T2d Vs. Tgb

#41 Personally I think the name TGB dumbs things down too much but who really cares? Why should any of us really mind what they name it as we already use it? They can call it Giant bowl of Mud Stew for all I care.

Altough, I will say , that isn't really an awe inspiring name

#42 (long post, sorry)

I will say that I also noticed T2d exactly because it was 2D. I'd been looking at TGE and a bunch of other engines for awhile. When T2d was announced, it immediately caught my interest. But then I was in the market for a 2D engine, mostly because of my interest in "retro" games. (Not retro like pong, retro like snes Zelda).

What sold me on T2d, over say, Dark Basic or Blitz or Allegro was a) the power of the engine (physics, collision, particles), b) the extensibility (C++), c) the depth of the scripting language, d) the deep and involved community and knowledgebase.

If it had been called "builder" I might have initially assumed that it was a dumbed down TGE. Hopefully I would have read more, researched more, etc. I probably would have since I tried all those other engines. I can see the point that making and publishing a game with a "builder" logo stamped on the front (as per the EULA) does seem a little hokey... makes me cringe a little.

Another possible market stance would be to position it as the 2D equivalent of Unreal.... go for power angle.

I dunno, I can see both sides. I did fall in love with the 2D side of the engine though, and it wasn't an incidental thing. It attracted me because of my nostalgic love for 2D games. I also liked the symmetry of having a 3D engine, and a 2D engine (and an advanced shader engine). If anything, in an ideal world, I'd like to see a "builder" that had drag and drop functionality using both engines (TGE and T2D), probably with limited functionality. That would serve as a jumping-off point/training ground into the more "serious", full-featured engines.

Either way, there are marketing challenges. With TGB, you have to convince people that it's powerful and completely capable of making publishable games. With T2D, you have to convince people that its not your average run-of-the mill 2D engine.

One more thing I'll mention, just to throw all my 2cents out there... is that T2D *is* a little more "honest". No, honest is the wrong word... it's a little more succinct and to the point. I can see how it might be sold as a "builder", especially if it's heading more and more in that direction. But right now, for me, it's more a super powerful 2D engine than it is a "builder". It's still a long way from Flash or Shockwave full-featured ease of use in other words. I could see that if I *was* in the market for a "builder" engine, that I might be overwhelmed firing up T2D. I'm sure that these bumpy parts could be ironed out in the next iterations. But right now, I feel like its a little out of reach for that market.

For example, in one of my previous lives, I was a director at WildTangent. At one point our goal was to position ourselves as *super* easy to use... any developer with a modicum of Java experience could churn out a 3D game in a weekend. The Web Driver was going to revolutionize casual games and become the next Shockwave, but in glorious 3D.

Now the truth of the matter was a little different. We *did* have a pretty powerful engine, and it was relatively easy to use, especially if you had any game dev experience or instinct. BUT... there were a hundred things you could do wrong, and beginning devs would always do them. Things like call "setPosition" type functions every tick, or mount piles of objects to each other, all calling collisions on everything in the scene. If you were using Java, beginners would go nuts with OO inheritance and end up with an unmanageable mess. A true "builder" product should prevent or make it pretty difficult to make these mistakes, and users would get frustrated when their experiments failed.

In other words, the promise far exceeded the reality.

Eventually, they got out of the engine business and into the game development business. I think that would have been the right thing for them to do from day one... make games, release a couple "killer apps", then make the engine available publicly. It's true that you really do need a killer app if you're in the engine or tools business. Ease of use is secondary to proven examples of awesome stuff. If they had made "Fate" in the early days, I think things might have been different. Of course the *real* real story is more complicated than that, but you have to get me drunk to get all that dirt ;)

I'm rambling, probably, but only because I care :) There are a ton of things to consider when naming/positioning a product, and it's never easy. My "gut" does twinge a little at the "game builder" direction, and not at all because I think the vision behind it is wrong or unreachable. It's partially because of the WildTangent experience where we advertised that we had something before we really had it. The idea behind that( I think ), was that you become what you say you are. You always promise a little optimistically because people fundamentally want to believe in magic. I think you have to be 90% there for that to work though... if the gap between the expectations you set and the harsh reality of the actual product is too great, that customers will ultimately be frustrated. Eventually, this can lead to a credibility gap.

The other twinge is more subjective. Like others here, I like the idea that I'm doing "real" coding (I'm an artist and designer by trade). If the product is pitched as "so easy to use, a monkey could do it", then it takes some of the pride out of the process. I think most game developers like the experience to be a *little* hard... that's part of the appeal. It's a challenge, and it's problem solving. I think even Flash developers fight the perception that they are somehow second-rate when it comes to game development. I say "even" because Flash/Shockwave is easily the king of tools when it comes to casual interactive development tools.

Anyway, I don't think GG is in the same position as WildTangent was when I was there. They've got tons more of the "goods" behind the talk, and more credability. There might be some parallels on some levels though, so I share it because it was a lesson hard-earned with both karma AND cash. Ultimately though, it's GG's vision and decision to do whatever they want, and I'm sure they have a way better chance to succeed.

#43 Still receiving great inputs and observations here, just wanted to let you guys know we're watching the thread!

Even though most of the points have been "pro T2D, neg TGB", honestly we've not seen anything that changes the overall marketing push--we have however identified many caution points and concerns...so the input is absolutely valuable.

Thanks to all!

#44 Just as long as you don't renaim all the object tgbsprite =)

I actually think it is a wise choice and will make the product more friendly to new users.

#45 Since almost everybody else (?) has given their input I thought - why not me too? :)
I can't say I really mind if you change the name to TGB or something else, although since I'm used to T2D I would of course prefer if you didn't change all classnames again like Anthony said.
My only concern/advice would be for you to make sure to put keywords like 2D, Torque, Game, Engine etc both in the actual pagetext as well as in the meta keywords on the product presentation pages so you can find out about the product on Google or other search engines by searching for "2d game engine" as well as "game builder".

#46 I personally got a very positive feeling when I read about "Torque 2D". I wanted a 2D engine specifically. BUT, even though I'm one of those people who bought under the old name, and prefer it, I don't have anything against "Torque Game Builder" as a name ON ITS OWN. However, In the company of "Torgue Game Engine", it definitely confuses things. It could be interpreted as a separate utility to attach to Torque Game Engine to make it brainless to create a game. It also does carry the connotation that it's a lesser product than the Torque Game Engine. TGB works fine, on its own. You've done marketing research on this name, and that's great. Just make sure the research was within context. It's not a name on its own. It's not "Torque Game Builder" VS "Torque 2D". It's "Torque Game Builder" alongside "Torque Game Engine". If your market research did not include that context, it may not be as useful as you think.

#47 Good point.
I think the best name is the actual transition name with Torque 2D Game Builder.
While it clearly specifies that it is 2D, it shows as well that it is more than simply an engine.

#48 Might as well throw in my 0.02 seeing how hot a topic this is.

I personally am all for the name change for the same reaons @Jay outlined. So I won't repeat them. :)

@Stephen also makes great points about barriers of entry for beginners. I'd even go as far to say there's barriers across the board. People are wanting to get "in" everywhere, but they're instantly bombarded with too many decisions which might turn them off and/or lead them down a wrong road : they may get paralyzed with indecision since every choice has a good/bad side.


@Jared I found your comments a bit on the "unrealistic" side by your story about being "embarrased" to use Klik&Play just because someone else has released a crappy game using the technology. People have made absolutely horrible Blitz products but others are still using the engine and rave about it. AAA companies have squatted out horrible "games" using Havoc physics....but others still use it to produce incredibly rich and powerful pieces of work with the physics engine.

It's all what you do with it.

Personally, I'm still a believer that if you treat the customer with intelligence, they'll (usually) make intelligent decisions. If I came to GG's site and saw "Torque Game Builder", I think I might actually READ a few lines before making the snap decision that "it's a bulky mickey-mouse builder. Next.".

I personally feel that adding the ability to import 3D models into TGB was the icing on the cake. I clicked "buy" about 2 seconds after that. Kudos guys!

As for comments about GG suffering from elitism.....as I said, they could close up the store and just release killer games on their own, and only publish other titles. They could just have their documentation in javadoc-type format. They could ignore the forums unless it's a direct support question. They could float around other newsgroups hyping their stuff and trying to bash the other middleware out there.

But They Don't.

Instead, they continue to bring back to the community. They developed the TDN, they regularly troll the forums and post helpfull comments and they continue evolving/tweaking their product line to help everyone (us and them).

Even if you do some evaluation and decide that TGB or TGE or TSE is not for you, you're not treated an instant enemy as far as I've seen. Other people have blogged their thoughts on the engine around the net and whenever there's a comment by a GG staffer, it's a very cordial and thought-out response. Any errors in the blog concerning perceived "limitations" by the product line is pointed out in a polite discussion manner.

@Phil I enjoy your WildTangent stories! If we ever meet, I'll get you drunk...err buy you a few rounds, and then let's hear some more stories. But good point about making a killer app/game or two then releasing the engine as a followup.

I need to finish my current project so that I can dive right back into TGB to get some games out the door!

#49 Here my 2 cents. Yes the title need to be more clear. If not you going get alot newbie very upset thinking you can build a game with very little time. Yes they could close up the door but someone else would step in there place. The question would be how many games is made with Torque engine to other engines. If that number is lower than I would defintely find way to pick Torque number up. You have the best engine in the world but you dont have good tutorials will you be very successfuly, no. I brought in Torque because I am not very good programmer with hopes to create document for non programmer. You must take good with the bad.

#50 I personally dislike the name change, but then again, I might not be the target audience. The point is that you have to appeal to your target audience. If this helps do that, even though I personally don't like the change, then it's probably a good decision.

Torque on fellow Game Builders! :P

#51 Garagegames,

Why not setup a poll to see the feedback? My guess is the new name would get pretty low. Let me summarize if I may. Most of us who bought the T2D engine bought it for perhaps three reasons; knowing it was a Garagegames engine, seeing and hearing from Melv how awesome is was going to be (and is), and wanted a 2D engine. I have had friends buy the engine when I told them how awesome the 2D engine was. So you can use 3d objects, it is still a 2D engine. Why? Because you are working in 2D space. If it barks like a dog and looks like a dog, it is usually a dog.

Those of us who have bought the engine may be early adopters but I gotta believe we are right here. Does that really matter? It is your engine not ours. This is what I am proposing. I have been around reading forums and playing with the engine since the begining. I remember the name change to Torque and that seemed alot easier. So what would I name it? Toque 2D Game Engine (T2dGE) Because that is what it is.

#52 The "Torque Game Builder" name lets people know what it is, rather than people saying "whats a torque 2D?"

I like it :)

#53 @Joseph -- "What's a Torque 2D Game Engine?" Who is the audience? People buying a game engine right. I hope the people who are buying the engine know what a 2D engine is otherswise we are in real trouble ;)

#54 Part of what you guys aren't currently seeing is...well, the current build. The next iteration goes very much beyond the way TGE does things, and qualifies TGB as much more a "game builder" than simply an "engine" in many many ways. It won't be a "press the big red button to make your game", but it will be a lot more visually intuitive (as much as we can make it) to build a game, especially when compared to TGE, or even the beta build that you have now.

#55 This is why I didn't comment on it:)
I can see a mismatch between current T2D state and the name TGB but I can see where you are going...
so you will have the last word :)

#56 I'd like to think that I am one of the target audience. I'm relatively new, but I've been shopping around, reading up as much as I could. I must say, I am very happy with my purchase of the T2D/TGB engine. And let's not kid ourselves, it's still an engine. I realize there is an entire suite of programs included in this, but does this entail a "game builder"? hardly.

The negative connotations aside, builder insinuates a complete package for game creation. And unless you plan on coming up with a graphics editor program, as well as an audio editor, or just some crappy stock-art placeholders, and premade game rules (which I hope you don't)...well I'd say this isn't what needs to be put forth as the marketed idea. I realize that this particular engine is suited for ease of use, especially when compared to the previous incarnations of the grand Torque, but the word builder does place the idea of click here and it will be done. Frankly, I know the whole idea is far short of what I wanted, looked for, and bought.

I realize that GG is looking to help the indie games developers, but selling your engine short is really not helpful to anyone. The people here aren't complaining about some aesthetical displeasure; they are complaining out of concern that GG may be hampering the growth of a wonderful product, as well as the credibility of GG and the community that backs them. These people love your products, enough so to sit around and talk about them at damn near every chance they get. I know I do. I guess my point is that the monicker really doesn't suit the product, even if the next iteration will have shiny buttons, and a more intuitive interface (which I should add those should be on opposite sides of the priority list, I think you know which should be closer to the top)

At this point I'd rather see some finalization in syntax and documentation (I'm most interested in the RPG ones btw, thanks ;) ); then we can argue about what name best suits this powerful product.

#57 To me (personal opinion only) Builder doesn't sell the engine short, in fact if anything to me it implies that its not only a game engine but it has some awesome game builder tools. To me calling it just a game engine is selling it short, especially in comparisson to some of the tools we are working on now.

Love reading everyone's opinions though, we all have different perspectives and different assumptions tied to different names.

#58 Honestly, I dont think it really matters what the engine is called. it could be "The ASLDKFJALEWRJASDFAJALSDKJF engine".

As long as when people search google for "2d game engine" and it shows up as one of the first results (which it currently does) then it's good.

#59 One thing I threw out there originally, has kept haunting me. I'm curious what other people think.

Say you finally make some great piece of game that you're happy with, and you're ready to release it to the public. You get it all wrapped up, figure out your distribution method, how to collect money, etc. Now, when someone downloads your game, you'll have your title screen, and then a screen that says "Torque Game Builder" (maybe it's the other way around, I forget if the EULA specifies this).

To me, I'd rather it say "Torque 2D" or maybe "Torque Game Engine:2D". My (maybe irrational) fear is that it has some of the predjudice that goes with Flash or Shockwave. "Oh, it's made with Shockwave... must not be a real game". Taking it to an extreme would be a game with some kind of tag like "3D Shooter Construction Set". No one would take that seriously.

Everything else, from a marketing stand-point, I can take it or leave it. This part just keeps nagging at me though... sorry :/ Maybe it doesn't matter that much.

In this case though, I'd be willing to pay *more* to be able to not display that splash that had the "Game Builder" logo.

#60 Good point Phil.. I think in that respect i'd prefer t2d over tgb too.