Why is RPGM2003 the standard and not XP?

[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.

[drenrin2120]

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.

[Osmose]

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.

[SonicChaos7]

Who gives a ****? Just use what you want to use.

[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.

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.

[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?!

[DragonBlaze]

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.

[Osmose]

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?

[ZeroKirbyX]

Moose, when people say the sprites are harder to make, they mean that it's more difficult to make sprites in the default size.

[DragonBlaze]

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.

[Darkfox]

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.

[Osmose]

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).

[aboutasoandthis]

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.

[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.

[Razor]

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