Charas-Project
Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: Omega Weapon on December 23, 2006, 03:56:29 AM
-
Your personal thoughts? I'm getting started on 2 large projects, and your answers could save me a lot of time and effort.
If there's a better place for this thread than by all means, please inform me of it. I was inclined not to start it in the others because those are mostly geared towards the individual aspects of RPGmaker.
-
Well, that's because people prefer to use what they like, and ultimately create a standard. A majority of users of RPMaker have been using RPGMaker2003 longer XP, at least as far as I know, so that could explain a big factor in preference.
Personally, here are some points of why I prefer 2003 over XP, aside from length of experience.
-Has features that XP doesn't have default
-Has 320x240 (I prefer this to 640x480, I'm not sure why)
-Has more popularity on the internets and thus more access to tutorials and resources.
I guess when you look at it, there isn't much of a contest. If you actually learn Ruby Script, then there isn't a contest whatsoever.
Meh, I'm most comfortable with 2k3, 'cause I use it the most.
-
It's pretty simple, there are tons of resources available for rm2k3. Plus, making more resources is loads easier on 2k3 than it is on XP. Atleast for most people it is. Technically though, XP is a much better RPGMaker. It's more advanced and allows some of the best customization I've ever seen in an RM. However, 2k3 is very simple and easy to understand while still allowing a great amount of customization.
The main point is this: If rm2k resources were not transferrable to rm2k3, it would've taken longer for 2k3 to become as popular. It would still have been a bigger hit eventually to 2k but this is simply because of the default battle system.
-
Thanks for the input. Personally, I don't see more resources as that good a reason to cement an RPG in an older design.
I've recently compared the two and while 2003 captures a wonderful vintage look, XP's frills really make me want to design something in that.
It's absolutely nuts that a world map base wasn't included in XP, although I have found one good-looking tileset, along with an actual Mode 7 script (FF3/6 Airship view, for those not aware) to boot. Of course the link was broken, since any undertaking absolutely must be filled with obstacles.
Are there significant differences in the event programming? I'm also curious about how making resources is easier in '03. I have no interest in learning the script, because from what I see it doesn't seem necessary in order to make the core of an RPG.
-
rpg2k3 takes skill to use and make a good, inovative game with. XP does too, but most times you can just find the script already made for what you are looking for and be done with it.
-
I would consider 2K the standard. The only real difference between 2K and 2K3 is in the DBS, which I dont use. I never really cared for XP. Sprites are too fucking hard to make. And fuck coding in XP.
-
I don't know why, but I just don't like the interface of XP. Plus I have been using 2k3 for years and know it really well. I don't really want to have to get used to a new system. And ditto to finding code for rubyscript. That's cheating. :p
-
I'd like to ask a question. What is so freaking hard about making sprites for RMXP?
You can use sprites from RM2k3 in RMXP! In fact, making sprites for RMXP should be easier, as you are no longer limited to 256 colors, and you can use as many as you want. There is no difference between editing a sprite with 8-bit color depth and with 24-bit color depth beyond your color choice.
I can't see how there's any truth behind everyone saying, "It's harder to make sprites for." beyond trying to find another excuse to not learn a new system.
-
Originally posted by Osmose
I can't see how there's any truth behind everyone saying, "It's harder to make sprites for." beyond trying to find another excuse to not learn a new system.
That's probably the gist of it. It took me a long time to figure out all the cool features of 2003. 2003 is basically like 2000 with a few features everyone wished was in 2000 to begin with, but swiching to XP means starting over with a new interface that has new default options and a coding language I know nothing about. It's basically back to square one.
The flexibility of XP sounds good at first but may be a detriment. Considering how freaking long RPGs take to create using a limited engine, having even more options just makes it easier to get more bogged down in coding and have less to show for it. After years of RPG programming I basically just want something nifty to show people no matter how limited it is.
-
Rm2k3 is a lot simpler, I'm not fond of RMXP's design layout and I just don't like Ruby.
-
Originally posted by Osmose
I'd like to ask a question. What is so freaking hard about making sprites for RMXP?
You can use sprites from RM2k3 in RMXP! In fact, making sprites for RMXP should be easier, as you are no longer limited to 256 colors, and you can use as many as you want. There is no difference between editing a sprite with 8-bit color depth and with 24-bit color depth beyond your color choice.
I can't see how there's any truth behind everyone saying, "It's harder to make sprites for." beyond trying to find another excuse to not learn a new system.
I always took it as they said it was too diffucult to make in the rtp style, not sprites in general.
-
For a long time, I used 2k3 and said "I dont like the interface, the sprites are harder to make, theres not enough resources, I dont know ruby."
The interface isnt that much different. If you have a brain,and some rpgmaker knowledge it takes very little time to figure out the difference in interface. But um, its pretty much the same.
As for default features in 2k3, I liked the side view default, but then again, most of the people that complain about XP not having that default, are trying to program CBS's anyhow...so I dont see the point.
Spriting is easier on XP, for me anyways. The sprites are bigger. And the sizes unrestricted. And color depth. You can get more detail, and have a better, less RTP looking product to begin with. There are generators out there for XP sprites, you just have to find and import your own resources for it.
It supports MP3 sound.
The chipsets have no size restrictions. Nor do the animations.
I think XPs biggest fall back is that if you want to make a decent game, youre going to have to learn the ruby basics.
There are Forums out there devoted to XP resources and scripts. Dubealex.net is one i frequently lurk on, it has loads of stuff.
Personally, I think XP hauls over 2k3. I Can understand both sides of this argument, but since Ive switched over, Ive come to realize that my attachment to 2k3 was simply my being stubborn.
My sprites, and custom chipsets are waay less work, in XP. I dont know wtf kind of BS people are trying to sling by saying 2k3 sprites are easier. You can do the same size sprite in XP, and not worry about color depth even.
My verdict:
2k3 is okay if you're just making a sonic-crystal rpg or something. Or if you have a project that youve spent some time on working under that platform.
But if you are starting a new project, and you want it to be awesomesauce, learn XP. In the end, you'll save yourself alot of work. And eventually, wether you plan to or not, you'll probably pick up RUBY along the way.
-
The big problem is that here it will never be supported, because it would put a big load on the works of Alex. He already is too busy with other stuff.
-
Eh, I guess plight's got a point. But I've been working on my game too long and made too many recent advances to start all over again in XP. If I ever do another game though, *doubtful* it'll be in XP.
-
I like using RM2k3 and 2k because it looks like a Super Nintendo game.
While RMXP's features are nice, everything looks sort of big and goofy in my opinion.
On another note, it's kind of fun to find ways to get around 2k3's limitations.
-
You can have the 2k3 resolution in XP.
It's really easy. You just make all your graphics pixelated. Besides, the only way the better resolution could look goofy is if you're shite at making graphics.
-
Originally posted by MrMister
You can have the 2k3 resolution in XP.
It's really easy. You just make all your graphics pixelated. Besides, the only way the better resolution could look goofy is if you're shite at making graphics.
Another way is too just double the size of all rm2k3 resources then plug them into RMXP templates. But you'll want to do something about messege boxes and stuff.
That's just a theory though, since I'm basing this all off the fact tileset squares are 16x16 in 2k3 and 32x32 in XP.
-
Quoth the Alex:
If you want, you can try adding new generators.
But about 24 bit, it can't actually be done.
Reason is simple: the generator has a global setup options for this (generate 8 or 24 bit images), which means that this settings is valid for ALL the generators. and 2K resources can only be 8 bit paletted, to work.
Anyhow, when i made the gen, GD2 and truecolor functions was still not well implemented: and i noticed that for 24 bit images a lot of code revision would be needed. Generators works a lot on palettes and indexes, 24 bit images wors a little different.
So no, 24 bit non possible, at least at this stage.
I'm going to do a quick test of the truecolor option to see if it really works, and if so, then I might work on getting him to make a second interface or add it as a generator option. After that, we can do something like a mini contest to create a base for the RMXP section, if all goes well, that is.
EDIT: Tests show that every layer except for the top one get screwed up, while the top layer works perfectly. So... hum. Without code access myself, and without Alex active and with the time to undertake something like this, no RMXP generator.
-
Who gives a ****? Just use what you want to use.
-
The differances between rm2k3 and rmxp are:
Rm2k3 has more built in features, and has a lot more graphics avaliable on the internet, plus its easier to make the graphcis for it.
Rmxp has a lot more customizability potential with its scripting system, but less defult features. The graphics (if you use the standard resolution) are better, but harder to come across, and harder to make.
As for 'easy to use' both are the same. Both have the same commands and such, just rmxp has the commands organized and named a bit differant. It'll be harder if your used to the rm2k3 setup, but if your used to the rmxp setup, then rm2k3 will be harder. Rmxp's scripting system is hard to master, but it is completely OPTIONAL. A lot of people complain that rmxps scripting system makes it a lot harder to work with than rm2k3, but you don't have to use it. If you do use it, you can just import battle systems and menu systems and all kinds of other modifications without having any scripting knowlage, so thats a plus.
Personally, its a matter of opinion on which you want to use. If you're a determained worker and want to make the best game possible, use rmxp, but then you'd have to make a lot of the graphics, make a lot of the systems, and spend a lot of time doing that. If you want an old style game with nice looking, easy to find/make graphics, with more defult features and stuff, use rm2k3.
I think the reason rmxp didn't catch on too well here is cuz most people here are more used to rm2k3, were/are working on a game in rm2k3, or didn't like the graphics in rmxp.
Use whichever one you want. A good game is a good game no matter what system its made with.
-
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
The differances between rm2k3 and rmxp are:
Rm2k3 has more built in features, and has a lot more graphics avaliable on the internet, plus its easier to make the graphcis for it.
Rmxp has a lot more customizability potential with its scripting system, but less defult features. The graphics (if you use the standard resolution) are better, but harder to come across, and harder to make.
How?! Tell me how. I really want to know how it is so much harder. That is one of the most ridiculous things to say, so there's gotta be some reasoning or experience behind it.
Why is it so hard to make graphics for XP?!
-
How the hell wouldn't they be harder to make if you use the defult resolution? First off, you need twice as many pixels in rmxp than in rm2k3, so it'll take a lot longer to make the graphics. Second, they need to be more detailed, more detail means more work. For someone who isn't that great at making graphics, pulling off a nice graphic in rm2k3 will be a lot easier than pulling off a nice graphic in rmxp.
Longer + more work + needs more detail = harder.
I've made a lot of graphics for rm2k3, half my graphics in rm2k3 were custom made by me. I was working on an rmxp game where I was trying to make all custome graphics, and yes, they are harder.
Here, let me give you an example. The charset on the left is for rm2k3, this was a lot easier to make than the charset on the right which is for rmxp. You can't honestly say that the one on the right wouldbn't be harder to make than the one on the left.
-
RMXP has no preset size - there was nothing stopping you from using the one on the left in RMXP. The only thing you'd have to do extra would be to add in the extra second row, which is a copy-paste job.
RMXP has no quality requirement. You can doublesize and sprite from RM2K3 and it will be exactly as it would have been IN RM2K3. It CAN be harder to make sprites IF you hold yourself to higher standards - this applies in all situations. RMXP simply allows those who want to make even more detailed sprites the ability to, but there's nothing stopping you from keeping the RM2K3 style in RMXP.
What gave you the idea that you were required to use more detail?
-
Moose, when people say the sprites are harder to make, they mean that it's more difficult to make sprites in the default size.
-
Originally posted by Osmose
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
The differances between rm2k3 and rmxp are:
Rm2k3 has more built in features, and has a lot more graphics avaliable on the internet, plus its easier to make the graphcis for it.
Rmxp has a lot more customizability potential with its scripting system, but less defult features. The graphics (if you use the standard resolution) are better, but harder to come across, and harder to make.
How?! Tell me how. I really want to know how it is so much harder. That is one of the most ridiculous things to say, so there's gotta be some reasoning or experience behind it.
Why is it so hard to make graphics for XP?! [/B]
Hey, look at my message, the one you quoted. "The graphics (if you use the standard resolution) are better, but harder to come across, and harder to make. "
I said if you use the standard resolution. And YES if you use the standard resolution/size, like I said, it is harder.
If you have a more advanced graphics system, I for one would like to put it to use. This is just my personal preferance, but if I played a game, I would rather it have a nice 640 x 480 resolution then a nice 320 x 240 resolution. A good game is a good game no matter the graphics, but higher quality graphics, when done good, look better.
-
In the longrun it'd be easier to make your own engine and use 3D. People think 3D is more complex but more and more use it today for... whatever... because it is cheaper. Once the main model is done it is a matter of poseing and then skinning it. And you don't have to redo the thing over to apply alternate skins.
Then you see how easy it becomes with experience.
-
My whole point is that the question of sprites being harder or easier is a factor depending on you, the creator. You can choose to stay at the level of RM2K3 RTP or step it up to RMXP RTP or go even farther than that.
What gets me annoyed is that people use the fact that RMXP allows people to use better sprites as a way to denounce it, when nothing is forcing them to go the extra step. They're basically saying they do not like RMXP because it doesn't restrict them from doing better, which, to me, is ridiculous. I obviously care about it more than others, but it's still stupid that the program gets a bad reputation because it is superior (And yes, allowing both what it could do and more, just like backwards compatibility, is superior to limiting what you can do).
-
The fact is that RMXP is superior in every way.
It has better graphics, more systems, more image support, more sound support, etc.
I just like RM2k3 because it's more fun to use. I imagine that a lot of people agree with me.
It's probably more accessible to use for newbs too. Imagine little twelve year old timmy. He just got through playing FF7, and wants to make a fan-game.
He'll probably end up using RM2k or 2k3. There are more resources for that system , there are far more games to copy off of, and there are many more tutorials.
Use whateva the hell you want. I just like RM2k3 because it's fun.
+One more thing. I like my stuff tiny. Do not tell me to double the sprite size of anything...ever.
-
Originally posted by aboutasoandthis
+One more thing. I like my stuff tiny. Do not tell me to double the sprite size of anything...ever.
Irony is that RM2K and 2K3 do exactly that when you play a game. :P
-
Originally posted by aboutasoandthis
The fact is that RMXP is superior in every way.
I just like RM2k3 because it's more fun to use.
So I guess not in EVERYway then? :p
-
Originally posted by Osmose
Originally posted by aboutasoandthis
+One more thing. I like my stuff tiny. Do not tell me to double the sprite size of anything...ever.
Irony is that RM2K and 2K3 do exactly that when you play a game. :P[/B]
Yes, it doubles the size. But so does XP, so you have to double it then it's doubled in play, so it's quadrupled. Of course, I may be wrong about the minimum size of XP since I rarely use it so w/e.
-
I'm fairly certain RMXP does not double the size of sprites, which is where it gets the higher level of detail on default resolution, and why double-sizing sprites makes them identical to how they would appear in RM2K3.
Lemme check... yep, that's how it works.
-
Hmmm. I did not know that. I may use XP, but Ive already gotten so much done in 2K3 itd seem a waste.
-
So i got, as a holiday gift, a Graphics Tablet...pressure sensitive and crap.
I Finally have begun to master its use. Pen drawing is akward at first, looking at a screen, rather than a paper.
Anyhow, Ive been using it with Spritesets I had made with a mouse.
Im loving the improvment in quality.
"How does this relate to the thread?" You may ask...
Well, for the few spriters that use a tablet that read this, The pressure sensitive coloring I guess wouldnt work with a 256 palette. It could work to a very limited extent, but not with the same results.
-
It'd work just as well as 256 does with gradients. That is, very badly if there's more than two gradients.
-
Thanks for the replies. I've learned quite a bit.