In case you're saying "Stencyl is limited to fan games" ...

and we choose not to go by their words.

do remember that fan games are not limited to the resources they use but their concepts

"There will be some generic resources that are suitable for acting as placeholders for games. Of course, it's not recommended that you ship your game with them since it'd look too generic." He never commented on the amount of resources they would include.

It's not recommended that you use the program for what it's been advertised to do?

well he explained it better ;-;

"There will be some generic resources that are suitable for acting as placeholders for games. Of course, it's not recommended that you ship your game with them since it'd look too generic." He never commented on the amount of resources they would include.

It's not recommended that you use the program for what it's been advertised to do?

It's not recommended to use the RTP, since it will make your game seem too generic. I'd rather play a game with custom graphics, but no one's stopping you from doing it.

"There will be some generic resources that are suitable for acting as placeholders for games. Of course, it's not recommended that you ship your game with them since it'd look too generic." He never commented on the amount of resources they would include.

It's not recommended that you use the program for what it's been advertised to do?

It's not recommended to use the RTP, since it will make your game seem too generic. I'd rather play a game with custom graphics, but no one's stopping you from doing it.

Then why are they advertising fan games if their goal is to prove that Stencyl isn't primarily for fan games?

"There will be some generic resources that are suitable for acting as placeholders for games. Of course, it's not recommended that you ship your game with them since it'd look too generic." He never commented on the amount of resources they would include.

It's not recommended that you use the program for what it's been advertised to do?

It's not recommended to use the RTP, since it will make your game seem too generic. I'd rather play a game with custom graphics, but no one's stopping you from doing it.

Then why are they advertising fan games if their goal is to prove that Stencyl isn't primarily for fan games?

The aren't advertising fan games. They're simply providing us with kits to create fan games. though they would rather us create original games. Why not try asking them? :x

Every in-game video, screenshot, etc. has been of a fan game, be it Mario, Megaman, or otherwise. Their demonstrations and explanations revolve around fan games, like how they explained how to make a Mario character using Snippets. There has been absolutely no proof that Stencyl is capable of designing anything besides fan games, because every game advertised in conjunction with Stencyl is a fan game. Their Kit discussions support and encourage people who suggest Kits that emulate a certain game, so that fan games can be made from it. So far you've claimed what Stencyl is capable of, but the only evidence you have to back it up are comments from Stencyl's developers, and unless you expect me to buy into the hype then I don't see how you can prove at all that Stencyl isn't primarily fan-game design software.

Every in-game video, screenshot, etc. has been of a fan game, be it Mario, Megaman, or otherwise.

That's absolutely correct. However, all if not most of the images and videos which you speak of came from the time when Stencyl was more fan-game oriented. If you haven't noticed, Stencyl has been moving further and further away from its fan-game making origins.

Their demonstrations and explanations revolve around fan games, like how they explained how to make a Mario character using Snippets.

Well, would you rather Jon said, "So, to make a guy who comes to life, walks/runs, is affected by gravity, can jump, can be hit by enemies, and can stomp on enemies, all you have to do is make an entity and attach all of those snippets to it," or, "To make Mario, all you have to do is make an entity and add a walk snippet, run snippet, etc.," Now, I see the latter as a far better approach as Stencyl is a game making platform. Simply take a character from a game who is universally recognized and use it as an example.

There has been absolutely no proof that Stencyl is capable of designing anything besides fan games, because every game advertised in conjunction with Stencyl is a fan game. Their Kit discussions support and encourage people who suggest Kits that emulate a certain game, so that fan games can be made from it.

Stencyl announced back during the second project address that the fan kits were being replaced by genre kits, with the fan kits simply being collections of pre-built maps, entities, etc., that would be released for the fitting genre kit by Polyhedron Designs (which has been completely unaffiliated with Stencyl, LLC). (Unaffiliated may not be the right word here, but.. meh...)

So far you've claimed what Stencyl is capable of, but the only evidence you have to back it up are comments from Stencyl's developers, and unless you expect me to buy into the hype then I don't see how you can prove at all that Stencyl isn't primarily fan-game design software.

Well, whether you believe a word of what Irock says is up to you, but if Stencyl was limited to fan-games, it's still open source. People would come along and expand its boundaries (of which I don't see too many at the moment, except for the non-3D one).

Anyway, really, what is all the argument about. It's like, "Stencyl is limited to fan-games."

"No it isn't."

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

o_O

Malson, note how I said:

The only thing we really have to go by is their word. I'm simply reporting on what they have said.

Well, you're the one who made this thread. If you're trying to convince us of anything you're going to have to provide something convincing.

Well, you're the one who made this thread. If you're trying to convince us of anything you're going to have to provide something convincing.

If their word isn't convincing enough, then I suppose you don't have to believe them.

guys I'm making a firefox extension that cooks breakfast for you here's proof

guys I'm making a firefox extension that cooks breakfast for you here's proof

Everything they have claimed is actually plausible.

I think you're missing my point.

I think you're missing my point.

Your point is that I have no proof of it not being limited to fan games, and I agree.

well, then this thread exists as nothing more than propaganda!

well, then this thread exists as nothing more than propaganda!

I created it to inform people, but everyone felt the need to debate, which is why I originally locked it.

Guys i'm making a program that will allow you to crash your computer, or anyone elses you want, as long as you collect their IP address.

Really though, it is such a silly thing to argue about. Once Stencyl comes out (or if it comes out, for those of you who think that way), we'll have another game maker. Yay, right? So what's the big deal? If it's limited to fan games, so be it. If not, all the better. So, I'm guessing we're arguing for the sake of arguing, right? o_O

Oh c'mon, you have their word. Omg we all trust Jon so much. If tomorrow jon says that your dog fell in a pool and drowned, it's true cuz like we have his word.

People lie in this world for fame and that won't ever change cuz thats how this big ball revolves [/philosophy]

Their demonstrations and explanations revolve around fan games, like how they explained how to make a Mario character using Snippets.

Well, would you rather Jon said, "So, to make a guy who comes to life, walks/runs, is affected by gravity, can jump, can be hit by enemies, and can stomp on enemies, all you have to do is make an entity and attach all of those snippets to it," or, "To make Mario, all you have to do is make an entity and add a walk snippet, run snippet, etc.," Now, I see the latter as a far better approach as Stencyl is a game making platform. Simply take a character from a game who is universally recognized and use it as an example.

Yes, that's what we call a fan game. Take someone else but Mario. Make your own series, name it something but Jumpman (which was Mario's initial name but they changed it later on) or atleast change the sprites.
C'mon Jon don't do this to us.

Anyway, really, what is all the argument about. It's like, "Stencyl is limited to fan-games."

"No it isn't."

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

o_O

See, that's how an arguement or a debate goes. One guys says a point, the other objects to it.

Well, even if Stencyl isn't limited to fan games, the hype it's getting is not going to last after like 2 months of its realse.

And it may become a pay-to-play thing.

About pay-to-play... no. If you want to believe that Stencyl will be limited to fan games, go ahead, but it will never become pay-to-play. It couldn't be, because Stencyl is open-source. <_< >_>

And it may become a pay-to-play thing.

According to the Stencyl team, they will never charge for the program.

Basically, your only argument now is that "Jon could be lying." No one disagrees that he could be lying. But this doesn't prove that Stencyl is only capable of creating fangames. It seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing, instead of actually trying to prove a point, which you've failed to do. I'm simply not going to allow everyone to post "JON COULD BE LYING ABOUT THE WHOLE THING" every time I update you all on some Stencyl information. There's no reason for pushing the fact that someone could be lying. It's like you're trying to convince me that the moon orbits around the earth. It's common knowledge that someone could be lying. Though for some reason you keep pushing it, as if it were actual evidence that Stencyl is limited to fan games. Just because you don't "buy into the hype" doesn't mean you have to prove to us that Stencyl could fail miserably. "Anything is possible" is a lame excuse for an argument, especially when there's nothing to argue about.

You guys can believe what you want.

THANK YOU IROCK. FINALLY YOU REALISED OUR POINT.


We beleive stencyl sucks and is limited to fan games so there. Let us believe in peace plz

guys I'm making a firefox extension that cooks breakfast for you here's proof

that breakfast looks horrible

SHOOP DA WOOPED

Irock and myself had a pretty good discussion one day in IRC about this. Let me see if I can find the logs for it. Meh, nvm.

Essentially Malson shares the same viewpoint as I do, and pretty much said to Irock in this topic what I said to him in IRC. Only in IRC, Irock seemed to finally understand what I was saying (perhaps to end the conversation) whereas here he did not.

But the main problem I have is that Irock (and anyone else) defends this program so much when they have no tangible information. No, what Jon has told you is not tangible information because no proof has been provided. In fact the only proof you have of anything, as Malson said, is that this is capable and seemingly geared towards making fan games. While that may not be the intention of the creators, they are certainly advertising it that way, while at the same time saying "This is not limited to fan games. Look, you can make a Mario game."

So what information do Stencyl supporters have? Nothing. Not a single thing. They only know what Jon has told them. But he doesn't supply proof because he doesn't want to "build up hype" or advertise something that may not end up in the final product. Which is pretty silly if you think about it. By not trying to "build up hype", they've accomplished nothing. Supporters such as Irock have been building it up anyway and will likely be very disappointed when/if it is released.

But I have sidetracked myself.

Stencyl supporters believe everything they are told and defend this program anytime anyone questions anything about it. Some of us are merely saying "Stencyl seems limited to fangames". This is true. It seems that way because that is how it is presented. Yet we don't get proof otherwise. We get fanboys wetting their pants and telling us we're wrong. And ahref, who is intelligent enough to know, questioned the snippets, due to them likely causing compatibility issues. Instead of providing proof otherwise, or maybe even seeing the obvious here and agreeing with ahref and asking the Stencyl team about it, we get "SNIPPETS AREN'T SCRIPTING YOU JUST TAKE BITS OF SCRIPT AND PUT IT TOGETHER". Which, even if there were no compatibility issues, I hate because it's essentially just another color-by-numbers program which I despise. Some of you know my hatred for Frooty Loops because of this.

With the exception of Anski, we aren't here to troll. We want some legitimate backups of your claims, as well as the Stencyl team's. We are curious. We see some major flaws here, and yes the fanboyism is a little annoying. No, we won't go to the Stencyl forums and ask. We know they'll answer our question, but then a legion of fanboys will come in and defend it as well. And these are the worst kind of fanboys. They have blind faith. They have very little information about this program yet they defend it to no end.

No Malson, I don't want your Firefox breakfast.

Essentially Malson shares the same viewpoint as I do, and pretty much said to Irock in this topic what I said to him in IRC. Only in IRC, Irock seemed to finally understand what I was saying (perhaps to end the conversation) whereas here he did not.

I've understood your argument the whole time.

But the main problem I have is that Irock (and anyone else) defends this program so much when they have no tangible information.

I have just as much right to defend Stencyl as you have to bash it. Neither of us really have enough information to have a decent debate/argument. I'm simply trying to report what has been said. I'm aware that they don't have any proof to back up their words, but I still choose to follow it because it interests me. I'm pretty sure I covered this in this post.

No, what Jon has told you is not tangible information because no proof has been provided.

I'm pretty sure I said all this in this post.

In fact the only proof you have of anything, as Malson said, is that this is capable and seemingly geared towards making fan games. While that may not be the intention of the creators, they are certainly advertising it that way, while at the same time saying "This is not limited to fan games. Look, you can make a Mario game."

Their goals and intentions have changed greatly since the project started. They've removed the old Youtube videos that show fangames, they've removed all old screenshots, and they have turned their fan kit forums into single threads. It doesn't sound like they're trying to promote Stencyl as a fan game creator anymore.

But he doesn't supply proof because he doesn't want to "build up hype" or advertise something that may not end up in the final product. Which is pretty silly if you think about it. By not trying to "build up hype", they've accomplished nothing. Supporters such as Irock have been building it up anyway and will likely be very disappointed when/if it is released.

The reason they have no media up is clarified in this thread.

Stencyl supporters believe everything they are told and defend this program anytime anyone questions anything about it.

I don't believe or disbelieve it. When I defend Stencyl, I'm using information they have told us. I've said this many times. It isn't fair to have your project bashed when people obviously don't know if the reason they're bashing it is relevant. I'm defending it the best way I can defend it, and that's by saying what the team has said. And as always, I recommend you ask the team for yourself. Even if you are bombarded with fanboys (which you won't be) you'll receive a good, well thought out answer from either Jon or Stephen.

Some of us are merely saying "Stencyl seems limited to fangames".

I never argued against your opinions, but stating your opinions as if they are fact will end up with Stencyl being defended.

And ahref, who is intelligent enough to know, questioned the snippets, due to them likely causing compatibility issues. Instead of providing proof otherwise, or maybe even seeing the obvious here and agreeing with ahref and asking the Stencyl team about it, we get "SNIPPETS AREN'T SCRIPTING YOU JUST TAKE BITS OF SCRIPT AND PUT IT TOGETHER".

I told ahref to ask the team about this, yet he refused to. Compatibility errors is something the team hasn't commented on, and I couldn't try to answer. I said "SNIPPETS AREN'T SCRIPTING YOU JUST TAKE BITS OF SCRIPT AND PUT IT TOGETHER" after ahref said that we'll be scripting while using snippets. According to the team, you won't have to code anything to use snippets. So technically you AREN'T scripting, unless you're directly coding your own snippet.

Which, even if there were no compatibility issues, I hate because it's essentially just another color-by-numbers program which I despise. Some of you know my hatred for Frooty Loops because of this.

You despise a program without even using it?, or seeing any footage of it?

No, we won't go to the Stencyl forums and ask. We know they'll answer our question, but then a legion of fanboys will come in and defend it as well. And these are the worst kind of fanboys. They have blind faith. They have very little information about this program yet they defend it to no end.

You aren't going to be bombarded by fanboys, unless you plan to say "WHERE DO I DOWNLOAD STENCYL, YOU NEED TO RELEASE IT." If you're capable of asking a decent question, you'll get a decent answer. The better the question, the better the answer you'll receive. I guarantee it.