Charas-Project

Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: dragon11137 on July 28, 2005, 03:20:50 PM

Title: Why does every 1 prefer RM2k3 over XP?
Post by: dragon11137 on July 28, 2005, 03:20:50 PM
1st i dont want any flaming

I was wondering why most of the people here preffer RPG MAKER 2003 over RPG MAKER XP? could some1 reply and tell me why theyprefer 2k3?
Title:
Post by: blackskullwarlock on July 28, 2005, 03:26:46 PM
XP lacks resources and learning Ruby is a lot of hassle, even for the immense possibilities it offers.
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on July 28, 2005, 03:33:20 PM
but still games can be extremely good without ruby
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on July 28, 2005, 03:36:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Lord Raffles
...it's easier to use!  :frag:
id have to say your rong there because:

xps not limited to 250bitmap

xp can do anything and more 2k3 can

xps tileset size is unlimited (you could fit all your tilesets in your game into one tileset

character are unlimeted size

i could go on...
Title:
Post by: Darkfox on July 28, 2005, 03:47:41 PM
And XP is unsupported by Charas.
Title:
Post by: PyroAlchemist on July 28, 2005, 04:03:19 PM
rm2k3 is better because it IS easier to use and we already have tons of resources for it. Oh and you don't have to make a script to make stuff work.
Title:
Post by: blackskullwarlock on July 28, 2005, 04:03:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Darkfox
And XP is unsupported by Charas.


That's another big reason lol
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on July 28, 2005, 04:32:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by PyroAlchemist
rm2k3 is better because it IS easier to use and we already have tons of resources for it. Oh and you don't have to make a script to make stuff work.
on xp you dont have 2 make a script for things to work eather
Title:
Post by: Tomi on July 28, 2005, 04:32:32 PM
I still think RM2k3 is easier to use.  I like the layout better too.
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on July 28, 2005, 04:33:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by blackskullwarlock
quote:
Originally posted by Darkfox
And XP is unsupported by Charas.


That's another big reason lol
that and not many resources is te only reasons i c but ya you have a point
Title:
Post by: smokey_locs2002 on July 28, 2005, 04:48:53 PM
What Darkfox said, and 2003 is easier to use, I use them both and I know enough about ruby script to where i can write my own scripts, I've only done one though, I'm freaken lazy. and you must remember this...battle system. If xp had 2003's battle system already built into it I bet more would use it. xp does offer more map and sprite detail..and 2003 has been around longer. I bet more people use 2000 than 2003.
Title:
Post by: DragonBlaze on July 28, 2005, 05:33:32 PM
I prefer XP because...

1. The graphics are just amazing compared to rm2k3, they're hard to find, but I can make my own, so thats no big deal.

2. You don't need to know ruby to add scripts. I've already added a fully animated side view battle system, a pixal movement plus diagonal movement script, a custom menu, advanced message features, and much more without knowing any ruby. Its just a matter of finding the script, goin to the scripts section, and pasting the script in there, anyone can do it.

3. All tiles can be used on any layer, and instead of only having 3 layers like in rm2k3 (bottom, top, and event) rmxp has 4 layers.

4. The enter hero name function works better than 2ks (if you have an older version of rmxp, you'd have to add a script for it though).

5. Even withough knowing any ruby, you can customize your game far more than you could with 2k3.

6. RMXP's charsets have 4 rows instead of 3. basically you have a standing pose, then your 3 walking poses, I use it to add some cool effects to some of my non-human characters

7. Charset and tileset size and color depth isn't an issue. You can have monsters 10 times the size of the hero walking around a map, in rm2k3 they all had to the be same size. You could use pictures and stuff like that, but it didn't achieve the same effect.

RMXP is just the newest version of the rm series, they are very closely related, but rmxp has a bunch of new cool features and all the features of the previous version (although you may need to download some scripts for some of the features like vehicles)

I think XP is easier to use. Rm2k3 and RMXP have the same commmand interface. But RMXP highlights  the color of commands so its easier to go through and check your scripts, but their basically the same there.


The only question I have is WHY isn't rmxp supported at charas, both rm2k3 and rmxp are illigal, so I don't see what the big deal is as long as we don't give out links to the downloads or anything like that.
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on July 28, 2005, 05:52:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
I prefer XP because...

1. The graphics are just amazing compared to rm2k3, they're hard to find, but I can make my own, so thats no big deal.

2. You don't need to know ruby to add scripts. I've already added a fully animated side view battle system, a pixal movement plus diagonal movement script, a custom menu, advanced message features, and much more without knowing any ruby. Its just a matter of finding the script, goin to the scripts section, and pasting the script in there, anyone can do it.

3. All tiles can be used on any layer, and instead of only having 3 layers like in rm2k3 (bottom, top, and event) rmxp has 4 layers.

4. The enter hero name function works better than 2ks (if you have an older version of rmxp, you'd have to add a script for it though).

5. Even withough knowing any ruby, you can customize your game far more than you could with 2k3.

i agree with you alot on that

is your game in xp? if so i want to play it!

6. RMXP's charsets have 4 rows instead of 3. basically you have a standing pose, then your 3 walking poses, I use it to add some cool effects to some of my non-human characters

7. Charset and tileset size and color depth isn't an issue. You can have monsters 10 times the size of the hero walking around a map, in rm2k3 they all had to the be same size. You could use pictures and stuff like that, but it didn't achieve the same effect.

RMXP is just the newest version of the rm series, they are very closely related, but rmxp has a bunch of new cool features and all the features of the previous version (although you may need to download some scripts for some of the features like vehicles)

I think XP is easier to use. Rm2k3 and RMXP have the same commmand interface. But RMXP highlights  the color of commands so its easier to go through and check your scripts, but their basically the same there.


The only question I have is WHY isn't rmxp supported at charas, both rm2k3 and rmxp are illigal, so I don't see what the big deal is as long as we don't give out links to the downloads or anything like that.
Title:
Post by: blackskullwarlock on July 28, 2005, 05:58:21 PM
Are you guys trying to convert use into RMXPanism? I'm not against the idea but the only problem is my computer...it's rather old so RMXP tends to lag. No conversion for me, heh.
Title:
Post by: FFL2and3rocks on July 28, 2005, 06:33:03 PM
I've never tried XP and I don't want to try it because I'm used to RM2k and RM2k3. I don't feel like learning how to use another maker.
Title:
Post by: Ian'sRPGstuff on July 28, 2005, 06:40:49 PM
ya and xp is kinda slow in way.
Title:
Post by: drenrin2120 on July 28, 2005, 06:57:08 PM
If RPG Maker II for the PS2 was on the PC as well, you'd all be using THAT one and forget what the rm series even is. I have no doubt about it.
Title:
Post by: BlackIceAdept on July 28, 2005, 06:57:39 PM
as long as you stay away from the ruby scripting in XP you won't have too much trouble... XD
Title:
Post by: AsakuraHao2004 on July 28, 2005, 07:52:03 PM
RPG Maker 2000/3 is easier to use, make resources for, and script.

Although, I love XP's charaset system.
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on July 28, 2005, 09:02:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FFL2and3rocks
I've never tried XP and I don't want to try it because I'm used to RM2k and RM2k3. I don't feel like learning how to use another maker.
Xp is the same as the other makers with alot added on
Title:
Post by: BlackIceAdept on July 28, 2005, 09:30:23 PM
also he means  ALOT theres more new options then I can list here its insane!
Title:
Post by: RuneBlade on July 28, 2005, 10:24:25 PM
I almost always used 2k, but im converting to 2k3, but with charset size bsets, because I like the plain look on the 2k/2k3 chars.
Title:
Post by: drenrin2120 on July 28, 2005, 11:02:51 PM
I, personally don't like the walking GFX in RMXP. But I agree with RuneBlade, rm2k3 has that signature SNES graphics. I lvoe SNES graphics, they are jsut cool looking to me, you can do a lot with it.
Title:
Post by: Bluhman on July 28, 2005, 11:09:32 PM
We's just used to the rm2k(3) system of making a game. Really, all the starting scripts that come with a game you make are in japanese. So unless you know every single meaning of combonations of kanji or something, then I think it really would be much easier to use rm2k(3).
Title:
Post by: drenrin2120 on July 28, 2005, 11:16:00 PM
Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, Bluhman, but even I have a completely translated English RMXP.
Title:
Post by: Bluhman on July 28, 2005, 11:20:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by drenrin2120
Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, Bluhman, but even I have a completely translated English RMXP.


Still, I have very little of an idea of how scripts work (The only games I've tried scrpitng to before are Morrowind and Neverwinter Nights. I easily mastered the Morrowind scripting method but such a story with Neverwinter Nights would be desirable) and trying to learn how another scripting language for another program would just be too much for my little, very hairy noggin.
Title:
Post by: Enduo_Ril on July 28, 2005, 11:28:53 PM
1: Not everybody has a fast internet connection. Rm2k/2k3 can be downloaded in under 2 hours even with a modem, but I'm pretty sure XP's file is HUGE.

2: Not everbody has a fast computer. Rm2k works on semi-old computers (though Rm2k3 doesn't quite work on them). XP most likely doesn't.

3: You don't need to learn a scripting language to make a game (even a pretty good game) in Rm2k/2k3.

4: There's bazillions of graphics and other stuff available for Rm2k/2k3. Not much for XP yet.

5: XP's RTP looks pretty terrible. So what if it has more colors and more complexity and all that? It looks like crap. (of course, 2k and 2k3's aren't the GREATEST THING EVER either, but still)

6: And of course, this site doesn't support XP... so what little stuff there is out there for XP is even harder to find.
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on July 28, 2005, 11:33:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Enduo_Ril
1: Not everybody has a fast internet connection. Rm2k/2k3 can be downloaded in under 2 hours even with a modem, but I'm pretty sure XP's file is HUGE.

2: Not everbody has a fast computer. Rm2k works on semi-old computers (though Rm2k3 doesn't quite work on them). XP most likely doesn't.

3: You don't need to learn a scripting language to make a game (even a pretty good game) in Rm2k/2k3.

4: There's bazillions of graphics and other stuff available for Rm2k/2k3. Not much for XP yet.

5: XP's RTP looks pretty terrible. So what if it has more colors and more complexity and all that? It looks like crap. (of course, 2k and 2k3's aren't the GREATEST THING EVER either, but still)

6: And of course, this site doesn't support XP... so what little stuff there is out there for XP is even harder to find.



okay 1st  i agree with the computer speed part
2nd rpg maker XP hads the same scripting system as 2k3 :|  its just ioptional to use the "Ruby"
3rd what the heck are you saying?! how can xps RTP look horrible?! it surpasses anything i have ever seen in rm2k3 its verry good and there are like 30RTP tilesets
Title:
Post by: drenrin2120 on July 28, 2005, 11:36:03 PM
I think he's talking about the monsters, I definitely don't like the monsters graphics.
Title:
Post by: coasterkrazy on July 28, 2005, 11:36:14 PM
I actually started using XP, but I switched to 2k3 because it's used more often and also I had to raise my screen resolution pretty high just to be able to see all the windows in XP.
Title:
Post by: Ace of Spades on July 28, 2005, 11:44:16 PM
A larger amount of people will play your game if it's made with rm2k3 because:
1. A lot of communities don't allow rmxp games.
2. Some people may not be able to get rmxp.
3. Rm2k3 > Rmxp    >=P
Title:
Post by: Zai Manui on July 28, 2005, 11:47:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Enduo_Ril
1: Not everybody has a fast internet connection. Rm2k/2k3 can be downloaded in under 2 hours even with a modem, but I'm pretty sure XP's file is HUGE.
B]


True it took my 2 and a half hours to download XP. I like 2k3 better BECAUSE of the graphics. I like the look.
Title:
Post by: danilynnarthur on July 28, 2005, 11:49:36 PM
XP can't run on my regular computer, but it can on my laptop.  Just with everything else though, using the mouse on my laptop is next to impossible to do.

XP requires 256 MB of RAM to run properly (at least the version I tried, which was the trial version).

Beside that, though, I find XP to be more difficult than 2000/03.  But that's just me.  

For the record, I don't have XP on either computer.
Title:
Post by: Ace of Spades on July 28, 2005, 11:55:55 PM
I don't have rmxp either. Hey, what if this is all a trick thread, and dragon1137 actually works for the FBI and everybody here who said that they have rmxp is being tracked down right now and will be fined, prosecuted and then sent to jail. *gasp* o_O
Title:
Post by: DragonBlaze on July 29, 2005, 12:11:04 AM
 
Quote
1: Not everybody has a fast internet connection. Rm2k/2k3 can be downloaded in under 2 hours even with a modem, but I'm pretty sure XP's file is HUGE.


I have dial up and it didn't give me a problem  :|

 
Quote
2: Not everbody has a fast computer. Rm2k works on semi-old computers (though Rm2k3 doesn't quite work on them). XP most likely doesn't.


Thats true, but the requirements for it are for a standerd computer, if your computer has windows xp, it should be able to run it.

 
Quote
You don't need to learn a scripting language to make a game (even a pretty good game) in Rm2k/2k3.


The scripting language in rmxp is OPTIONAL, you don't even have to look at the system and you can make a game the same way as rm2k3. If you do wish to add scripts, all that is requred is copying the scipt, and pasting it into the script area. Anyone can do it.

 
Quote
4: There's bazillions of graphics and other stuff available for Rm2k/2k3. Not much for XP yet.


Theres quite a few graphics made for rmxp already, I already found enough to make a game without the rtp at all. Not as much as 2k3, but every day more graphics are being made. It is also possible to use 2k3 graphics in rmxp.


RMXP is basically rm2k3 with an aditional scripting system and better graphics. It has the same commands, same options, same way of setting up scripts, same way of building maps, ect ect...
Title:
Post by: drenrin2120 on July 29, 2005, 12:28:22 AM
 
Quote
Hey, what if this is all a trick thread, and dragon1137 actually works for the FBI and everybody here who said that they have rmxp is being tracked down right now and will be fined, prosecuted and then sent to jail. *gasp* o_O


I knew it... all along, I knew it in my gut! It's our time!!

 [SHADOW]I CALL A REVOLUTION!!![/SHADOW] o_O

(that includes getting rid of Bush ;) )
Title:
Post by: Chaotic_Death on July 29, 2005, 01:14:35 AM
For one, I HATE the graphics in RMXP.  Hate them, hate them, hate them.  I don't care if they're "higher resoultion," that doesn't mean they look good.  I personally think all of the RMXP charasets, tilesets, monsters, and everything else looks absolutley horrible.  I know many people are going to disagree with me there, but I don't care.

Second, you know how in RPG Maker 2000 how the event buttons were arranged, and they stayed the same way in 2003?  Well, XP rearragnes them all over the place, also "grouping" them and adding tons of new ones which makes it hard to find what you want.  I'm sure it's easy to get used too, but I'm not going to take the time to do that.

Third, RMXP charasets are animated WAY TOO SLOW.  You'll be walking over 2 and a half tiles before it's first frame of the walking animation kicks in.  Also, the controls seem a lot bulkier, but maybe that's just me.

Fourth, as everyone else said, there are almost no resources created for RMXP, besides the RTP.  You -can- use RM2K3's chipsets in XP, but you'll need to double their size, making them look very pixelated and messy.  Same with the charasets, title screens, and everything else.  I just hate the fact that everything in RMXP has to be so big.

Fifth, most of the RM2K3 tilesets that you see throughout the net are ripped from games, correct?  Well, usually they're ripped in 16x16 tiles, perfect for RM2K/3.  But, RMXP uses double that size, and as I said above, everything looks crappy when you resize it.

Sixth, I'm not seeing any *new* features in RMXP that weren't possible in RM2K3.  Maybe they're easier to implement, but that doesn't mean they were impossible in RM2K/3.  Somebody mentioned pixel movement.  That could easily be achieved in RM2K3, with some creative coding, pictures, and variables.  Somebody else mentioned there are only 3 layers of tiles in RM2K3.  Wrong.  There are actually 53, counting all of the different posibilities with pictures, and including the panorama, that makes 54.  Just because you're too lazy to put time into making your game, and would rather find a pre-made engine that can be inserted in the click of a mouse doesn't mean it's nesscarily better.  Easier, sure, but quickly and easily made games tend to completley and totally suck.

That is all.
Title:
Post by: coasterkrazy on July 29, 2005, 03:13:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by drenrin2120
quote:
Hey, what if this is all a trick thread, and dragon1137 actually works for the FBI and everybody here who said that they have rmxp is being tracked down right now and will be fined, prosecuted and then sent to jail. *gasp* o_O


I knew it... all along, I knew it in my gut! It's our time!!

 I CALL A REVOLUTION!!! o_O

(that includes getting rid of Bush ;) )


Agreed.  :D
Title:
Post by: Rune_of_Punishment on July 29, 2005, 03:53:40 AM
My 3.0 ghz CPU can run the thing like nothing.
Title:
Post by: Linkmaster on July 29, 2005, 11:15:49 AM
I have never tried RPG maker XP and Rpg Maker2k3 gives you side view battles (like Final Fantasy) so that's why I like 2k3
Title:
Post by: Osmose on July 29, 2005, 11:34:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Chaotic_Death
For one, I HATE the graphics in RMXP.  Hate them, hate them, hate them.  I don't care if they're "higher resoultion," that doesn't mean they look good.  I personally think all of the RMXP charasets, tilesets, monsters, and everything else looks absolutley horrible.  I know many people are going to disagree with me there, but I don't care.

Second, you know how in RPG Maker 2000 how the event buttons were arranged, and they stayed the same way in 2003?  Well, XP rearragnes them all over the place, also "grouping" them and adding tons of new ones which makes it hard to find what you want.  I'm sure it's easy to get used too, but I'm not going to take the time to do that.

Third, RMXP charasets are animated WAY TOO SLOW.  You'll be walking over 2 and a half tiles before it's first frame of the walking animation kicks in.  Also, the controls seem a lot bulkier, but maybe that's just me.

Fourth, as everyone else said, there are almost no resources created for RMXP, besides the RTP.  You -can- use RM2K3's chipsets in XP, but you'll need to double their size, making them look very pixelated and messy.  Same with the charasets, title screens, and everything else.  I just hate the fact that everything in RMXP has to be so big.

Fifth, most of the RM2K3 tilesets that you see throughout the net are ripped from games, correct?  Well, usually they're ripped in 16x16 tiles, perfect for RM2K/3.  But, RMXP uses double that size, and as I said above, everything looks crappy when you resize it.

Sixth, I'm not seeing any *new* features in RMXP that weren't possible in RM2K3.  Maybe they're easier to implement, but that doesn't mean they were impossible in RM2K/3.  Somebody mentioned pixel movement.  That could easily be achieved in RM2K3, with some creative coding, pictures, and variables.  Somebody else mentioned there are only 3 layers of tiles in RM2K3.  Wrong.  There are actually 53, counting all of the different posibilities with pictures, and including the panorama, that makes 54.  Just because you're too lazy to put time into making your game, and would rather find a pre-made engine that can be inserted in the click of a mouse doesn't mean it's nesscarily better.  Easier, sure, but quickly and easily made games tend to completley and totally suck.

That is all.


I agree with you on everything, except... RM2K3 and the other RPG Makers before XP doublesize everything when you're playing, so anything double sized in XP would look the same in actual play in the other ones. And just because of that doesn't meant they look bad.
Title:
Post by: Sharu on July 29, 2005, 11:38:55 AM
I'm used to using RM2K and RM2K3, and...

1. I DON'T like the graphics in XP.
2. The graphics in XP are way TOO BIG.
3. I've found resources for XP only in some Japanese sites.
[GLOW]4. I have NOT got RMXP yet.[/GLOW]
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on July 29, 2005, 01:40:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Ace of Spades
I don't have rmxp either. Hey, what if this is all a trick thread, and dragon1137 actually works for the FBI and everybody here who said that they have rmxp is being tracked down right now and will be fined, prosecuted and then sent to jail. *gasp* o_O
ahhh! you caught me=P anyways rm2k and rm2k3 r illegal 2
Title:
Post by: DragonBlaze on July 29, 2005, 03:40:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Chaotic_Death
For one, I HATE the graphics in RMXP.  Hate them, hate them, hate them.  I don't care if they're "higher resoultion," that doesn't mean they look good.  I personally think all of the RMXP charasets, tilesets, monsters, and everything else looks absolutley horrible.  I know many people are going to disagree with me there, but I don't care.

Second, you know how in RPG Maker 2000 how the event buttons were arranged, and they stayed the same way in 2003?  Well, XP rearragnes them all over the place, also "grouping" them and adding tons of new ones which makes it hard to find what you want.  I'm sure it's easy to get used too, but I'm not going to take the time to do that.

Third, RMXP charasets are animated WAY TOO SLOW.  You'll be walking over 2 and a half tiles before it's first frame of the walking animation kicks in.  Also, the controls seem a lot bulkier, but maybe that's just me.

Fourth, as everyone else said, there are almost no resources created for RMXP, besides the RTP.  You -can- use RM2K3's chipsets in XP, but you'll need to double their size, making them look very pixelated and messy.  Same with the charasets, title screens, and everything else.  I just hate the fact that everything in RMXP has to be so big.

Fifth, most of the RM2K3 tilesets that you see throughout the net are ripped from games, correct?  Well, usually they're ripped in 16x16 tiles, perfect for RM2K/3.  But, RMXP uses double that size, and as I said above, everything looks crappy when you resize it.

Sixth, I'm not seeing any *new* features in RMXP that weren't possible in RM2K3.  Maybe they're easier to implement, but that doesn't mean they were impossible in RM2K/3.  Somebody mentioned pixel movement.  That could easily be achieved in RM2K3, with some creative coding, pictures, and variables.  Somebody else mentioned there are only 3 layers of tiles in RM2K3.  Wrong.  There are actually 53, counting all of the different posibilities with pictures, and including the panorama, that makes 54.  Just because you're too lazy to put time into making your game, and would rather find a pre-made engine that can be inserted in the click of a mouse doesn't mean it's nesscarily better.  Easier, sure, but quickly and easily made games tend to completley and totally suck.

That is all.


I agree that the defult graphics are horrible, but rm2k3's defult graphics are even worse, heres a few examples from english sites of some graphics, there are a ton of them, and as you can see, they are much better than rm2k/3.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a45/zanyzora/potter.png
http://img280.imageshack.us/img280/8744/brando0xr.png

I guess pixal movement would be possible in rm2k3, but it can't work nearly as good as in rmxp, you'd have to use picture files, and they are desplayed above everything else, so every time you want the hero to move under something, you'd have to make that something a picture, plus you can't scroll the map one pizal at a time, so even if your character moved one pixal, the map wouldn't.

And theres a lot of stuff RMXP can do that isn't even possible in rm2k3, such as: Adding scenes before the title screen, in rmxp you can simply skip the title screen, you can't do that in 2k3. You can edit the location of windows in the title screen, and even add more options. You can set up an rmxp game to be an MMORPG, rmxp supports keyboard and mouse inputs, rm2k3 supports numbers and a few other keys, but thats about it, RMXP supports differant resolutions, the list goes on and on. Plus everythings easier, you could make a CBS and CMS with rm2k3, but it won't run as good as a cbs or cms made with ruby. Adding a feature that would take a week to make in rm2k3 can be done in under a minute in rmxp by pasting in a script. Some may not think its right to use other peoples work, but then you really shouldn't be using graphics or other stuff you find on the internet either.

If you resize 2k3 graphics and use them in rmxp, they'll look the same as in 2k3. Since XP has double the resolution, simply doubling the size will make it look the same. If you take a screenshot while playing 2k3 (fullscreen), and paste it into paint, guess what, it has a size of 640 x 480, all that happened was that each pixal became a block of 4 pixals. In short, using resized rm2k3 graphics wouldn't look crappy, unless you use rmxp graphics with them.


I've used rm2k and rm2k3 since they've come out, I know what they can do, and what they're capable of. RMXP is just a better system.
Title:
Post by: Chaotic_Death on July 29, 2005, 03:51:35 PM
I didn't mean the graphics actually already resized, I meant resizing them.  You'd have to do it all be hand if you were to import them into RMXP, and some graphics programs can do that very horribly, blending colors into the background and making it so that you'd have to edit it all out, while some do it perfectly.  Also, that's not all.  You'd have to place them in different templates, since RMXP and RM2K3 don't use the same.  You can't simply take a charaset from RM2K3, resize it by 200%, and use it in XP.  You'd have to recompile the entire thing, rearranging them in a way so that they work.  Forget those programs that do it automatically, they tend to screw everything up even worse.  

Also, I hate the fact that you can only put one character on each charaset.  That just makes everything more of a hassle and harder to find.  Take my Zelda game for example.  I have custom 10-frame movement, two types of shields, and a whole different set of clothes.  That results in 10 charasets, each one completley full with animations, poses, and the like.  Now, if I were to do that in RMXP, all of those frames would have to be a seperate animation, resulting in about 80 different files.  Now, I don't know about you, but I think having your resources organized by group in 10 files is easier than having them scattered all over in 80 different ones.

Also, if you play RM2K3 in fullscreen and take a screenshot, the resolution is indeed 320x240.  Try it, because obviously you haven't.
Title:
Post by: Ace of Spades on July 29, 2005, 04:43:44 PM
Meh, sure rmxp has those other features and better graphics and such, but honestly, who cares? Graphics shmaphics, I want to play the game. With rmxp you take a lot of time to care about the graphics, and then also have to worry about the game itself. For me, that's just too much. And obviously I can't sprite anyway, so I wouldn't be good at rmxp anyways. And also, if anything, those scenes before the title screen in games usually tend to tick me off. Sure, they're cool the first time you see it, but then if you can't skip through it...they suck. But anyway, if others like rmxp, more power to them, everyone has their own opinions. But my guess is those opinions won't change Alex's opinion on rmxp, so there's really no point in arguing, if this is an attept to change Alex's mind about rmxp.
Title:
Post by: Chaotic_Death on July 29, 2005, 04:46:51 PM
Another thing I hate about XP is that it messes up all of the MIDIs that you enter into them.

1. It adds that horrible echo which screws up the tune in many of the songs I have.
2. There's no tempo slider, so you have to go manually make another MIDI with slower tempo to change that.
3. Also with about half of the MIDIs I own, it takes away the drums completley, making them sound as horrible as those ones with the echo. _sweat_

EDIT:

Okay, so I just imported... say like, 23 MIDIs into my game.  Here's what happened to all of them:

1. Sounds pretty much the same as 2K3.
2. It took away the damn drums, but no echo here.
3. Added a strong echo which distorts the tune.  It sounds sucky now.
4. Added the echo again, not as bad, but still horrible.
5. Made the MIDI much quieter and faster... WTF?
6. Made the MIDI almost so quiet that you can't even hear it anymore... And that echo drowns out what's left that you can hear.
7. Took away the powerful meaning of this MIDI by adding the echo, and making it quieter.  Also no drums.
8. Same as above.
9. Added the echo, but this is one of the few MIDIs that sounds good with the echo.  It's a heck of a lot quieter, though.
10. Sounds the same, only quieter... why the hell does it keep doing that?
11. Adds the echo as strong as possible which HIGHLY distorts the MIDI, especially since it already had an echo.  Messes with the volume of each channel as well, making the soft parts loud and the loud parts softer.
12. Same as #9, only no drums yet again.
13. This sounds the same as RM2K3.
14. Ugh.  Same as #11.
15. Sounds the same as in RM2K3.
16. Changed the insturments, added an echo.  Sounds horrible.
17. Same as #7.
18. Same as #11, with a combination of #16.
19. Same as RM2K3, quieter still.
20. Added an echo... and made the MIDI x10 slower... WTF...
21. Same as #19
22. Same as #9, only it echos the drums as well, which kinda messes the whole thing up.
23. Same as RM2K3, only it messes up the drums by changing them and adding an echo to them.  Also quieter.
Title:
Post by: coasterkrazy on July 29, 2005, 04:49:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Ace of Spades
Meh, sure rmxp has those other features and better graphics and such, but honestly, who cares? Graphics shmaphics, I want to play the game. With rmxp you take a lot of time to care about the graphics, and then also have to worry about the game itself. For me, that's just too much. And obviously I can't sprite anyway, so I wouldn't be good at rmxp anyways. And also, if anything, those scenes before the title screen in games usually tend to tick me off. Sure, they're cool the first time you see it, but then if you can't skip through it...they suck. But anyway, if others like rmxp, more power to them, everyone has their own opinions. But my guess is those opinions won't change Alex's opinion on rmxp, so there's really no point in arguing, if this is an attept to change Alex's mind about rmxp.


I agree about the graphics. Right now my friend and I are working on a game entirely composed of stick figures for characters. I really hope to show that a game can be fun and captivating without the need for flashy graphics. Don't expect a thread too soon, it's still very early in development.
Title:
Post by: Linkmaster on July 29, 2005, 05:15:21 PM
They say poke things you hevn't tried but I'm not trying RPG maker XP...
Title:
Post by: Rune_of_Punishment on July 29, 2005, 06:10:00 PM
Stop complaining about all the little things. Gosh. If you don't want to use XP, don't. It's that simple. Geez... didn't know so many people whined.
Title:
Post by: Ace of Spades on July 29, 2005, 06:15:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Rune_of_Punishment
Stop complaining about all the little things. Gosh. If you don't want to use XP, don't. It's that simple. Geez... didn't know so many people whined.

Er, the thread IS about why you do or don't like rmxp. But I agree with you.
Title:
Post by: GaryCXJk on July 29, 2005, 06:55:18 PM
My reason for not using XP is the same reason Charas gives for not supporting it. If we keep supporting the illegal translations, Enterbrain will never release a legal English version, if they were ever planning one.
Title:
Post by: DragonBlaze on July 29, 2005, 08:51:14 PM
 
Quote
Enterbrain will never release a legal English version, if they were ever planning one.


Enterbein would never release an english version anyway, they're not really into releasing their products to other contries. They've pretty much made themselves clear that they won't translate rmxp to english.

 
Quote
Also, if you play RM2K3 in fullscreen and take a screenshot, the resolution is indeed 320x240. Try it, because obviously you haven't.


Hmm, well my laptop puts the size to 640 x 480, my desktop puts it at 320 x 240. Either way though, when running it in window mode it puts it at 640 x 480, unless you press F5.

Whatever though, to each his own. If rm2k3 worked better on my computer and if I didn't have or couldn't make graphics for rmxp, I'd probably use rm2k3 also.

When you have the graphics and know how to use them, an RMXP game looks 10 times better than a 2k3 game

But now that I'm using rmxp, I won't go back to 2k3, I may finish my 2k3 game once I get 2k3 working again, but that'll be it. RMXP is just easier, looks better, and allows me to customize my game in ways that just can't be done with rm2k3.
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on July 29, 2005, 09:30:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by GaryCXJk
My reason for not using XP is the same reason Charas gives for not supporting it. If we keep supporting the illegal translations, Enterbrain will never release a legal English version, if they were ever planning one.
but 2k and 2k3 are illegal...
Title: big
Post by: dragon11137 on July 29, 2005, 09:32:30 PM
Another BBBBBBBBIIIIIIGGGGG advantage in xp is you can make ONLINE MULTI PLAYER rpgs
Title:
Post by: Osmose on July 29, 2005, 10:57:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by dragon11137
Another BBBBBBBBIIIIIIGGGGG advantage in xp is you can make ONLINE MULTI PLAYER rpgs


Yeah, but I doubt any of you would think it worth figuring out how to set up a system that monitors the variables of all players connecting, nor what to send or interpreting the data returned. We have  Byond (http://www.byond.com)  and  Player Worlds (http://www.playerworlds.com) for that.

And I doubt that too many of you are keen on learning a very badly formed coding language. We have  RPG Toolkit (http://www.toolkitzone.com) for that.

No, RPG Maker is popular because it's limited. It's always been the easy choice of makers, for those who don't want to bother with the hard work. Although smart additions, things like Ruby are just going to confuse the masses.
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on July 30, 2005, 01:13:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Osmose
quote:
Originally posted by dragon11137
Another BBBBBBBBIIIIIIGGGGG advantage in xp is you can make ONLINE MULTI PLAYER rpgs


Yeah, but I doubt any of you would think it worth figuring out how to set up a system that monitors the variables of all players connecting, nor what to send or interpreting the data returned. We have  Byond  and  Player Worlds for that.

And I doubt that too many of you are keen on learning a very badly formed coding language. We have  RPG Toolkit for that.

No, RPG Maker is popular because it's limited. It's always been the easy choice of makers, for those who don't want to bother with the hard work. Although smart additions, things like Ruby are just going to confuse the masses.

ya it would be extremely hard to  make
but i already have a script and everything to make 1
Title:
Post by: BlackIceAdept on July 30, 2005, 01:28:40 PM
Also just to put one more thing down... you can something like Golden Sun, or even a Tales of... game. That is if you take the time to master ruby!
Title:
Post by: GaryCXJk on July 30, 2005, 03:03:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by dragon11137
but 2k and 2k3 are illegal...
Yes, however, we already supported these two programs, and there's nothing more we could do about it. We can, however, stop the support of newer illegal programs, just to make a stand.
Title:
Post by: RPG LORD on July 30, 2005, 03:42:27 PM
The resolution RMXP needs causes my computer's screen to go all wrong. RPG Maker 2003 doesn't have that problem.
Title:
Post by: Sephiroth rocks on July 30, 2005, 06:34:23 PM
I like rmxp but there aren't any resources for it on the web and they're frigging difficult to make so I still stick to rm2k3.
Title:
Post by: Osmose on July 30, 2005, 08:32:14 PM
Hey, for all you people whining about how hard it is to make RMXP resources - IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS MAKING ANY OTHER RESOURCE! There is no difference except for three things:

1.The program will not automatically resize your charaset. This allows you more detail, or less if you decide to 2x it yourself.

2.You are not limited by size. You can have a charaset or whatever you want as big as you want! The only rule is that your size has to be divisable by a number, and there are a few other size guidelines for things like the width of a chipset(but not the length, meaning your chipset can have as much as you want.)

3.You aren't limited to 256 colors. You can use any and all colors you want.

RMXP still sucks in comparison to the others I linked to, but saying "IT'S TOO HARD TO MAKE RESOURCES FOR IT" is NO excuse - it is exactly the same, if not easier.
Title:
Post by: Chaotic_Death on July 31, 2005, 03:06:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
quote:
Also, if you play RM2K3 in fullscreen and take a screenshot, the resolution is indeed 320x240. Try it, because obviously you haven't.


Hmm, well my laptop puts the size to 640 x 480, my desktop puts it at 320 x 240. Either way though, when running it in window mode it puts it at 640 x 480, unless you press F5.


Window?  You said fullscreen.

 Small Window Res. = 320x240
 Normal Window Res. = 640x480
 Fullscreen Res. = 320x240, stretch-to-fit.

Anyways, I still hate XP, so whatever :p
Title:
Post by: Rune_of_Punishment on July 31, 2005, 06:14:42 AM
It's whatever is comfortable to the maker and what can emphasize the creator's abilities. That's all that really needs to be said.
Title:
Post by: benosalankelley on July 31, 2005, 06:48:53 AM
i use rmxp, because i convert rm2k/3 resources. its the best thing, rather then using rmxp defaults, i can get some rmxp resources from other sites like battlers.
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on July 31, 2005, 12:29:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Sephiroth rocks
I like rmxp but there aren't any resources for it on the web and they're frigging difficult to make so I still stick to rm2k3.
theres actualy quite alot of xp resources
Title:
Post by: maxine on July 31, 2005, 01:06:16 PM
Ok here comes my opinion in this thread....

RM2K3 Rocks in all ways.. It beats XP in every way....

1. The fighting system is already set as FF style and that is so gooood....

2. Its soo easy and you can make your game almost as good as any real game.....

3. XP is just... no ! for me... RM2K3 rulez...

Although i have stopped doing any games or anything but its still the best
Title:
Post by: BlackIceAdept on July 31, 2005, 02:24:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by maxine
2. Its soo easy and you can make your game almost as good as any real game.....


okay you try coding in the spell system from GS/GS2, or the materia system from FF7, or the sphere grid from FFX, or (somebody stop me)...
Title:
Post by: Drace on July 31, 2005, 03:35:41 PM
The sphere grid. The first person who makes that get's a piece of my cake!
Title:
Post by: BlackIceAdept on July 31, 2005, 03:43:54 PM
lol it would be easy if they knew ruby...

(BTW that was my favorite thing in that game, also why the hell do most of the bosses know evil things like zombie/full-life when you just barely learned curaga?)
Title:
Post by: Rune_of_Punishment on July 31, 2005, 07:53:03 PM
Maxine... that was the dumbest post ever...
Title:
Post by: RPG LORD on July 31, 2005, 07:58:45 PM
I'm sticking to RM2000-2003 for the sake of my screen resolution.
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on August 01, 2005, 11:38:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by BlackIceAdept
quote:
Originally posted by maxine
2. Its soo easy and you can make your game almost as good as any real game.....


okay you try coding in the spell system from GS/GS2, or the materia system from FF7, or the sphere grid from FFX, or (somebody stop me)...
will you send me it in the mail?! if so im gonna go make 1!
Title:
Post by: maxine on August 01, 2005, 11:52:00 AM
haha dude you got it wrong... Haha i didnt say it was easy too make almost any real game... I meant that the program is easy and with SKILLS you can make almost as good games as real games and Rune i dont care what you say.. If you call someone dumb by that cause. You might be dumb your self
Title:
Post by: BlackIceAdept on August 01, 2005, 01:48:21 PM
I haven't made the codes but I found a site that has alot of help on ruby (and yes I've checked for rmxp links no links here) http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
Title:
Post by: Leon_1990 on August 02, 2005, 08:28:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Osmose
Hey, for all you people whining about how hard it is to make RMXP resources - IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS MAKING ANY OTHER RESOURCE! There is no difference except for three things:

1.The program will not automatically resize your charaset. This allows you more detail, or less if you decide to 2x it yourself.

2.You are not limited by size. You can have a charaset or whatever you want as big as you want! The only rule is that your size has to be divisable by a number, and there are a few other size guidelines for things like the width of a chipset(but not the length, meaning your chipset can have as much as you want.)

3.You aren't limited to 256 colors. You can use any and all colors you want.

RMXP still sucks in comparison to the others I linked to, but saying "IT'S TOO HARD TO MAKE RESOURCES FOR IT" is NO excuse - it is exactly the same, if not easier.


oh no...I have to agree with Osmose  :o

well, I actualy prefer XP for 2 reasons

1: It is more flexible (scripting) which allows more unique games.

and

2: C'mon, MORE than 256 colours,HUGE graphics allowed AND the sweet echo on the midis...

I say RMXP should be allowed on this forum.
And I'm sure a few of you shall agree with me ^^

*makes petition* (I hope Alex reads this)
Title:
Post by: carmen on August 02, 2005, 08:30:45 PM
well, seeing as XP is TOTALLY illegal, alex doesn't want a part of it
Title:
Post by: Leon_1990 on August 02, 2005, 08:35:22 PM
Is it more Illegal than the other RMs?
Title:
Post by: carmen on August 02, 2005, 08:41:37 PM
yeah it is, most likely becuase it's newer, I duno exctly how it works. lol but I'm following rules here
Title:
Post by: Darkfox on August 02, 2005, 08:47:12 PM
Anyways, freeware RPG Makers in development are way more powerful and compatible than RMXP, only more work is required.
Title:
Post by: Leon_1990 on August 03, 2005, 11:28:14 AM
hmm, my only problem with XP is the fact that it lost a few features from teh earlier ones (scrolling panoramas to name one).
It feels a little incomplete to me....

but I still like it above 2k (almost teh same as 2k3 in my opinion)
Title:
Post by: maxine on August 03, 2005, 12:20:09 PM
i think Xp shall still be restricted here... Its different than the other RPG makers and would only take some piece of the attention around here.. I love RM2K3.
Title:
Post by: Trevlac on August 03, 2005, 03:33:31 PM
It all comes down to opinions; closemindedness and openmindedness.  And then there are facts which are mostly overlooked completely or obscured by some to fit with their opinions.  I'm telling you, we should support 2k, 2k3, and XP.  It is rediculous to shun XP when MOST of you havn't even tried it but just jumped on the "hate xp" bandwagon.

What would it hurt charas to support xp? I would start making tons of resources again, for one, since I use it.  I daresay Charas couldn't be WORSE by supporting it as we're in the Dark ages.  What if this gets us out? What if we all come together under one banner?  Dammit, I'm sick of this battle between the different versions of RM.  Each one is DIFFERENT, and thus not better or worse than any other.

Not to mention the main thing I see is that no one wants to learn something new, a programming language, and a GOOD one at that.  Originally Ruby was a big turn off but I learned the basics anyway and it's my favorite language even over PHP and C# just sucks now.  Everyone is just afraid of change is what it all boils down to.  Grow up.

I hate conservatives and liberals.  Conservatives never allow new stuff so we keep the same old crap and miss out, while liberals do the opposite and fling away all of the old stuff though it may be good.  Same thing here.  Quit being fricking prejudice.

I respect everyone's opinions about "which is better" but truthfully, neither is better over the other.  I use all three versions at once.  Yes, XP is my favorite but I know that the others arn't dead meat.

And everyone may also be scared of not finding scrips.  I can easily remedy this.  Smo and I can program Ruby and rmxp.net has thousands upon thousands of scripts.

Because of the fact that Charas doesn't support xp, I actually go to the rmxp forums more often.
Title:
Post by: DragonBlaze on August 03, 2005, 03:53:12 PM
Hmm, I already posted why I think rmxp is better than rm2k/3, so now I'm just going to post why I think charas should allow stuff about rmxp to be posted.

1. Yes it is illigal, it may be more illigal than 2k3, but the fact is, it is NOT illigal to post graphics, tutorials on how to use it, or information on games that will be made with it. It is illigal to post your games made for it only if your using an illigal version, but theres no way to tell if you are or not (unless you say so).

2. RM2k3 will only last so long, its not going to be used forever, we might as well move on.

3. Charas not supporing rmxp will in no way shape or form convince enterbein to release and english version. The only thing it will do is lead members who use rmxp to go to differant forums that do.

4. If we support rmxp, then we may get more traffic from people who use it.

5. I make a lot of rmxp graphics including charsets and animated battlers, they're just picture files, and I believe some people may benifit from them if they don't want to use the rtp, but I can't post them, just because they're in a differant format.

6. If you don't like rmxp, good for you, thats your choice, you can also choose not to read topics that involve rmxp if its supported on charas, so it won't make much of a differance to you.
Title:
Post by: Trevlac on August 03, 2005, 04:54:02 PM
HERE, HERE!

Well said Dragonblaze :)

Yes, the big beef I have is the prejudice to a different IMAGE TYPE.  Jesus tapdancing Christ people, just because an image is any number divisible by 4 and has 16 distinguishable cells doesn't mean it's EVIL or ILLEGAL.
Title:
Post by: Master Yoda on August 03, 2005, 04:56:32 PM
XP would be decent if it was 2003, but with better graphics. However, with the introduction of Ruby and things like taking out Paralax backrounds have ruined it. Also, I've tryed to get resources for XP to make it more futuristic and less olden times, but have failed. Charas doesn't support it for a reason and that's because we realise that newer doesnt always mean better
Title:
Post by: BlackIceAdept on August 03, 2005, 05:40:50 PM
I agree we should be legally able to post the resources and games and its not that bad to set up a new area for resources I mean come on whats the worst thats gonna happen we get one or two sever crashes more a year?
Title:
Post by: Osmose on August 03, 2005, 09:39:30 PM
Ruby is horrible compared to more developed programming languages.
Title:
Post by: Master Yoda on August 03, 2005, 10:09:37 PM
I agree that Ruby is inferior to the likes of Java, but the whole thing about the new resources i do not agree with. Charas is in a difficult period, and with more bandwidth costs, we would be killing our resource heaven!
Title:
Post by: DragonBlaze on August 03, 2005, 10:10:36 PM
That may be true, but its pretty easy to understand and learn, just by looking at ruby a few times I could understand most of it (although I still can't make original scripts).

But if your good with developed program languages, you would have little need for rm2k/3/xp

And rmxp does support parallax backgrounds, they just have to be set by an event on the map. They can autoscroll, only thing is that to scroll it a certain amount at a certain time you may need a custom script (i've seen them around already though).

 
Quote
Charas doesn't support it for a reason and that's because we realise that newer doesnt always mean better


Some people think rmxp is better, and some thing 2k/3 is better, basically if you like the higher graphics and the ruby scripting system, rmxp is better, if you like a strieght forward easy system with easy to find graphics, rm2k/3 is better.
Title:
Post by: Trevlac on August 04, 2005, 12:34:09 PM
Well to comment on what carmen said, XP is no more illegal than 2k3.  Especially since Enterbrain deliberately did not try to port it to America and thus, any English version of 2k3 is very illegal indeed.  Actually I had a site somewhere that compared the two programs in illegality.  So either Alex is mistaken with faulty information, or just believes the wrong thing.

I should say again, a certain image size with a certain sprite in a way doesn't make it an illegal GRAPHIC, not to mention posting scripts of a programming language called Ruby doesn't make a SCRIPT illegal, nor does anything besides posting links to RMXP download or sites that have a download.

Again, it's just as illegal as 2k3, something is either legal or illegal.  There's no getting around it.
Title:
Post by: Genma2k on August 04, 2005, 12:56:38 PM
hmmm... i dont like RMXP because:
I don't like the graphics(sp?) and I am to lazy to learn how to use it :o
Title:
Post by: dragon11137 on August 04, 2005, 02:02:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Master Yoda
XP would be decent if it was 2003, but with better graphics. However, with the introduction of Ruby and things like taking out Paralax backrounds have ruined it. Also, I've tryed to get resources for XP to make it more futuristic and less olden times, but have failed. Charas doesn't support it for a reason and that's because we realise that newer doesnt always mean better
what is paralax BG? if it is panorama then rpg maker XP has it
Ruby is completley amazing and pretty simple to use
Xp has ALOT of oldentimes esources if you know where to look
Title:
Post by: kodakumi on August 06, 2005, 03:44:06 PM
i might have stopped using rpg makers.

but i would have to say xp was better then 2k3.


scripting makes making a game very open and simplistic.


though the default events couldve had a few more automated scripts.