There were MANY big promises on that and I'm I can't prove it 100% but I feel they simply weren't ready to go to Kickstarter with the idea- hence why they failed there; I even believe the "Tech Demo" they showed could have even been FPSC X9 with new media and fancy huds/shaders. I fully believe in putting up bigger effort on the end of the creator before crowd-funding, and the demo we saw then is a FAR CRY from what we see now, lighting and effect wise.

Fast forward to the TGC Pledger system. I feel as if they didn't take the time then to list out what specific goals to reach in a given time-frame, nor give enough direct communication with the community. Its almost as if they have a mysterious omnipresent eye in the background that constantly looks for ways to work against what was initially promised and rather go for a more "bring cash now" setup. The forum was then split shortly which alienated the community even more, as others have stated, which only leads more towards I trend I see that is happening (as wells as others, I'm sure).

Fast forward into the future and FPSC Reloaded is looking less and less like Classic. I haven't even used it much since the launch anyway... but I will get back to that in a minute. All of a sudden, the forum goes dark and GameGuru goes up overnight, pretty much killing off the FPSC Reloaded foundation entirely.

Now you say that you went this way to "open it up for more genres" but that was already possible in FPSC X9, as the community has demonstrated (KravenWolf and Hockey kid made a top-down shooter; Jonez Games made a first-person horror-adventure game of commercial quality; I've made a few projects that were more adventure game than shooter by many means. Reloaded could have easily done that. If this was truly the way you wanted to go, you really need to have two different products at two different price points; Guru and Reloaded.

The first place I noticed this would all end up where it is now would have to be when indoor environments and proper lightmapping was shrugged off. What modern day FPS makes a game solely outdoors? FPSC X9 excelled at making QUICK CUSTOM indoor environments. Segments should have been put in at the start as they are still necessary even now and can be made custom in a breeze. To me FPSC X9 can make more definitive games than Guru, but then again... that is just my opinion and others may not feel the same. Guru doesn't offer me the tools I need to make my games and that is why I haven't used it , seriously, at all.

Now, let me get it straight that I realize it takes money to put bread on Lee's and Rick's table but that doesn't mean you aren't excused from doing your homework and counting the costs. From the X9 forums poll> Kickstarter> TGC Pledge > Reloaded forums> STEAM> Game Guru. The concept has gone through so many changes with community and concept that I feel as if the original goal has been tossed under the bus entirely. As someone pointed out before, it all started with a vote to rework FPSC X9 from the ground up and now it seems we have a project that doesn't really know that it is at the moment and alarmingly sells itself short. $20 USD? That is WAY underpriced and it makes me feel as if its just gone another way of a cash grab. With such a low price-tag I can't see how anyone would be bothered to update the engine or build upon many of the features we have been looking for. FPSC X9 can do so much more in plausible concepts and yet it still goes for $60 USD at the moment, if I am correct.

Honestly, I'm just worried all over for the community and the PR/marketing disaster that this thing has truly become. I feel as we've progressed from a commercial quality game engine to a 20-minute sandbox session. I'm not complain that I spent $100 either to be a Gold pledger. I am upset with the fact that I ordered off the menu expecting a juicy medium-well sirloin and when I opened the lid, I got a spaghetti dinner instead.

I am really surprised at the reaction in this thread. TGC have let us know they wanted to change the name quite some time ago. We knew it was going to be released on Steam. The fact it has been released into the games section rather than the utilities section for me is not an issue. I can see why TGC have done this. The games section will get a lot more people checking it out, let's face it. The product is the same one as I have been testing and has not changed in any dramatic way.

FPSC the original was a game maker. You could not call it an engine in all honesty, it was and is too limited to be anything else. Reloaded, or Game Guru although having a lot more potential with lua, is still really a game maker. I don't see an issue with this myself. Talk about current UDK/Unity and other devs moving over to GameGuru is not really an issue. They aren't going to. Let's be honest. Regardless of how this was positioned on Steam. GG will never catch up with those engines, not without some serious cash injections. Even then it is years behind those engines in terms of development still. It also will need DX11 or higher I think to have any chance with them anyway. I can't see that happening soon.

I understand many issues pointed out. Development does seem a bit flaky at times. Many things started : Conkit, character creator, occlusion, billboarding or quads if you prefer. All still to make it into the engine despite several months of development. I think TGC have literally run out of time and Steam was a necessary move. The price point surprised me, but again I can see why it has been put at this price. We will have to see if it sells well enough to justify it.

I agree we want GG to keep focused on the areas needed to make a great game. We need more speed. We need better lighting. We need silly bugs like - objects slowing the scene down when you touch them - fixing (especially when they can be fixed with a simple FPE change). We need far better AI scripts and options. I really think the AI and general quality of the new characters will put people off more than anything else, bar possibly speed issues. In the end this will make or break it for me, if the characters look like they are 10 years old, great scenes will not do anything to help. Not only are they rather old looking, they have zero options as well. All attack you on sight, theres not even an idle option. I haven't tried them with waypoints, not sure if they will at least follow a path or not out the box. An idle script would be easy enough. I can write one if I know the anim frames. Why is there not anything included? This is a big fail on the easy use side of things as well. I'm guessing most Steam users will generally be buying it because of the "no programming" feature. In which case they will only have the option of aggressive npc's. How are we supposed to have general town populace and such with no idle/non aggressive scripts?

My only issues are with the product itself, I love it, but realize there is a long way to go. We can but hope that the direction doesn't U turn due to Steam demand. I'm not bothered if it is listed as a game or engine myself. I can understand why others would see this differently. But as long as it doesn't affect the program itself (which it hasn't as yet), I'm happy enough.

I beg to differ on that. I can agree that it was used as Game maker by most users, but it was still a proper development framework if you were willing to get your hands dirty by digging from custom assets down to every single FPI script down to the DarkBasic core, which some of us did.

Yes, there are many options for the people in the know. But as you say, you had to get down and dirty to do that sort of thing. Many would only want to use FPSC itself. I got FPSC initially to use in it's own right, found it not that great, and ended up using it more for DB projects, if at all. Still, even the best crafted FPSC game, looked like an FPSC game. I saw a Doom 3 clone once, great work, but you could still see it was made in FPSC. It has certainly come on leaps and bounds since day one, thanks mainly due to excellent mods. FPI scripting for me was awful as well, just not good at all. I found it easier to design a level and program the game in DB than to use that script system. I actually started a Space Sim in DB, using FPSC for the inside space station sections. It worked well, but was a little ambitious in the end. FPSC is good, but I never saw it as anything more than a good editor for DB myself. An excellent editor, and I too miss the room segments in many ways I think the conkit will be reasonable, but the truth is the segment system for large interior scenes is far easier to use.

I would say this also regarding in game editing, which has mostly had a bashing here, and I can understand why. It is only useful for me, to edit terrain with a bit more finesse. Object positioning selection is awful and several options do not seem to be possible, such as moving an object along the y axis. The conkit idea interested me and I thought it a great possibility for adding into the finished game as a way of adding building elements into a game, like many survival games available, given options to limit what people can and can't use. However, if this is not intended, and it seems it was not, then it is a useless option. Far better to adopt a system in the main editor itself. Dare I say revive the room editor in some way? If the conkit has to be tweaked, or worse still rewritten, and they don't intend to use it as an in game feature, single or multi-player then I see no reason to not go back to a similar system to FPSC for adding interior sections.

@DVader: Come on! Thats simply not true... and I never understood why people actually concidered that Doom 3 clone from aeons ago to be "good work". Rolfy, Dimoxinil, Bugsy and I (and plenty more members) have made numerous games that don't look like an FPSC game. This has been made in FPSC.

@EAI:

Thats a huge compliment! Thank you!
I don't intend to bail as I like the software itself, my main gripe is with how its sold ATM and where that is going. The software is evolving nicely...altough I'm concerned to see into what and I have a small project to test its waters in the making.



-Wolf

This is hilarious funny in a way.
I've raised concerns long ago about FPSCR, but every time fanboys raged at any form of critic. Now the same fanboys are crying out loud for GG not being as THEY want it to be. They feel left behind couse TGC don't follow their demands .
Now you fanboys knows what it feels like not being listened to

Hey guys.

We've all read you concerns and questions, and we'll continue to listen. This thread, however, is starting to become a circular discussion. Therefore, it's time to let this one lay. Thanks for your continued passion on GameGuru!

Hi,

We've been so busy we missed this tome of a thread! I have unlocked it briefly to make an official reply.

Lee and I will ensure the direction of GameGuru is for the long-term and your requirements will be fulfilled. When Lee is back from GDC he will give a final summary of TGC’s. We're still in Early Access with GameGuru, lots more to do and we will not shirk away from the challenges ahead. Marketing aside we want an easy to use tool that let's you make any type of 3D game, that's the vision we have.

None of us want to let down any of our community. For us the importance now is consistency and continuous improvement of GameGuru.

Rick

Thanks again for sharing your honest views and providing feedback on where we are right now. It was always going to be a volatile transition, and we will do what we can to provide you with information as it happens. At the simplest level, all we have really done is change the name to reflect our ambitions to support more than the FPS genre. The software has not changed, we have not removed features, or changed our plans on what features will be added in the future. I completely agree the new stuff is taking time to arrive, and I can assure you that we are also eager to see progress in this regard, but mixed with a responsibility to do things in what we feel is the right order to produce a stable and successful product for Early Access.

Hopefully you have seen and approve of the rapid fixes made over the last week, thanks partly to the smooth integration mechanism that Steam provides, and partly to the sterling work of one slightly overworked Ravey. With my return from GDC as a relief force, I can now augment this effort and start helping with fixes and small features, plus continue work on the much larger Character Creator module which will allow you to create your very own characters (even yourself) in the single and multi-player games.

We are building a very healthy list of tasks now to be actioned in the months to come, so please continue to report your findings during this Early Access phase and let us know if we're dropping the ball anywhere. I am also thinking it might be useful to hold a two hour official IRC chat session to discuss the new Game Guru brand, and allow an instant forum to get any remaining concerns off your chest before we soldier on to a very bright and exciting 2015 launch at the end of the year. If someone wants to start a thread to discuss what might be the best time and day to hold it. I will be away from Wednesday this week so perhaps some time from Monday 16th. We just need to decide which day that week and what time (zone) to hold it in. I find 5PM GMT works well as it's during business hours for both sides of the Atlantic!

There would have been no way to address every point in this thread, but I would like to say that our decision to promote the product as an Easy solution does in no way diminish the power and flexibility we are building into this product. Easy is a "good" thing. It means you can focus on the things you want to do, and leave the bits you're not interested in to someone else, and it also means you can do things quicker than others too, which means you have more time to do the things you prefer. Always remember that under the hood is a powerful LUA driven games engine technology that intends to allow full customization of every single graphic, encrypt into a protected standalone and ship a deliverable you can sell with no hassles or royalties to worry about. As a team, we've created everything from middleware SDKs, programming languages right the way through to super easy drag and drop solutions. We've been number #1 on multiple platforms several times and have been developing technology for a very long time, and we would be resisting our natural predilections if we did not ensure that Game Guru is as powerful as it was intuitive, and I hope you will give us the time to deliver on our vision of what it can become.