rpgmaker xp vs rpgmaker 2k3

[nix7866]

ok i just want to know which one is better

[DragonBlaze]

Which is better is a matter of opinion when it comes to rm2k3 and rmxp.

RMXP and Rm2k3 are equally difficult/easy to use. They're both set up pretty much the same and have the same commands.

RMXP is missing a lot of defult features that rm2k3 had such as animated battle system, face graphics, and a bunch of other stuff. However, this can be made up for by downloading scripts for rmxp.

Graphically, rmxp is superior allowing higher quality graphics than rm2k3, however, there aren't many custom graphics made for rmxp yet, so you're going to be stuck with using a lot of defult graphics.

Rmxp is more customizable in terms of systems, but only if you learn Ruby, which can be tough.

Basically, rm2k3 has a lot of resources avalible for it, so you can make your game look more customized compared to what you can do with rmxp. If you don't know ruby, rmxp has no advantages over rm2k3 in terms of scripting. You can download scripts, if you find them though, which is a plus.

They both have their ups and downs, which one you use is up to you,

[Archem]

That's an awful question! They're both good, and the word "better" has no place when comparing the two. They're both good in their own sense, but neither one is really "better". I won't make comparisons because I don't have XP, but I do know that they're not really comparable.

EDIT: Well well well! DB made a good explaination! And beat my post by mere seconds! High-five, DB!

[nix7866]

well ya but wont rpg maker 2k3 things work for rpg  maker xp?

[Archem]

Not that I know of. From what I know, they compile the images in a different manner. It would take some work and editing to use one on the other.

[DragonBlaze]

Originally posted by nix7866
well ya but wont rpg maker 2k3 things work for rpg  maker xp?

Yeah, you can do that. You'd have double the size of everything, then put the stuff in a new image with the correct format. Its doable, but it'll be a pain. If you want to use rm2k3 graphics, you might as well use rm2k3.

[Meiscool-2]

RPG Maker XP is better. Hands down.

I use 2003 purely for preference, and that more people use it, hence more playable demos.

[drenrin2120]

RMXP is better in a lot of ways, but I hate the graphic style.

[elementalhero76]

Isn't rmxp in isometric graphic style?

[Archem]

Only if you want it to be

[omnislash73]

Well it actually depends on how much work you want to actually do in rpg maker. Also, in rpg maker xp the rtp is incredible so there isn't alot of variety in games. I see the same chipsets over and over again. In rm2k3 I've seen different kinds of things. Rpg maker xp has the rgss script feature which allows endless possibilities for things and your game. It also makes things easier such as batle systems and menu systems. They both have weaknesses and strengths but Rpg maker xp feels like a whole new program. It's not like the upgrade from rm2k to rm2k3. They are basically both the same.

Plus, you don't need to learn ruby. All you do is cut and paste.

[benosalankelley]

you can also use rm2k3 style graphics as well by converting them to rmxp size.

also, if you keep looking though the internets like google, you might find more rmxp graphics. I think in a couple more years, there will be many rmxp resources out there.

www.tkool.org :just use worldingo or babelfish to translate. its a update site for rpg maker resources.

www.rmxp.org : a new and improved rmxp.net. go there if you want some resources.

from what i choose, RM2K3. not that rmxp is bad. its overall damn well good if you use scripting, like for side view battles and advanced messages.

[Darkfox]

Both can be simplistic or hard. The "scripting" style for RMXP is very simplistic, in a way it is just a typed up version of event strings. Nothing really special or new here and hardly expandable as versus a more complex powerful 2D scripting engine (i.e. Open Legends, which is freeware but requires a lot of effort, still you can't sell your games so don't ask!). In any case RM overall is good for beginners.

Graphically, rmxp is superior allowing higher quality graphics than rm2k3

I must address this. This is a boldfaced lie. All RMXP does is allow images that are more than 256. The downside is images higher than 256 colors are often bigger in filesize. Tell me, are you going to use A WHOLE GOB of colors on a single sprite? Not at all unless it is some psychadelic van or somthing WAAAY too overshaded. Another thing you do with 256-color graphics don't have to be low quality if you use an image program that allows palettes. That is, quality and colors are maintained with no loss whatsoever.

If you can't get good quality with 256 colors, you are doing somthing wrong, (like using MSPaint for color conversion <_<)

[DarkFlood2]

RM2k3 is good for traditional rpg games and is simple to use. RMXP is very customizeable, but can be somewhat complex, not as many resources, and I haven't found a good translated version of it.

So your choices are:

RM2k/3 - Simplistic to use and many hundreds of resources to help customize your graphics and gameplay.

RMXP - A bit complex, but accepts 24-bit images and has no size restrictions on charasets. If you know Ruby, go wit xp.

[Darkfox]

Again. 24-bit images take up more space and you hardly are going to use all of the colors.

Not many professional game makers (people, not tools) do either.

The 24-bit thing was left out of earlier RMs basically because there wasn't really needed. It was added in XP because too many people didn't know how to convert colors over right using MSPaint and complained until they decided to add it so they'd stop. Thats the way I heard it.