Why is RPGM2003 the standard and not XP?

[Omega Weapon]

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.

[Daetyrnis]

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.

[drenrin2120]

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.

[Omega Weapon]

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.

[Meiscool-2]

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.

[Desimodontidae]

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.

[Tomi]

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

[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.

[SaiKar]

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.

[ImmortalDreamer]

Rm2k3 is a lot simpler, I'm not fond of RMXP's design layout and I just don't like Ruby.

[ZeroKirbyX]

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.

[Ben]

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.

[GaryCXJk]

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.

[drenrin2120]

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.

[aboutasoandthis]

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.