• Hello [name]! Thanks for joining the GMC. Before making any posts in the Tech Support forum, can we suggest you read the forum rules? These are simple guidelines that we ask you to follow so that you can get the best help possible for your issue.

 Not attracted to GMS2 anymore

Status
Not open for further replies.
I decided to go back and try GMS2 and I just can't help it but say that GMS2 is dead for me. YYG, you lost a customer with GMS2. Oh, and I am ONLY going to talk about the IDE and GUI here. I am not talking about anything else. So nothing to say about new and improved functions, this is just straight on GMS2's IDE and GUI.

So lets hit this thing first with 2 screenshots, one from GMS1 and then from GMS2

DaRic - Tile Based Platform Engine.project.gmx  -  Professional Edition (v1.4.17-20161215-111920.png
GameMaker Studio 2   v2.0.2.44 - GMS2-Test-20161215-111935.png
As you can see, for the exact same event in an object I need MUCH more space on my screen to perform the same actions while coding. I just can't bare that tiresome scrolling area. It cuts my will to work in a game, just that alone.

NEXT: Let's give another hit with the infamous out of context "X".
Event_ obj_player_Create_1-20161215-112459.png
GameMaker Studio 2   v2.0.2.44 - GMS2-Test_-20161215-112626.png
As you can see in GMS1, X-out and it will ask you if you want to save changes. Congradulations YYG, that's CORRECT! Now in GMS2, I cannot show it but if I X-Out this code window, code is gone, deleted without warning AND when you X-Out your object, everything is saved without any warning of any changes - NO YYG, That's INCORRECT! That's not how Windows works. I now need to guess what saves and what does not and if I miss-click, I'm doomed.

Now, I cannot upload anymore images so I'll need to type instead.

Loading is teadious and LONG, OH and I absolutely need to connect with my online account for some reason. It COULD pass if that would be for the test drive but again, we're supposed to test the thing as it will appear once release, if I constantly need an internet connection, bye-bye GMS2 foreever.

Let's talk about maximized windows. WOW, congradulations again YYG, even though it was not perfect in GMS1, you could at least restore your window to it's original state using the restore button at the place of the maximize button (the suggestion would have been to maximize the window inside the GMS IDE and not full screen and it would have been perfect). In GMS2....Oooooh! You have done one step close to perfection, it maximizes in the GMS workspace AND as a TAB. Well that's something good and new (thank you...opps, too early for the thank you), but again, you have forgotten the very basics of Windows, once maximized, no more buttons to restore, see this image below...
Program Manager-20161215-113845.png
As you can see in a normal child/main windows, you have a normal close/maximize/minimize for the main IDE AND the same buttons inside the IDE to do the same for child Windows. SEE YYG, that's correct, that's logical and everyone knows where to look for to restore our windows back.

Now continuing with the same line of sight, let's also mention that there IS actually a way to restore by dragging the tab out (some could consider it a passable alternative) it's not excusable as the buttons are part of the Windows IDE. OK back on track here, when you restore your Window by dragging the tab, weirdly, you NOW have a normal looking window as the restored version of the tab you initially maximized from the workspace is not part of the workspace anymore. Ooooh! bad one here YYG, restore means going back to it's initial state.

Moving forward with the same window here. In GMS1, you vould maximise the whole object windows with all its functions and convenient buttons all at hand. NOW in GMS2, you can ONLY maximize the event (Create event, step event, but only one at a time in one tab) which means that you need to navigate back-and-forth in your IDE within the SAME object functions to code and do your stuff. Oooooh! YYG, that's not convenient at all, bad, bad here, GMS1 was perfect there and you just scrapped part of what made GMS so easy and fun!

Now speaking of the IDE, it's all good and fun for people using the dark side of programming with that dark theme and of course, for the light hearted ones like me you have a light theme wich is, well, too light. AND man, you know, in GMS1, I clicked on a white sheet of paper to insert code, I clicked on a which sheet of paper with a green arrow to run a script. I clicked on a yellow light bulb to create an instance, I clicked on a red pacman to change a sprite. You know, these were easy to see and find. I spent five minutes trying to find where the ADD CODE button was in your new styles because all your buttons are the same color. You know what would have been better? Heck with it, I'll tell you...

You should have kept the same icons (upgraded the graphics a bit to higher resolutions) and instead of coloring the buttons, color the sections BEHIND the buttons. AND if I decide to add these buttons as my favorites, well, I do not have a colored background but I still recognize my buttons. I put my most used buttons as my prefered and had to visually scan my buttons to figure out again, which one was my insert code button and not mess up with run script.

YYG, you crashed in one GMS version everything I loved about the GMS1 IDE with some barely noticible cool new stuff (to mention the tabbed maximized windows here). You killed my will to work with GMS2 and for some reason, you have encouraged me to stay with GMS1 as you will still continue supporting it. That's good, OK, but you'll never fix that maximize windows inside the IDE thing as you no longer add new stuff to GMS1 so how am I supposed to be happy using an old app that will be left to be forgotten within the following year or 2?

A small note out of context her to the fact that I also loose all my export modules of GMS1 if I upgrade to GMS2 as GMS2 does NOT work with export modules anymore. The work with on what do you plan to export your games as of now? Well sorry YYG but some of my games were on Desktop AND Android, now with GMS2, it's not possible anymore. I still keep my modules for GMS1 but GMS2 does not consider them. YYG, GMS2 killed lot's of stuffI loved initially with Game Maker, I hope people won't blast me off with what I wroite and just consider the fact that GMS2's IDE is NOT user-friendly for the mouse AND please, do not talk about keyboard shortcuts, I never use them, so don't blast those that love their mouse and use it, we all have our separate ways of working and programming.
 

csanyk

Member
I will agree that the GMS2 close button auto-save is bad, it puts you at risk of destroying work with an untimely accidental delete+close.

I haven't read the rest of your post, because it got tiresome, but that one point, at least, I will agree with.

Edit: The sarcasm and bitterness, though... man, just get a grip!
 
Last edited:

spacerobot

Member
I will agree that the GMS2 close button auto-save is bad, it puts you at risk of destroying work with an untimely accidental delete+close.

I haven't read the rest of your post, because it got tiresome, but that one point, at least, I will agree with.
The only thing here is that the code window isn't closed so if you make some mistakes you can at least undo. Not like GMS 1.4 where you had to save / close the code window.
 

csanyk

Member
That is a really good point.
Even so, GMS2 does have some layout/scrolling issues right now. Even on a high resolution screen, it's pretty cluttered right now. I would't say that GMS1 is necessarily better, but it does not suffer from this problem so much, because the Object Editor window is more compact, and if you open a code event, the code window at least overlaps, rather than forces horizontal scrolling. Getting buried in a pile of overlapping Execute Code windows is a different problem, but at least you don't have to scroll around in a Workspace pane that is docked into a region that's smaller than the overall window and thus forces you to scroll around a lot.
 

psyke

Member
I have been playing around with GMS 2 for a couple of weeks now and I NEVER had to scroll through the workspace, NEVER. If you do that often, then you're not using the IDE correctly.

If I have, let's say, 4 objects in the workspace, I just use CTRL+TAB to switch between them. If there are a lot of objects in the workspace, I just type CTRL+T and look into the recent items, or I just type the name of the resource. I don't even use the Resources Tree anymore, because it's not necessary.
 

Llama_Code

Member
Out this code window, code is gone, deleted without warning AND when you X-Out your object, everything is saved without any warning of any changes - NO YYG, That's INCORRECT! That's not how Windows works.
That's not how Windows usually works, but it's the direction it's going. There are places in Windows 10 where settings are either automatically applied when changed, or are applied when clicking the X. No OK, or Apply, click the X and it applies them.

I doubt your going to hurt their feeling by not not buying. Stay on 1.4.

While it does have some issues to iron out, I love the fresh approach it has taken, and after using it for a week or so I am fine with it. I don't expect every single piece of software to behave the same, because they don't, so instead of trying to make it what it's not I got used to what it was.

One thing I think people really struggle with on the workspaces is they seem to be stuck on the idea of a top corner, there isn't one. I use the shortcuts or double click the resource to bring what I want in to view, I rarely scroll the workspaces.

I really don't understand all this exhausting scrolling everyone is doing because I don't have that issue.
 

csanyk

Member
I have been playing around with GMS 2 for a couple of weeks now and I NEVER had to scroll through the workspace, NEVER. If you do that often, then you're not using the IDE correctly.

If I have, let's say, 4 objects in the workspace, I just use CTRL+TAB to switch between them. If there are a lot of objects in the workspace, I just type CTRL+T and look into the recent items, or I just type the name of the resource. I don't even use the Resources Tree anymore, because it's not necessary.
As I've said elsewhere, the existence of keyboard shortcuts does not mean that the mouse-driven UI doesn't have usability issues. Ctrl+Tab and Ctrl+T are workarounds for what is a real problem with current workspaces.
 
Last edited:

hippyman

Member
I agree about the workspace being a huge pain. It doesn't speed up anything for me. I tried getting used to these hacky shortcuts (CTRL+T/Tab) but it's just weird. They improved a lot of things but trying to force this "Unreal Engine Blueprint-esque" look isn't the way to go in my opinion. It feels like YYG is more worried about being pretty than they are about being functional, which bugs me a little bit.
 
Ctrl+Tab and Ctrl+T are not workarounds, imo. They are a function to allow the end-user to quickly navigate the workspace. Other than that, you can simply double-click any resource in the tree and you are instantly taken there. So, no need to scroll anything. Shortcut or double-click and you are there.
 
To the OP:

GMS2 is in beta. As such, I am sure the YoYo would appreciate clean, constructive criticism in order to further improve their product. As a company, I am sure they would like people to purchase GMS2 and to like it and like working in it. However, it is difficult to dig constructive criticism out of long, bitter posts. Be clear. Be precise. But be friendly, please. It goes a long way.

And remember, as much as YoYo is selling GMS2, ultimately it is their program and their vision. They did not build this just for you alone. Nor for me. As such, I may or may not like the way a certain thing works in GMS2 and I can report it to YoYo. However, they have the final say in what they do with GMS2 ... just as we can choose to purchase it or not, to support THEIR vision or not.
 
Your first argument is completely invalid. Your GM1 screenshot doesn't include the actual code window...
I was just showing that all the functions were in one single window while as in the Workspace style GMS2 chose to force takes up more space than before.

I have been playing around with GMS 2 for a couple of weeks now and I NEVER had to scroll through the workspace, NEVER. If you do that often, then you're not using the IDE correctly.

If I have, let's say, 4 objects in the workspace, I just use CTRL+TAB to switch between them. If there are a lot of objects in the workspace, I just type CTRL+T and look into the recent items, or I just type the name of the resource. I don't even use the Resources Tree anymore, because it's not necessary.
As I mentionned, I'm not a Ctrl+Whatever shortcut person. I use the mouse A lot. I agree to the quote below
As I've said elsewhere, the existence of keyboard shortcuts does not mean that the mouse-driven UI has usability issues. Ctrl+Tab and Ctrl+T are workarounds for what is a real problem with current workspaces.
That's not how Windows usually works, but it's the direction it's going. There are places in Windows 10 where settings are either automatically applied when changed, or are applied when clicking the X. No OK, or Apply, click the X and it applies them.

I doubt your going to hurt their feeling by not not buying. Stay on 1.4.

While it does have some issues to iron out, I love the fresh approach it has taken, and after using it for a week or so I am fine with it. I don't expect every single piece of software to behave the same, because they don't, so instead of trying to make it what it's not I got used to what it was.

One thing I think people really struggle with on the workspaces is they seem to be stuck on the idea of a top corner, there isn't one. I use the shortcuts or double click the resource to bring what I want in to view, I rarely scroll the workspaces.

I really don't understand all this exhausting scrolling everyone is doing because I don't have that issue.
Half right / half wrong. If you take Firefox and Google Chrome, the preferences are saved as soon as you touched them. Leave the window opened a reboot your computer and the information has been saved. Of cours you could say that it's done once closed in the code we don't see but in a programming way, you don't work that way. Creating a game is not like changing our wallpaper or homepage.

I doubt your going to hurt their feeling by not not buying. Stay on 1.4.
Sigh.... I know! What else can I say :(
 

TehCupcakes

Member
You know instead of saying "GMS2 is dead for me", you could have said "here are my suggestions on how you can improve the UI in GMS2."

Some of these are legitimate arguments, and YYG could potentially implement a better solution than what currently is in use. GMS2 is in beta specifically for this reason: to get feedback from users. Offer your critiques politely as constructive critiques for YYG; if they fail to improve in these areas, then you have every right to not buy the program. But at least give them a chance.
 

Ubu

Member
The workspace is probably where GMS2 has got the most criticism. There are now 7-8 threads on this forum discussing the problems with the new workspace. I find it a bit worrying that representatives from YYG are almost absent in these discussions and when they do comment they seem to be very adamant on not changing anything workspace-related. They keep preaching if enough people wants something they'll look into it, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I still think an optional tab system would be a much welcomed addition. Something similar to @Joakim Sundqvist 's mockup would be great.
 
Ctrl+Tab and Ctrl+T are not workarounds, imo. They are a function to allow the end-user to quickly navigate the workspace. Other than that, you can simply double-click any resource in the tree and you are instantly taken there. So, no need to scroll anything. Shortcut or double-click and you are there.
What I mean by scrolling with the ouse is that once you went pretty deep in your object step, creation, drawing events and have opened a few things up under your object, double clicking on the object won't bring you back to the step event if you are in the drawing event, you need to scroll arround or use the maximized tab technique which is not convenient at all. I'm talking about moving arrount the same actions for one object. Here's an example where I can't see all the buttons on the right or all the object properties on the left in 2 screenshots:
Simple Comptable          (Ctrl+F12 - properties) [Control]-20161215-154732.png
Simple Comptable          (Ctrl+F12 - properties) [Control]-20161215-154749.png
To be a little bit better: The events working window or workarea (or whatever you call it) could be combined in the events programming workarea like they did before in V1. That would indeed save up some space. I know I can get used to a new interface but always struggling to see all my GUI is just a pain.
 

Cpaz

Member
Even so, GMS2 does have some layout/scrolling issues right now. Even on a high resolution screen, it's pretty cluttered right now. I wouldn't say that GMS1 is necessarily better, but it does not suffer from this problem so much, because the Object Editor window is more compact, and if you open a code event, the code window at least overlaps, rather than forces horizontal scrolling. Getting buried in a pile of overlapping Execute Code windows is a different problem, but at least you don't have to scroll around in a Workspace pane that is docked into a region that's smaller than the overall window and thus forces you to scroll around a lot.
This can sum up my issues with this entirely. What I would like to see is one of two things: 1, have the code editor popout into it's own window ala gms 1.4, it's much easier to manage that way, at the very least don't contain the code editor to inside the workspace explicitly. 2, have an alternative for those who prefer a more (I guess) "traditional" ide experience. Specifically, I'm referring to this post/mockup.
 
You know instead of saying "GMS2 is dead for me", you could have said "here are my suggestions on how you can improve the UI in GMS2."

Some of these are legitimate arguments, and YYG could potentially implement a better solution than what currently is in use. GMS2 is in beta specifically for this reason: to get feedback from users. Offer your critiques politely as constructive critiques for YYG; if they fail to improve in these areas, then you have every right to not buy the program. But at least give them a chance.
This is not my first post with these arguments. But after 2 updates, I still cannot find the will to start working in even creating a small game to test under GMS2 as I'm backed off everytime I think in what IDE I'll work in. This post is to let them know that their decision in keeping this that way will make me quit supporting GMS2 until they decide to release a V3 or 2.x that will make my life easier and better in game creation.

Even more, this version will probably invade the marketplace where V1 assets will become rapidely obsolete. That's where I'm affraid, working on an old system that almost no-one uses anymore where I'll need to give up my game creation until YYG omes up with something new.

And sorry for the bittersweet post people keep talking about, my way of speaking when talking about my thought has never been the best. I just hope someone in YYG will take time to tell us what they think they will do with their IDE, if they plan to change it or not.
 
You can also resize elements of the UI, such as sliding the Resource tree toward the right edge a bit to give yourself more room. You can also use the >> on either side (resource tree, etc.) to minimize them while working in the work space, etc. So, there are ways for people to create extra room if their monitor does not provide it or you are not using a multi-monitor setup.

"As I mentionned, I'm not a Ctrl+Whatever shortcut person. I use the mouse A lot."

No matter the program, learning and using the shortcuts will always make you more productive. Always.

Back in the day, I used to use the mouse only (for the most part) when working in Photoshop or 3D modeling. Drag the mouse pointer to a menu, slide down the menu to what I want, and click ... or, in some cases, drag the mouse to the menu, slide down to a sub-menu, slide again within the sub-menu, and click. Sure, there were buttons on the UI for me to access some of the features, but not all. And I got by. And I created things. And I felt comfortable. I was convinced that training myself to use keyboard shortcuts was an absolute waste of time because, you know, I'm not a shortcut person. Never was. Never will be.

Fast forward to now - I cannot live without my shortcuts and in a new piece of software, it's one of the first things I seek out, even printing a list of the shortcuts to help me memorize them and quickly get them into muscle memory. I am so much faster and freer working with shortcuts! I don't have to remember where a menu item is. I don't have to move my hand from what I'm working on in order to drag the mouse to some location to click a button. I just press the key combo and done. Simple, effective. Honestly, it's amazing how much one's workflow is improved and how creatively freeing it is to learn to use a software's shortcuts!
 
N

NPT

Guest
I decided to go back and try GMS2 and I just can't help it but say that GMS2 is dead for me. YYG, you lost a customer with GMS2.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You've done nothing but complain about GMS2 since the first beta. The pricing, the IDE, the exports, things not implimented in the Beta yet.

Another Humble Bundle buyer who paid $15 and had a brain anneurism because you found out that you're not going to get all of GMS2 and all exports for another $15.

As much as you want to represent yourself as some long-time valued customer that's invested heavily in YYGs, you're not.
 

psyke

Member
As I've said elsewhere, the existence of keyboard shortcuts does not mean that the mouse-driven UI has usability issues. Ctrl+Tab and Ctrl+T are workarounds for what is a real problem with current workspaces.
They're not "workarounds", they're part of GMS 2 workflow, and you will have to learn to use them. :)

Guys, Game Maker Studio is a complex software with a lot of different tools, you cannot make any good progress without knowing the basic stuff (yes, shortcuts are basic stuff), and you cannot work with Maya, 3DS Max, Unreal Engine or Unity without shortcuts, unless you wanna waste your time.
 

csanyk

Member
Ctrl+Tab and Ctrl+T are not workarounds, imo. They are a function to allow the end-user to quickly navigate the workspace. Other than that, you can simply double-click any resource in the tree and you are instantly taken there. So, no need to scroll anything. Shortcut or double-click and you are there.
Well, OK then, let's go one further. If there's no need to scroll around, why not eliminate scrolling entirely? Let's make workspace navigation keyboard driven.

Your argument is like saying that if there's a usability issue with Windows Explorer, it doesn't matter because Microsoft gave us Powershell.

Keyboard shortcuts are keyboard navigation, and as keyboard navigation they are not workarounds; they're their own thing. BUT as a solution for having to scroll excessively in an overly-spread-out GUI, they are workarounds to the mouse-driving navigation interface. GMS2 users deserve to have a first-rate mouse experience, not be told to learn to love keyboard shortcuts. The keyboard shortcuts are fine for what they are, but they are not fixes for the mouse navigation issues; the're workarounds.
 
Well, OK then, let's go one further. If there's no need to scroll around, why not eliminate scrolling entirely? Let's make workspace navigation keyboard driven.

Your argument is like saying that if there's a usability issue with Windows Explorer, it doesn't matter because Microsoft gave us Powershell.

Keyboard shortcuts are keyboard navigation, and as keyboard navigation they are not workarounds; they're their own thing. BUT as a solution for having to scroll excessively in an overly-spread-out GUI, they are workarounds to the mouse-driving navigation interface. GMS2 users deserve to have a first-rate mouse experience, not be told to learn to love keyboard shortcuts. The keyboard shortcuts are fine for what they are, but they are not fixes for the mouse navigation issues; the're workarounds.
I disagree. I work in mouse-driving navigation interface daily ... it's called Photoshop ... and MODO (a 3D modeling program like 3DS Max, Maya) ... and ZBrush. All of these aree heavily mouse-driven for 90% of what you do ... painting an image, creating a 3D model ... it's click, drag, push, release, etc. BUT!!! You are NOT expected to use the menus and buttons per se, even though they are there. You ARE expected to learn the keyboard shortcuts in order to 1) speed up your workflow and 2) free you to be creative. When creating a 3D model, nothing breaks the artistic flow like having to drag your mouse cursor away from the model you are working on, moving it toward a button or menu, clicking, and then moving back to continue what you were doing (i.e. creating). The same goes with Photoshop or any paint program. I could click on the Brush size box and type in the size manually, I could move my mouse off the painting I am working on and drag the brush size slider to get a new brush size, OR I could use the keyboard shortcut to dynamically resize the brush RIGHT THERE where I am working and not momentarily get out of the flow of my work.

And so it is with MOST software out there ... even if it is for programming, writing, and, yes, game creation. Keyboard shortcuts, even in a heavily mouse-driven environment are not "work arounds", but essential parts of your workflow. Period.
 

csanyk

Member
I disagree. I work in mouse-driving navigation interface daily ... it's called Photoshop ... and MODO (a 3D modeling program like 3DS Max, Maya) ... and ZBrush. All of these aree heavily mouse-driven for 90% of what you do ... painting an image, creating a 3D model ... it's click, drag, push, release, etc. BUT!!! You are NOT expected to use the menus and buttons per se, even though they are there. You ARE expected to learn the keyboard shortcuts in order to 1) speed up your workflow and 2) free you to be creative. When creating a 3D model, nothing breaks the artistic flow like having to drag your mouse cursor away from the model you are working on, moving it toward a button or menu, clicking, and then moving back to continue what you were doing (i.e. creating). The same goes with Photoshop or any paint program. I could click on the Brush size box and type in the size manually, I could move my mouse off the painting I am working on and drag the brush size slider to get a new brush size, OR I could use the keyboard shortcut to dynamically resize the brush RIGHT THERE where I am working and not momentarily get out of the flow of my work.

And so it is with MOST software out there ... even if it is for programming, writing, and, yes, game creation. Keyboard shortcuts, even in a heavily mouse-driven environment are not "work arounds", but essential parts of your workflow. Period.
You're still missing the point. The argument isn't whether keyboard shortcuts are faster, better, or for true masters of the software. It's whether the mouse methods for navigation are as good as they can be, or if there are better ways to arrange things that would make mouse interactions more efficient.

We can have both. For someone who prefers the keyboard, they can work that way. For someone who prefers the mouse, but doesn't like the UI because it's got a poorer mouse experience than it could, dismissing a suggestion for improving mouse UX by pointing out that keyboard users rule and mouse users drool is unhelpful. Yes, keyboard is generally faster than mouse for many if not most tasks. That doesn't mean that mouse UX should be ignored, or that mouse UX should be acceptable if it's less than it could be.

A LOT of people want improvements to the mouse UX. Telling them all they should shut up and learn to love the keyboard, however well intended, isn't addressing the primary concern directly.
 
Last edited:
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You've done nothing but complain about GMS2 since the first beta. The pricing, the IDE, the exports, things not implimented in the Beta yet.

Another Humble Bundle buyer who paid $15 and had a brain anneurism because you found out that you're not going to get all of GMS2 and all exports for another $15.

As much as you want to represent yourself as some long-time valued customer that's invested heavily in YYGs, you're not.
I don't remember complaining about GMS when they went from GM to GMS. I did not complain when they went from GM4 to 5 and we had to pay. I did not complain when they made me pay AGAIN for GM8 when I had GM7. I did not complain about the long loading time it took to open GMS compared to GM8.1. And to whom ever it may concern, those that paid the full price for the master collection, they won't be able to get all their export modules back with GMS2.

Before kicking someone's opinion AGAIN. Note that being in the programming area for over 10 years, never have I seen anything good from customers when changing the whole GUI UNLESS it got user friendly more than before. I had to make a whole programming departement change the way they opened their application because customers complained about how hard and tiresome a process was. So I DO KNOW what I'm saying. Not because I do not have a huge list of games posted on GM that it means I'm a small user. I built church programs, presentation and user customisation software with GM and GMS that will never be posted here or anywhere on the net because they were built for those to whom it was meant to be programed.

So please do not disrespect anyone in this forum. I don't know what happened to users in these forums but before GMS, everything was meant for sharing and having fun. NOW, everyone has changed in a more comercial way and THAT is NEVER a good sign.

So again, in a positive way, if YYG would polish their IDE, there is still hope. Even though this drive's me mad and that I loose the ability to export on Android unless I cash out another over 100$, I am still willing to have the desktop version because that's what I was working on in the early GM days. Now, if everyone is used to working with the GMS2 IDE and need to open up their GMS1 to export on Android, just think about the fact that new habits won't work with the old habits AND vice-versa. SO to calm things down AND to give a chace to those that paid full price OR those that got the Humble Bundle special, I think it would be very smart and well thought for YYG to rethink their Workspace idea to cover the needs of the mouse users. We are not at school, we have no exams to pass, therefor my working habits are mine and the infamous keyboard shortcuts that some people find so fun, well, heck with it, use them but don't force others to use your methods because I could tell you that using your mouse is also very fast and you are slowing yourself down, you won't believe me if I say that though. So as csanyk says, 2 different mothods of working should not be debatable, it's like if you are right handed and you are saying that now you MUST be left handed, you cannot do that.

So YYG, please, check our notes and different posts as well as the comments and rethink your IDE and MANY people should be more happy to first of all, pay for the new version, 2 encourage a hard working team that listens AND make creativity begin a new era of game making. We are here to have fun in creating our own imagination and bringing it to life the way we work with our personalities and habits.
 

Cpaz

Member
I don't remember complaining about GMS when they went from GM to GMS. I did not complain when they went from GM4 to 5 and we had to pay. I did not complain when they made me pay AGAIN for GM8 when I had GM7. I did not complain about the long loading time it took to open GMS compared to GM8.1. And to whom ever it may concern, those that paid the full price for the master collection, they won't be able to get all their export modules back with GMS2...
Because GMS 2 is a different product. Similar in execution, especially in how we do things. But it's new, built from the ground up. This adds tons of benefits yada yada- I'm sure you've heard this before.
So, needless to say, when someone puts the work in, especially on a product you intend to make money with, they should expect some form of profit. The discount is more than enough for those who have already invested into the previous product.
Besides, if we intend to get into the games industry, should we not be able to make that back over time? Investment in tools and all that?
This is the ideal situation, of course, but it doesn't end up this way for everyone.

So please do not disrespect anyone in this forum. I don't know what happened to users in these forums but before GMS, everything was meant for sharing and having fun. NOW, everyone has changed in a more comercial way and THAT is NEVER a good sign.
(Yeah, that was a bit much...)

So YYG, please, check our notes and different posts as well as the comments and rethink your IDE and MANY people should be more happy to first of all, pay for the new version...
There is a reason that the "beta' tag is there you know? Also i'll point out that there are many other features that are in the works. So even if they decide to take an idea suggested in the beta, unless urgent, or extremely easy to add, you won't be seeing it anytime soon.

If you were turned off by the GUI overhaul, then ok. Good for you. Trying to demand that they change things is also a bit much, however, and will only have you be ignored.

But back on the topic at hand, my previous point still stands. If only because I feel if they had either suggested option as an *optional alternative* it would benefit everyone! Both mouse and keyboard focused users (probably with some ironing out first though).
 
Because GMS 2 is a different product. Similar in execution, especially in how we do things. But it's new, built from the ground up. This adds tons of benefits yada yada- I'm sure you've heard this before.
...
If you were turned off by the GUI overhaul, then ok. Good for you. Trying to demand that they change things is also a bit much, however, and will only have you be ignored.
If people get lazed out by the "This is a new product..." that's their problem. I'm not impressed with the IDE they chose. To resume what GMS2 feels like. It like if all the programming went into new abilities and new functionalities and they simply took a GUI out of another box to relieve some time into creating one on their own. That's not very nice the way I said it, I know. But knowing that ALL of our programming time is spent into THAT IDE and that IDE is what we will be seeing all the time we will be creating our game, I think it's just reasonable to talk about it.

You won't pass your time in code windows as this is not a code only engine (not that it cannot be achieved) I'm just saying that if I wanted a keybpard shortcutted IDE for coding, I'm not sure GMS would be my first choice. But for the convenience of having an image editor, a tile object editor, event driven interfaces and drag'n drop room creation, I believe that the mouse has a major role and I do not believe that the keyboard freaks ou there (I'm a mouse freak) use the keyboard to create their rooms unless they decide to make room creation codes entirely in a code.

Being a USER of GMS AND a customer that paid more than one for this product, I believe that as anyone else in this forum, I'm allowed to ask for some tweaks in the IDE when I see this in the rules of this GMS2 forum:

  • You can post topics to discuss any area of the IDE and ask for help or suggestions from other members on how to get the most from the product.
  • You can post feedback topics to give your initial impressions and talk about how the product is being used by you and your team as well as nay cool things you've discovered and want to share with the community.
So, this is a suggestion, a discussion and my initial impresisons of the IDE of GMS2. I did not disrespect any of you, or did not mean to in anyways, to make you have permission to say that I have a strong tendancy towards being ignored because of how I feel towards the GMS2 IDE.

Common people, some have managed to take a few things out of what I said. They clearly said they do not agree totally to what I'm saying but they DO agree on some things. This is a discussion for any one to share their ideas for the GMS2 IDE. I just want to make things clear to GM that I am willing to pay just for a desktop version (which I find hard to agree with but..) but not if the GUI stays the same. And being told that they will work on it later, does not encourage me to buy right now. Now's the time, now is the beta, people have spent time in trying out the software for the sake of having something fun to work with no matter their coding or working style.
 
S

Skywolf

Guest
Not sure why people always have to turn opinions into debates.
You CANNOT be correct in proving someones else's opinion wrong.

@ YYG, yes.. I too am one who hasn't spent more then 3hrs messing with GMS2 due to the IDE/workspace issues.
(More so, as a hobbyist, knowing that ill have to spend X to get the mobile bundle, while only needing the android module.. Best just stick with 1.x and the modules I already own)

The keyboard/mouse driven bit..
I don't do keyboard shortcuts myself. And, rather then learning/adapting to this change... Ill stick to what works, 1.x!

Need to rephrase this;
I too am one who hasn't spent more then 3hrs messing with GMS2 due to the IDE/workspace issues.
I've tried.. multiple times, after the first experience, each time barely opening a single object/event/code window. The clutter, chaos, confusion, or whatever... Shuts me down and I'm X'ing out and back to 1.X within minutes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're still missing the point. The argument isn't whether keyboard shortcuts are faster, better, or for true masters of the software. It's whether the mouse methods for navigation are as good as they can be, or if there are better ways to arrange things that would make mouse interactions more efficient.

We can have both. For someone who prefers the keyboard, they can work that way. For someone who prefers the mouse, but doesn't like the UI because it's got a poorer mouse experience than it could, dismissing a suggestion for improving mouse UX by pointing out that keyboard users rule and mouse users drool is unhelpful. Yes, keyboard is generally faster than mouse for many if not most tasks. That doesn't mean that mouse UX should be ignored, or that mouse UX should be acceptable if it's less than it could be.

A LOT of people want improvements to the mouse UX. Telling them all they should shut up and learn to love the keyboard, however well intended, isn't addressing the primary concern directly.
I agree. Anything can be made better and the end-user that desires to use the mouse primarily should have as enjoyable experience working in whatever app as is possible. However, having said that, I don't believe I am actually missing the point because, frankly, just about every piece of software made to work on a desktop or laptop (not phone or tablet) is designed around it's primary input device ... the keyboard. Even when you type in MS Word or Open Office, you can certainly click the Bold and Italic buttons at the top if you like, but the primary design is to use CTRL+B or CTRL+I to do this. In this manner, you can keep typing without having to remove one hand from the keyboard to access the mouse.

The point is, if YYB intended the shortcuts to be used as a part of the workflow, then that is how they designed it despite them providing other ways to move about the UI. And it seems pretty clear that they intend the end-user to use CTRL+T and CTRL+Tab to do that since they bring it up almost immediately within the tutorials about the UI. My argument, though, would not be about the use of shortcut keys, but which short cut keys they selected. If these are among the most commonly used short cuts, then both are a bit ... odd ... as far as muscle memory.

By the way, and for the record, I've not once told anyone to "shut up and learn to love the keyboard". I've never told anyone here to "shut up". That's not my way of doing things. I can present an argument for discussion just like anyone else. Anyone can disagree and most will have a valid point. We (should) discuss to learn and educate ... and not put words in people's mouths. Thank you.
 

csanyk

Member
However, having said that, I don't believe I am actually missing the point because, frankly, just about every piece of software made to work on a desktop or laptop (not phone or tablet) is designed around it's primary input device ... the keyboard.
I'd quibble with you on that. Keyboard and mouse have been co-equally the primary input devices on PCs since Windows 95, if not earlier. Keyboard is the only primary input device on systems like DOS.

Even when you type in MS Word or Open Office, you can certainly click the Bold and Italic buttons at the top if you like, but the primary design is to use CTRL+B or CTRL+I to do this. In this manner, you can keep typing without having to remove one hand from the keyboard to access the mouse.
I see this as an apples/oranges sort of thing. There are plenty of common keystroke shortcuts that no one would argue against being superior to the mouse-way of doing the equivalent thing. Ctrl+X/C/V is a much better way of cut/copy/paste than mousing up to the Edit menu. I rely heavily on keyboard for moving the cursor around in a text window to select text, using arrows, ctrl, shift, page up, page down, home, and end keys. I'm not against keyboard shortcuts. I acknowlege they are better in certain contexts for certain things. I'm not arguing that the mouse is the best way between doing the equivalent thing with the keyboard or the mouse.

I'm arguing that the current mouse navigation is inferior to the proposed mouse navigation.

Pointing out that there's an alternative navigation that's even better, and already exists, is besides the point. Ctrl+T, Ctrl+Tab are fine. But they are not mouse actions.

The point is, if YYB intended the shortcuts to be used as a part of the workflow, then that is how they designed it despite them providing other ways to move about the UI. And it seems pretty clear that they intend the end-user to use CTRL+T and CTRL+Tab to do that since they bring it up almost immediately within the tutorials about the UI. My argument, though, would not be about the use of shortcut keys, but which short cut keys they selected. If these are among the most commonly used short cuts, then both are a bit ... odd ... as far as muscle memory.
Right, YYG clearly do recommend learning these keystrokes. The thing is, they're not all that common or standard shortcuts in other applications, so new users don't know about them from their other experience using applications. They all discover the same problem: "It sucks to mouse around in GMS2!" and they all complain, and they all get the same response from YYG: "We don't think you should want to use the mouse, learn about Ctrl+T and Ctrl+Tab, and do it like the pros do!" And that's the official answer.

And it's the wrong answer. It's the official answer because someone's too proud of their design to admit that it doesn't work for 99% of new users, and it's the wrong answer because that proud designer thinks that the solution is to tell the user they're wrong and to "educate" them.

By the way, and for the record, I've not once told anyone to "shut up and learn to love the keyboard". I've never told anyone here to "shut up". That's not my way of doing things. I can present an argument for discussion just like anyone else. Anyone can disagree and most will have a valid point. We (should) discuss to learn and educate ... and not put words in people's mouths. Thank you.
Fair enough, and yes, you haven't literally told anyone to shut up. But you keep insisting that there's nothing wrong with the mouse-driven UI that can't be fixed by learning the keyboard shortcuts, so in essence you're saying there's no problem, or that the problem is already solved by learning to not use the mouse. Which is essentially trying to close the topic. I'm insisting that there's an issue with the way the UI works with the mouse, and it deserves to be improved, so that users who prefer the mouse as well as users who prefer the keyboard can both have a first-rate experience.

I do feel like you're listening and that the more we talk, the more you're opening to the points I've been arguing being reasonable, which is good, but you don't seem to be persuaded, mainly because you seem to think that bothering with an inferior input device that will never be as good as the keyboard is pointless. Well, it's not necessarily a problem for you, but I'm talking about addressing a problem that a lot of people who primarily use the mouse specifically for this sort of UI navigation are complaining about.

I'm sure we mousers are probably still using Ctrl+S to save, Ctrl+X/C/V for cut/copy/paste, and so on, but that doesn't mean we always prefer the keyboard for everything, and sometimes we do prefer the mouse. We can provide feedback on what works and what doesn't and what we think might work better. And even though keyboard might be the best of all, to you, or objectively, it doesn't mean that the UI can't be tweaked in ways that make the mouse experience better. And since it's a very common complaint, I think suggestions for those tweaks have merit.
 
I do feel like you're listening and that the more we talk, the more you're opening to the points I've been arguing being reasonable, which is good, but you don't seem to be persuaded, mainly because you seem to think that bothering with an inferior input device that will never be as good as the keyboard is pointless.
If you think that I actually believe the mouse is an inferior input device, then you have not really read all I've posted. I am primarily an artist. As such, I use primarily the pen on a tablet or the mouse to interact with my computer most of the time. I draw and paint with the pen, which, for all intents and purposes, is a mouse. And when I am doing 3D modeling, I am pushing vertices and polys all day long with the mouse. It is my primary input device for most of what I do.

However, I'd referenced the keyboard as a primary input device because, frankly, it's been around a lot longer than the mouse and it is a main access to most every program. The mouse and the keyboard work together as companions. And in most programs, this is how it's meant to be. So, you use both keyboard short cuts and the mouse to do whatever it is you are trying to do. But many people, myself included when I was younger, rely heavily on mouse interaction when keyboard short cuts are often the key to freeing up how a desktop app is meant to work.

Again, I am not saying that there aren't improvements that can be made. But I most definitely am saying that the current keyboard short cuts are not work arounds at all, but the creator's intended, primary method of getting around the GSM2 work space. I personally don't like the unorthodox keyboard short cut bindings, to be frank. But I do believe I recognize their intention here.

Fair enough, and yes, you haven't literally told anyone to shut up. But you keep insisting that there's nothing wrong with the mouse-driven UI that can't be fixed by learning the keyboard shortcuts, so in essence you're saying there's no problem, or that the problem is already solved by learning to not use the mouse. Which is essentially trying to close the topic. I'm insisting that there's an issue with the way the UI works with the mouse, and it deserves to be improved, so that users who prefer the mouse as well as users who prefer the keyboard can both have a first-rate experience.
Please note that we are both being insistent. You're insisting as much as I am. However, never have I claimed you were trying to shut anyone up or that you were trying to close the topic. Why is it alright for you to be insistent but not someone else? Is it because you firmly believe you are right? And, if so, that's okay. So do I. ;) However, be polite about it, state facts as you see them, and stop claiming that someone who does not agree with you is attempting to shut you up or close you down. It's simply not the case.
 

csanyk

Member
This is not my first post with these arguments. But after 2 updates, I still cannot find the will to start working in even creating a small game to test under GMS2 as I'm backed off everytime I think in what IDE I'll work in. This post is to let them know that their decision in keeping this that way will make me quit supporting GMS2 until they decide to release a V3 or 2.x that will make my life easier and better in game creation.
I think you're expecting a lot if you think these sorts of issues are going to get fixed right away.

During the Beta period, YYG are going to be furiously pursuing bugs -- stuff that is broken and doesn't work as intended. What you're talking about is fixing design problems, mostly. Fixing design problems late in the development cycle is very expensive, and doesn't happen quickly. They have to take time to analyze the feedback they get, not just from you but from many other users, and figure out what makes the most sense to do, then design that new solution, and so on.

So expect it to take a while, and try to be patient if you can. Also, be polite and reasonable when you offer suggestions, and try to make the best case for it as you can. I find that YYG do listen and respond to customer feedback, a lot more than many other companies. @Mike, @rwkay, @ShaunJS, and others are all pretty active here, and despite dealing with a lot of demanding/complaining people, tend to be very good natured, and they DO listen. They may not always do what everyone wants them to do, but of course no one possibly could.

My advice would be to stay on 1.x for now, knowing that it will continue to be supported officially for a long time, and move to 2.x when it makes sense to do so, if you do it at all. I'm happy enough with 2.x even in beta that I want to be an early adopter of it and be as familiar with it as I can, and also have as much influence as I can through this sort of feedback to shape it into what I think it should be, what I need it to be for me. I'm glad YYG give us that sort of opportunity.
 
N

NPT

Guest
I don't remember complaining about GMS when they went from GM to GMS.
Really?

http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showtopic=688761&p=4939376

avidichard said:
...
Seriously, can somebody help me out, I've spent a full month debuging this painfull software in this grusome environement called Studio. If I do not get any support, I'm seriously thinking in going back to GM 8.1 where my Windows dreams were true and where my games never crashed besides my stupid codes and where SANDBOX was not a way to work in Windows. I seriously never had a harder time programming in GM than with Game Maker Studio. GMS discouraged all of my game making push and that's why some of my good projects are rocking off the cliff because as soon as I get a problem, I spend days and weeks and MONTHS trying to figure out what's wrong. In GM 8, I solved my problems within hours and that was for a big problem hard to find.

Sorry for complaining but people are waiting for this software. I really need someone to help me out.

...
 

csanyk

Member
If you think that I actually believe the mouse is an inferior input device, then you have not really read all I've posted. I am primarily an artist. As such, I use primarily the pen on a tablet or the mouse to interact with my computer most of the time. I draw and paint with the pen, which, for all intents and purposes, is a mouse. And when I am doing 3D modeling, I am pushing vertices and polys all day long with the mouse. It is my primary input device for most of what I do.

However, I'd referenced the keyboard as a primary input device because, frankly, it's been around a lot longer than the mouse and it is a main access to most every program. The mouse and the keyboard work together as companions. And in most programs, this is how it's meant to be. So, you use both keyboard short cuts and the mouse to do whatever it is you are trying to do. But many people, myself included when I was younger, rely heavily on mouse interaction when keyboard short cuts are often the key to freeing up how a desktop app is meant to work.
I wish I could remember where I read it, but it must have been 15-20 years ago, some application design guidelines for Windows, back in the day when they were just introducing Windows to users, and trying to get developers to embrace the concept of moving from a CLI world to a GUI world, where Microsoft made it very clear that there should always be both a keyboard and a mouse method for doing things. That's where I'm coming from, in insisting that they should both be considered primary input devices. It's a very old standard that MS recommended/required for people writing software for Windows.

Obviously users have their preference as to which they may use more. The point is that preference is the user's, and should not be driven by how painful it is to use the inferior of the two methods! The idea in making software is to make it as good to use as possible, and that means improving it on all fronts; not insisting that keyboard is better than mouse, so if there's a design issue that impacts mouse use more than keyboard, just learn to love keyboard because it's better anyway.

So, you and I, we both use both input devices quite a bit. Obviously, if you were some sort of weirdo keyboard-fetish guy who liked to do selections and pencil drawing tool via keyboard input only, I'd be laughing at you. You're not; you're reasonable, and you recognize that each input device is ideal for certain tasks, and acceptable for others, and not very good at still others. We might differ on certain tasks, and that's OK. I'm not trying to tell anyone to do things the way I prefer; I'm only saying that I see things that could be improved with the way I prefer to do them.

My point in criticising workspaces and chain view is to say that these features in the GUI make mousers work harder for navigation than they should have to. I'm also pointing out suggestion for what I feel are fairly minor, not all that controversial really, tweaks that would improve the GUI for mouse navigation, without actually doing anything harmful to people who are into the keyboard methods.

I think YYG are more pushing users to look into the keyboard shortcuts because they're there already, and because they have costs sunk into the UI as it stands, and they don't want to throw that investment out the door and do a re-design every time someone like me comes up with an idea. All that is reasonable. But it still stands that there are improvements that can (and I will argue) should be made.

Again, I am not saying that there aren't improvements that can be made. But I most definitely am saying that the current keyboard short cuts are not work arounds at all, but the creator's intended, primary method of getting around the GSM2 work space. I personally don't like the unorthodox keyboard short cut bindings, to be frank. But I do believe I recognize their intention here.
Well, OK, but I think this just means you're not accepting my definition of workaround. We're stating the problem differently. I'm saying: "I want to do navigation with the mouse in a better way" and you're saying "The better way is the keyboard" and I'm saying but I want to do it in a better way WITH THE MOUSE" and then we just go in circles.

At least you're acknowledging that there can be improvements. So I don't feel like we have to keep discussing.

Please note that we are both being insistent. You're insisting as much as I am. However, never have I claimed you were trying to shut anyone up or that you were trying to close the topic. Why is it alright for you to be insistent but not someone else? Is it because you firmly believe you are right? And, if so, that's okay. So do I. ;) However, be polite about it, state facts as you see them, and stop claiming that someone who does not agree with you is attempting to shut you up or close you down. It's simply not the case.
I can't think of anything I've said that would be construed as impolite, and I haven't intended to be. I do think that since I'm advocating for a change, I need to be more insistent in advocating for the idea than does someone who advocates for the status quo, since inertia will tend to advantage the status quo.

People who argue with me on GMC forums about ideas that I have for things to improve GMS rarely take issue with the actual substance of what I'm suggesting. Mostly, they will argue that 1) something that already exists is good enough, even when my suggestion would be an improvement 2) they want YYG to focus on their pet improvement, so no "wasting time" on mine, or 3) there's some way to do it, which is much more labor intensive or otherwise not as good, and I should just do it that way rather than ask for the improvement I have in mind.

These types of arguments are really aggravating, and do little to advance the discussion, because they have little to do with the proposed idea itself.

My preference, of course, would be that they argue specific points about why my idea isn't the best it could be, yet, and offer constructive ideas for making it even better. Or, point out problems with my suggestion that I hadn't thought of, so that these can be addressed and the idea improved.

So even though you're not in so many words telling me to shut up about my idea, I tend to take the suggestion to "use the keyboard instead" to be an attempt to shut down the topic. Because, if I responded by saying "OK I'll do that, thanks" then no one is going to think "Gee, we really should address this mouse usability issue."

If your car was broken, and someone told you, "That's OK, you can just borrow my car" or "It's much better to take the bus instead" would it fix your car? No; at some point, you're going to have to do something about the broken car. My car may be way better than your car, but you still need to fix it if you want to keep using it. It doesn't matter how much better my car is, or how many times I can tell you you can borrow it, if you want your car fixed, at some point it's going to need someone to work on it. We can argue about whether you really needed to have a car, or if you just have transportation needs that are better solved by other solutions. But if you want to fix your car, those other solutions, however nice it may be to have them for those who do want them, don't really do anything to address the problem of your broken car.
 
Last edited:

Hyomoto

Member
I disagree, you can double click an object in resource view and that's an equivalent to using the Ctrl shortcuts. I agree that the GUI can be improved but I'm almost universally against most the arguments made against it because it often sounds like people are fighting tooth and nail against it when there's really no need. I won't pretend this view is the best that can be done, but it's hardly bad. I'm all for critique, but a lot of it comes in the guise of "I don't want to do it to do it the way it was built, give me the way I want it." At some point you have to use it as intended, watch @Mike code with it, blows my mind. I don't use it like that at all. Maybe I'm wrong.
 
I disagree, you can double click an object in resource view and that's an equivalent to using the Ctrl shortcuts. I agree that the GUI can be improved but I'm almost universally against most the arguments made against it because it often sounds like people are fighting tooth and nail against it when there's really no need. I won't pretend this view is the best that can be done, but it's hardly bad. I'm all for critique, but a lot of it comes in the guise of "I don't want to do it to do it the way it was built, give me the way I want it." At some point you have to use it as intended, watch @Mike code with it, blows my mind. I don't use it like that at all. Maybe I'm wrong.
I'm with you, personally. I am new to GMS in general. Started learning the software with v1.4 and quickly jumped on the GMS2 beta. For me, I instantly got along with the new workflow and really like it. Like you, I don't think it's perfect. I personally think there is a little too much screen real estate being taken up by the chained windows (too much space between each chained window), but I really like the way it works in general. Perhaps it is because I am an artist first, but this UI helps me to see things visually as I work and learn to code in GMS2.

Of course, I am currently working through tutorials and example files. We'll see how I feel when I get deep into the project I have planned.
 

Llama_Code

Member
I feel like, some of the issues with the GMS2 GUI come from the fact that it was designed by programmers? Do they have a UX expert on staff?

Its not secret that I love the workflow and UI of GMS2, however, I have been working in the industry a long time, I have used in house game engines that don't even support a mouse, and my workflow is primarily keyboard driven. Like @SilverSurfer1221, I am used to using keyboard shortcuts to navigate and use the mouse as little as possible because to ME that is more intuitive. Most design software urges you to use it that way, in fact I have used programs with keyboard shortcuts that don't even have a UI equivalent. Even when the mouse is the primary method, like say Photoshop, to me its the drawing tool and I use keyboard shortcuts for everything else like changing tools. I even use a gamer keyboard with custom key binds for some more complicated ones.

I have since retired from all that and just make games for fun on the side nowadays, don't even work in that field anymore.

Now that said, I think a lot of people on these forums, especially the more hobbyist users, or people that just want to make a game not a career, have not worked in those environments are not used to them, and prefer a more mouse driven approach. Where GMS2 is trying to cater to all, I can see where some solution needs to come from this to help the mouse using population.

I don't have the issues a lot of you have, so I don't even have an idea on a solution. I use dual 20 inch monitors @ 1600x900, so its not impressively small (any higher resolution I cant read). But I don't use the resource panels, so that gives me more room. I also set the column spacing to 1 so they are closer together. I fully agree that the right panel should be context sensitive to what your doing, maybe more like Godot.

One idea I though would be cool, is if the object window was self contained, instead of the buttons spawning more windows, it could stretch, kind of like this:

 

csanyk

Member
I had this thought, too. I'd be fine with it. It's a different visual style to the idea I had for chain view flowing down rather than to the right, but essentially the same in terms of practical use.
 
P

pulsemeat

Guest
I feel like, some of the issues with the GMS2 GUI come from the fact that it was designed by programmers? Do they have a UX expert on staff?

Its not secret that I love the workflow and UI of GMS2, however, I have been working in the industry a long time, I have used in house game engines that don't even support a mouse, and my workflow is primarily keyboard driven. Like @SilverSurfer1221, I am used to using keyboard shortcuts to navigate and use the mouse as little as possible because to ME that is more intuitive. Most design software urges you to use it that way, in fact I have used programs with keyboard shortcuts that don't even have a UI equivalent. Even when the mouse is the primary method, like say Photoshop, to me its the drawing tool and I use keyboard shortcuts for everything else like changing tools. I even use a gamer keyboard with custom key binds for some more complicated ones.

I have since retired from all that and just make games for fun on the side nowadays, don't even work in that field anymore.

Now that said, I think a lot of people on these forums, especially the more hobbyist users, or people that just want to make a game not a career, have not worked in those environments are not used to them, and prefer a more mouse driven approach. Where GMS2 is trying to cater to all, I can see where some solution needs to come from this to help the mouse using population.
This is a great point, something I'd been trying to express myself. I find GMS2's interface a bit clunky, but it's something I can handle since I'm a professional developer who uses Unreal 4 all day. I do frequently have to consult the manual or come to this forum because it seems like some window has disappeared and I can't figure out how to get it back (and that's exactly the same thing I've seen from other people who've been working with me on my project). So while I find GMS2 to be a huge improvement, I see it primarily as a product for "professional hobbyists" now, and not something I could recommend to someone who's trying to make their first game (in its current beta state).
 
This post was a serious problem with a compiled game. And yes, I complained about external DLLs and files. BUT as you can see in the post, I found alternatives without asking YYG to change the whole IDE or GUI. And I will insist again on one of my lines at the begginning of this post:

... Oh, and I am ONLY going to talk about the IDE and GUI here. ...
With that being said, I never complained really about the GUI besides some bug reports I've done here and there that were legit or resolved. So THAT post you just linked does NOT talk about GUI and IDE problems
... My advice would be to stay on 1.x for now, knowing that it will continue to be supported officially for a long time, and move to 2.x when it makes sense to do so, if you do it at all. ...
I thought about that alternative but here's the issue. At the beginning of GMS1's release, they offered at 25$ (or just about) the HTML5 export module which never came back and I missed it. My fear is that YYG does not offer other deals lower than 30% anymore after the initial launch. AND, later in GMS1 years, the prices went up for the same products so 50% of 60$ to 50% of 100$, we all agree that it's not the same. And seeing how they price their software and what YYG did in the past, I'm affraid this will happen again.

For these reasons, I tend to be agressed because what was once a fun software with new features and upgrades with a nice variety of free games and somepaid ones, with the sell of Game Maker that then changed to YoyoGames, everything became commercial. There's nothing more stressfull than hurrying up to please commercial customers. I just realised that with my Tile Base Platform Engine that I need to work in absolutely to satisfy the users who paid. I have a version to release where most points have now been implanted in GMS2. So the dilema here is this : Should people pay for something in GMS1 that happens to be part of the global game making process in GMS2? OK, 7$ VS 60$ is not the same but hey, 7$ to something that won't be updated anymore after one final release to me is not worth paying for and I'd build up my cash to pay for 60$ instead for something that will be kept updated. I AM going to work on releasing the TBPE for V1 but I've got the feeling that I'll be working for nothing as V1 modules will end up dying soon as GMS2 assets will rapidely take up space and V1 will end up on page 6 or 7 of asset pages.

So YES I'm concerned about the mouse control in GMS2 as my fears of the past because of the new commercial appraoch YYG had for the past 4 years have scared me. AND there again, what will happen in V3 when they decide to program GMS3, we'll pay over 100$ for a version that they will say AGAIN that's it's not the old engine but a new one? I just want to make sure that where I put my hard earned money will be profitable by the end. And I know that the GM staff does read these posts, we just don't see too many reponses from them besides the "Get used to it" answer.

On the side, I love the idea Llama_code submitted with an expandable object window instead of new windows everytime we click on something. That would already be a good start!
 

csanyk

Member
Well, get used to YYG being a business and needing to make a profit. There's open source volunteer-developed projects out there if you're looking for something like that. I'm sure you know about how to shop, so when they offer a discount and the understanding it is for a limited time, either buy or not, and if you don't need it right that minute, you can still buy it and hang onto it until you're ready to switch over to using it. There's no secret to this, really. It's a product, and you get to pay for it, and when they release a new version you get to pay for that too. That's how it works. But they do have sales and sometimes for a really good price. If it's not worth it to you, it's not worth it to you. But if they're staying in business, then it's worth it to enough people.
 
I come at this from a very different perspective. Most of the software I use for business (and for fun) costs me hundreds and, sometimes, thousands of dollars. It's the nature of working with 2D and 3D art professionally. While I do hope to make a profitable game one day, I find YYG's pricing fair considering what they are providing ... and I did spend time looking at other game dev tools out there.

If price is a main concern and you are looking for software that is similar to v1 of GMS, then try out an alternative. Godot (if I am allowed to mention other software here) is pretty darned full featured and free! It was my first choice for the game I am in the process of making ... before GMS won me over by its workflow and programming language/concepts.
 
I come at this from a very different perspective. Most of the software I use for business (and for fun) costs me hundreds and, sometimes, thousands of dollars. It's the nature of working with 2D and 3D art professionally. While I do hope to make a profitable game one day, I find YYG's pricing fair considering what they are providing ... and I did spend time looking at other game dev tools out there.

If price is a main concern and you are looking for software that is similar to v1 of GMS, then try out an alternative. Godot (if I am allowed to mention other software here) is pretty darned full featured and free! It was my first choice for the game I am in the process of making ... before GMS won me over by its workflow and programming language/concepts.
As I mentioned earlier:
Oh, and I am ONLY going to talk about the IDE and GUI here.
Yes there is price issues but the main issue and discussion on this thread is concerning the IDE and how the mouse works inside the GUI not the price YYG charges.
 

rIKmAN

Member
If your car was broken, and someone told you, "That's OK, you can just borrow my car" or "It's much better to take the bus instead" would it fix your car? No; at some point, you're going to have to do something about the broken car. My car may be way better than your car, but you still need to fix it if you want to keep using it. It doesn't matter how much better my car is, or how many times I can tell you you can borrow it, if you want your car fixed, at some point it's going to need someone to work on it. We can argue about whether you really needed to have a car, or if you just have transportation needs that are better solved by other solutions. But if you want to fix your car, those other solutions, however nice it may be to have them for those who do want them, don't really do anything to address the problem of your broken car.
The car isn't broken though, you just need to learn to drive it in a slightly different way for the time being.

I'm sure they will take a look at the feedback they are getting from users, but personally I would prefer they work on things that don't work at all or aren't released yet (ie. upcoming iOS/Android/UWP exporters) rather than halt all work on those to change the UI and mouse controls when there is a perfectly usable and working (whilst a little unorthodox) method to do everything you mention.

Who knows, by the time the issues you are having with your mouse get looked at, you might actually like and be used to the already existing keyboard shortcuts.
Also as @Hyomoto above said, double clicking in the resource tree does the same as the shortcuts but with the mouse just like you want, why aren't you doing that as it would surely help a little with your frustrations over not wanting to use the keyboard shortcuts.

I'm all for critique, but a lot of it comes in the guise of "I don't want to do it to do it the way it was built, give me the way I want it." At some point you have to use it as intended, watch @Mike code with it, blows my mind. I don't use it like that at all. Maybe I'm wrong.
I completely agree, it isn't a case of "this feature is broken", or "this feature doesn't exist", it's usually "It works like this but I want it to work like that, and I shouldn't have to learn a new way of doing things". Every personal whim cannot be catered for, and whilst I agree there is room for improvements in the UI and it's traversal - there already exists a perfectly workable input method (two in fact, one even using the mouse!) which you can use right now but people refuse to do so.
 
I completely agree, it isn't a case of "this feature is broken", or "this feature doesn't exist", it's usually "It works like this but I want it to work like that, and I shouldn't have to learn a new way of doing things". Every personal whim cannot be catered for, and whilst I agree there is room for improvements in the UI and it's traversal - there already exists a perfectly workable input method (two in fact, one even using the mouse!) which you can use right now but people refuse to do so.
Yeah, I agree. Each program has it's own way of doing things and the end-user should learn them. Having said that, it does seem to make sense to go with what has become industry standards when you are able.

For example, to pan the work space, you currently hold down the middle mouse button. However, as many have pointed out, some laptops don't exactly have a middle mouse button. And while it is not a difficult thing to keep the middle mouse button pressed to pan about, it's not the industry standard for how to do this. Panning is typically done by pressing the space bar while left-click dragging. Personally, I find it simple to hold down the middle mouse button to pan, but if YYG were to use the industry standard of space bar + left-click drag, then there would be nothing for anyone to really learn since most would have been using this already in a variety of other software.
 

rIKmAN

Member
Yeah, I agree. Each program has it's own way of doing things and the end-user should learn them. Having said that, it does seem to make sense to go with what has become industry standards when you are able.

For example, to pan the work space, you currently hold down the middle mouse button. However, as many have pointed out, some laptops don't exactly have a middle mouse button. And while it is not a difficult thing to keep the middle mouse button pressed to pan about, it's not the industry standard for how to do this. Panning is typically done by pressing the space bar while left-click dragging. Personally, I find it simple to hold down the middle mouse button to pan, but if YYG were to use the industry standard of space bar + left-click drag, then there would be nothing for anyone to really learn since most would have been using this already in a variety of other software.
Again I agree and it's why I said the current implementation is unorthodox, but other than learning a few new keys to press it is pretty industry standard for software to be used with keyboard and mouse in tandem.

I can't remember the last program I used that didn't use them, and as has been said if GM is moving towards the more "professional" end of developers with GMS2 then it's not unreasonable for them to expect the developers to be used to using keyboard shortcuts.

Yes the mouse-only method might not be perfect, but it *does* work.
I'm not saying don't suggest changes and improvements either, but sometimes people get over zealous in their suggestions and defending them and it just comes across as stubborn and pedantic.

We aren't using Mario Paint here, and so IMO there is no need to try and cram every feature and action of the software to be used via only a mouse, when a simple keyboard shortcut alleviates a lot of the problems people are complaining about with regards to the UI. (ie. finding windows in the ether etc)

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not like you have to perform keyboard gymnastics to speed up the workflow in its current state.

It's a beta, it will (probably) improve, but things have an order of importance and YYG have release dates to hit for multiple exporters etc in 2017 that I would much rather have on time than be delayed because people don't want to learn a few new keyboard shortcuts in the meantime.

IMO if that isn't good enough for anyone at this stage, then make your suggestion politely and concisely, then come back later and see if it is improved down the road.

If it doesn't improve to what that person expected or wanted, or YYG say they aren't changing it because it's designed that way on purpose - there is no point in continuing to press the issue and there are plenty of other engines out there that might suit people who want that type of workflow better.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top