Let's share your beliefs in RMVXA Games

[DoubleX]

Almost(if not just) all people have their own beliefs on our interested parts of the external world, so it's natural that we, as both RMVXA game developers and players, have our own beliefs there too. Those beliefs will normally be reflected on our own games and reviews on the other games.

Being aware of those of our beliefs can help us reflect upon them and hence possibly making our games more desirable to ourselves(present and/or future) and/or their targeting audiences/major goals.

This post aims to incite you to share at least some of your beliefs in RMVXA games on both the developer and player sides, and freely discuss what are shared here while still keeping an open mind.

While I want the discussions to remain explorative and open ended, it's also completely ok that they end up being countless and endless fierce heated debates, as long as they all remain civil and we're all still respecting each other.

I also want you to state how firm you hold the beliefs you shared here. Such degrees can be approximately classified into these 3 levels in my opinion:

Guidelines - You generally feel/think they're right in most cases but you still doubt there can be some unlikely exceptions, so you'll usually analyze whether they'll probably work on the specific cases before actually applying them.

Standards - You're so rigidly confident on them that you deeply trust that they're always universal truths unless they're solidly proven otherwise(in these cases you'll likely rethink on those beliefs instead).

Dogmas - You simply treat them as axioms so you'll instantly conclude that any contrary evidence must be itself problematic and can thus be safely discarded.

You don't have to conform to this categorization. It just serves as some examples to indicate how firm you hold your beliefs. For instance, you can say what you believe in are indeed undeniable facts.

I'll try my best to be as objective and rational as I can. I'll first try to thoroughly comprehend the beliefs shared here, then I might challenge them regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

I remain neutral to nearly all beliefs in RMVXA games as I still just know too little about them as either players nor developers in order to form any grounded belief or judge whether a belief's grounded.

With all these in mind, let's get started. I'll start by citing some of the examples I've gathered from the RMVXA communities so far. Mentioning them here alone doesn't mean I agree nor disagree with any of them:

- Visual novels are merely utter jokes. Games are meant to be played by players while visual novels are just playing by themselves.

- Saving anywhere always lead to save scumming which is certainly evil. Using save points and rechargeable items for saving which costs something in unison is always superior to saving anywhere.

- Rewards always come from risks which always need punishments for failures. So only truly punishing games can be really rewarding.

- Failures should bring learning opportunities rather than mere punishments. Otherwise those failures will only drive players away from the games instead of helping them improve as players.

- Players shouldn't even have any remote chance to fail if they've done every right thing and everything right. Dealing with uncontrolled RNG is like playing slot machines rather than RMVXA games.

- The only so called "sliver bullet" in RMVXA games is "there's no sliver bullet". RMVXA games are largely art after all so stop ranting about your so called "golden rules".

- There's no such thing called forced difficulty. All hardcore players already fathoms that but the casual players still refuse to accept that.

- Short games inherently sucks. Games need lengths to contain rich contents and experiences which are vital to any great game.

- The traditional game over screens are merely past relics that becomes outright bad design now. There are always better alternatives than that game over screen which only interrupts the momentum of players.

- The actual gameplay is always the 1st priority as games are meant to be played after all. Even all of the other gaming aspects combined can't replace the actual gameplay no matter how excellent those aspects are.

- Active Time Battle System has absolutely no niche nor value anymore. There's just no middle ground between Action Battle Systems and Charge Turn Battle System that will ever work now.

- 99% of games sucks and do more harm than good. They're just flooding the communities and making truly great games difficult to be discovered.

- Handholding is at its essence insults to its players as it always sends a false message that "you'll need to be handhelded" when they actually don't. Assume that they've common sense in RMVXA instead of treating them as clueless idiots.

- Grinding is just a waste of time that could have spent on much more rewarding contents and experiences. Value your players' time instead of using grinding to artificially lengthen the games.

- The primary goal of any graphical design is to deliver meaningful and useful information rather than establishing the visual styles. Those so called "stylistic" graphical designs that are in fact superfluous decorations always do more harm than good.

- A game almost entirely consisting of RTPs are bad as it shows that the developers didn't care enough about their game resources. RTPs are just overrated and overused which makes too many games to look too similar.

I want to emphasize again that they're gathered from the RMVXA communities and I'm just citing them. This alone doesn't mean I agree nor disagree with any of them.

Although it's certainly healthy that we argue against beliefs that we disagree, I still want you to focus more on sharing your own. I think we can learn more from the others and perhaps ourselves as well this way.

P.S.: If any moderator feels/thinks that this topic will be too prone to end up with incredibly uncontrollable flame wars and intensive bloody fights being full of personal insults, I'd apologize for opening this topic and please feel free to lock it.

Edit: Gathered some more beliefs from the RMVXA communities:

- Popularity doesn't mean much to the games' qualities. 1 excellent game review serves way better than 1 million fan votes.

- No game can ever avoid all cliches now and it's completely ok by itself. What separate good and bad games are which cliches are chosen and how they're used.

- Great games excel at teaching players via actual gameplay experiences. Never assume new players know how to play the games well before they even start the games.

- "Show, don't tell" should be your motto. Let the games implicitly speak for themselves instead of explicitly voicing out the obvious loud.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

- There should always be some kind of a chance to fail, even if you did everything right there is still a chance of something bad happening. Just like IRL, 98% of accidents are avoidable and the 2% remaining isn't.


- The RTP when used nicely can produce good results. Along with a few edits, few franskenstiling and so on. You can't really force people to make a game full of custom resources, especially if that game is released for free. It's more about how you used the resources rather than which resources you used. The RTP can look nice if enough work is put into conceptualizing how to actually use it, and good custom graphics can look worse than the RTP if you don't put enough work into using it.


- Gameplay, yeah gameplay. Epic graphics mean nothing if your game doesn't have good gameplay.


- RM is lacking good Visual Novels. Not that I expect people to actually use RM to make VNs though.


- Asking whether something is possible or not to do in RM is 90+% of the time the wrong question to ask.


- The default animation FPS on RM's battle scene is SLOW. It makes the fights look and feel longer.


- Keep it simple and everything should have a purpose, and don't overdose. IMHO, even a filler has a purpose, which is obviously to fill. But I think no one will want to play something that is full of fillers, so again don't overdose.


- If you're allowing saving anywhere, don't add success rates to your crafting systems. We'll just save and reload in case of failure anyway.


- You can't please everyone. People have their own preferences, you can't force your own preference into them.

 

[DoubleX]

Glad to see you shared your beliefs

I'm particularly interested in this:

- Asking whether something is possible or not to do in RM is 90+% of the time the wrong question to ask.

I don't think I can grasp your point, but I'd guess that's because most requests so far are possible. A better question to ask is whether those something will work in their cases. Again, that's just my wild guess.

I wish you'll elaborate this more

 

[Stapleton]

-Disagree, Visual novels can be enticing to players and leave a good impression on them.

-Agree with the save points.

-Agree with risk comes reward.

-Agree learning from mistakes.

-I am 50/50 on this. For if someone learns quickly and masters the mechanics of the game it can become boringly easy quick. Adding some RNG is good.

-...

-Disagree. If the game is short and sweet, why not? Better than long and empty boring and mangled.

-Disagree, As interrupting the momentum of the players is what they get for causing a game over.

-Agree, Game play is most important.

-...

-Disagree, even some games that are considered bad are doing good for other developers. As they can learn from them on what went wrong and so fourth.

-Agree, I dislike handholding for the reason stated. Also challenge equals attention. More attention you can grab from players the better.

-50/50 as grinding often gives reward to the player when reward is given because of it. Some enjoy the grind.

-50/50 good cosmetics is always a plus as long as the game play doesn't suffer too much because of it.

-50/50 as the previous statement says this one almost directly contradicts this.

Good topic for discussion I believe.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Glad to see you shared your beliefs


I'm particularly interested in this:


- Asking whether something is possible or not to do in RM is 90+% of the time the wrong question to ask.


I don't think I can grasp your point, but I'd guess that's because most requests so far are possible. A better question to ask is whether those something will work in their cases. Again, that's just my wild guess.


I wish you'll elaborate this more

Exactly, most requests I've seen so far starts with "Can I do this?" and stops with that actually. Sometimes, it's already been done so it means they also didn't take time to search or something.


Then once you answer yes, that's the only time that they will ask "How?"


IMHO, it's better to just ask "How do I do this in RM?" right away.

-Disagree. If the game is short and sweet, why not? Better than long and empty boring and mangled.

Yeah, a game can be short but still full of good stuff. Just as longer games can just be full of fillers.


I actually hate unnecessarily long games, I don't have that much time to begin with so I prefer games that get to the point right away. Long games would probably be good for kids or those who doesn't want to buy new games every so often. But when you're in that point in life where you have so many things to do, it's just not worth it.


Also, if the game is long, a journal of sorts is kinda necessary as players might forgot things that already happened.


Plus, long games also take longer to make.

-Disagree, Visual novels can be enticing to players and leave a good impression on them.

Maybe it's just that most RM devs/players aren't VN fans or haven't even tried it. I personally don't see the point of VN before, but once I tried Fault Milestone 1, I instantly got hooked to VNs. I'm a story fan anyway, I play RPGs mostly for the story.

 

[Matseb2611]

Some of mine:

- Knowing your audience is important. Things that casual gamers like, hardcore gamers won't, and vice versa. Before you decide what mechanics your game will have, you need to know who the game is aimed at.

- If you want to appeal to both casuals and hardcore gamers, use difficulty settings. There is no downside to having multiple difficulty settings other than a little extra work on behalf of the developer.

- Respect the player and their time. Let them know when they're heading into an area with no return or about to do something irreversible. Likewise, let them save in between long cutscenes, especially when there's a difficult boss fight straight after one. Nobody wants to sit through a long cutscene again just because they died.

As for the general consensus points above, here is whether I agree or disagree with them:

Spoiler

Visual novels being bad - Disagree. They're just one of the game genres, aimed at people who are more into stories. Having to make decisions and pick dialogue choices can be considered a gameplay element.

Saving anywhere being bad - Strongly disagree. The notion that saving anywhere is bad is way outdated. Making saving inaccessible is just artificial difficulty. You can make the game difficult without having to strip the player away from ability to save when they'd like. Of course, this depends on the game and the difficulty setting. If you want to add that extra bit of difficulty by disabling the save, then do it for higher difficulties, but let the casuals who play on easy to enjoy the game and be able to save when they want.

Rewards and punishments - Sort of agree. There has to be some risk of failure in order for the game to feel rewarding.

Failures as learning opportunities - Agree.

Failure and RNG - Agree. If I've done everything right, I expect the game to reward me for it. Too much realism can detract from the game.

Silver bullet - Agree. Yeah, I don't think there should be any clear cut boundaries for how to make games. The more limitations of the genre we allow into our games, the less we're willing to innovate.

Forced difficulty - Disagree. This is when knowing your audience is important. Games like Dark Souls have established themselves as difficult, because being difficult is the primary goal the game set out to do. But a game that focuses on story suddenly pulling out difficulty spikes on the player is not acceptable, unless they're playing on a higher difficulty setting.

Short games and sucking - Disagree. Shorter games can be fun.

Traditional Game Over screen being outdated - Sort of Agree. I don't see it as wrong if they're present, but perhaps it's nicer if there are options on that same screen, like Load Latest Save and stuff. Makes it easier on the player than having to quit to title screen and load from there.

Gameplay being 1st priority - 50/50. This depends on the game and what genre it's in. Also the term 'gameplay' is very vague. What one person considers as gameplay, another won't. But, in general, yes, I'd say gameplay is very important.

EDIT: here are the rest...

ATB having no value anymore - Sort of disagree. I think it can be made well, but I personally prefer traditional turn-based combat more.

99% of games sucking - Disagree. Whether a game sucks or not is extremely subjective. I don't think anyone can make a claim like that and call it a fact. It's all down to pure opinion.

Handholding - 50/50. Depends on the game, difficulty setting, and part of the game where this happens. Something that may seem handholding to one player will seem like normal gameplay to another. In general I am not a fan of handholding, but I don't like to be dumped in the middle of nowhere with no direction either. Balance is important.

Grinding being bad - Strongly Agree. Not a fan of it and never will be. A little bit of grinding is all right, but in general I think, if the main way to overcome the challenge ahead is to simply waste time fighting weaker enemies again and again, then there's something wrong. It doesn't make you use brain cells or learn anything.

Visuals and their purpose - eh 50/50. Visuals should serve a purpose first and foremost, and then to be pretty. Though being pretty in a specific art style could in fact be part of the game's purpose in itself.

RTP games being bad - 50/50. I won't say RTP is overrated. But it is overused. It's understandable why that is so, but it's not in itself bad. Many games that are 100% RTP are bad, but not because of RTP, but because they're someone's first game. There are some good games that are mostly RTP, but they're in minority.

 

[Milennin]

My view on that list in bold:
 

- Visual novels are merely utter jokes. Games are meant to be played by players while visual novels are just playing by themselves. Implying VNs only consist of reading text. There are choices to be made, some VNs also have different paths and small RPG or puzzle elements.
- Saving anywhere always lead to save scumming which is certainly evil. Using save points and rechargeable items for saving which costs something in unison is always superior to saving anywhere. 100% disagree. If 'difficulty' in your game comes from the fact the player can't save anywhere, then your game is badly designed. FACT.
- Rewards always come from risks which always need punishments for failures. So only truly punishing games can be really rewarding. Disagree. Rewards also come from exploring, time investment, solving puzzles, overcoming obstacles etc.
- Failures should bring learning opportunities rather than mere punishments. Otherwise those failures will only drive players away from the games instead of helping them improve as players. Agreed for the most part, but there might be some exceptions in which mere punishments can be okay.
- Players shouldn't even have any remote chance to fail if they've done every right thing and everything right. Dealing with uncontrolled RNG is like playing slot machines rather than RMVXA games. It's hard to get around RNG with RPG Maker's combat due to random targeting. RNG screw overs are only a problem if the chances for it happening are too big.
- The only so called "sliver bullet" in RMVXA games is "there's no sliver bullet". RMVXA games are largely art after all so stop ranting about your so called "golden rules". Agreed. There's not one set way that'll guarantee you a good game.
- There's no such thing called forced difficulty. All hardcore players already fathoms that but the casual players still refuse to accept that. Not sure on this one either. Examples of forced difficulty?
- Short games inherently sucks. Games need lengths to contain rich contents and experiences which are vital to any great game. Fully disagree.
- The traditional game over screens are merely past relics that becomes outright bad design now. There are always better alternatives than that game over screen which only interrupts the momentum of players. Agreed to an extent. Depending on how it's handled I don't have a big issue with game over screens, but I prefer it if a game doesn't have them.
- The actual gameplay is always the 1st priority as games are meant to be played after all. Even all of the other gaming aspects combined can't replace the actual gameplay no matter how excellent those aspects are. Gameplay should be one of the top priorities would be a better way of putting it. Gameplay alone can't carry a game.
- Active Time Battle System has absolutely no niche nor value anymore. There's just no middle ground between Action Battle Systems and Charge Turn Battle System that will ever work now. Disagree. I'm not a fan of ATB, but that's not to say it can't be made to work.
- 99% of games sucks and do more harm than good. They're just flooding the communities and making truly great games difficult to be discovered. People are free to make whatever they want and post it on the internet. I don't see a problem, even if a lot of RPG Maker games are bad/mediocre.
- Handholding is at its essence insults to its players as it always sends a false message that "you'll need to be handhelded" when they actually don't. Assume that they've common sense in RMVXA instead of treating them as clueless idiots. Agreed to an extent. A bit of handholding at the start of a game or when introducting a new mechanic is acceptable.
- Grinding is just a waste of time that could have spent on much more rewarding contents and experiences. Value your players' time instead of using grinding to artificially lengthen the games. Agreed, unless you let the player know in advance that they should expect to grind in your game. Some people do like to grind in RPGs.
- The primary goal of any graphical design is to deliver meaningful and useful information rather than establishing the visual styles. Those so called "stylistic" graphical designs that are in fact superfluous decorations always do more harm than good. Functionality over looks, sure, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make your game look appealing.
- A game almost entirely consisting of RTPs are bad as it shows that the developers didn't care enough about their game resources. RTPs are just overrated and overused which makes too many games to look too similar. Fully disagree.

 

[DoubleX]

About the sliver bullet thing, I think this can show what it means. Golden rules refers to rules that are always universally applicable.

Re #7:

Glad to see how you argued(agree or disagree) against those examples I gathered from the internet. Wish you'll share more of your beliefs

 

[Matseb2611]

I've just added the rest of my answers.

So a silver bullet is like a commonly accepted notion on how some aspect of the game should be done? Am I understanding it right?

 

[Kes]

The phrase 'silver bullet' comes from werewolf stories.  A silver bullet is guaranteed to kill the werewolf (i.e.do its job).  So 'a silver bullet', when used in other contexts, is something which is guaranteed to have the desired effect, to work where other tools/approaches do not, to do the job so effectively that other things are not needed.

EDIT

Just remembered about a famous article "No silver bullet" which argues that in software development  "there is no single development, in either technology or management technique, which by itself promises even one order of magnitude [tenfold] improvement within a decade in productivity, in reliability, in simplicity."  So you can see from the quote, it's the same sort of idea but from the other direction i.e. the search for the 'perfect' solution to the problem is doomed to failure.  

 

[Ms Littlefish]

I don't know, maybe these are controversial but

• Parallax maps aren't always better. That natural look you're going for often ends up looking messy and hard to navigate instead. So, if you parallax, try, try, and try some more. But, consider clumping tiles first. 
• I often hear inconsistent graphics get a lot of talk, but what about music? It's a bit odd when one track sounds like it comes from the 16-bit era but you walk onto the next map and it sounds straight out of a film score. That makes my head meet my desk.

Also, got to say for game length. If the game feels complete and isn't dragged through mud, then the length doesn't matter to me. A good game always leaves me wanting more; even if it was 80+ hours. If could be two hours, it could be a hundred, but if the game is a bummer both will make me say, "that was it?"

 

[Milennin]

About the sliver bullet thing, I think this can show what it means. Golden rules refers to rules that are always universally applicable.

Re #7:

Glad to see how you argued(agree or disagree) against those examples I gathered from the internet. Wish you'll share more of your beliefs

Okay, thanks. I'll be editing my post to include that.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Parallax maps aren't always better. That natural look you're going for often ends up looking messy and hard to navigate instead. So, if you parallax, try, try, and try some more. But, consider clumping tiles first.

I strongly agree. And sometimes people use parallax mapping for things that they can actually just do with a few tile edits. So aside from the natural look being messy or hard to navigate, sometimes it's (parallax mapping) also under utilized. There have been a lot of times when I view the screenshots thread, I see this certain map that the user said was made with parallax mapping and I was like: "You can do that easily without parallax mapping".


You've gone thru the trouble of doing parallax mapping so make it count.


A tool or technique is only as good as it's user.

 

[Wavelength]

I've got a ton of general beliefs about game design and storytelling, but I'll try to keep most of these specific to working in RPG Maker:

Golden Rules - five rules that I try to live by as an RPG Maker

1. A good RPG Maker game requires about an hour of work for a minute of gameplay.  A really good RPG Maker game requires five or ten hours or work for a minute of gameplay.
2. Great gameplay can float mediocre storytelling, but not awful storytelling.  Great storytelling can float mediocre gameplay (or even minimal gameplay), but not bad gameplay.  Great graphics can enhance a good experience but can't float anything.
3. In an RPG (a genre that usually contains a fairly wide variety of gameplay interactions within a single game), the player should never have to do two of the same type of activity consecutively.  The player should also never have to do the same type of activity more than four times in the course of your game, unless it's something really fun.
4. Weak plots are driven by convenience - the characters are simply asked or forced to do something and accepts the task.  Good plots are driven by motives - the characters have a convincing desire or need that drives them to do everything that they do.  Great plots are driven by characters - the events that unfold only do so because of who the characters are, and replacing the cast with a different cast would make the general plot impossible.
5. Progression (through the game and the plot) is the most important gameplay aesthetic in most RPGs - therefore, it is vital that the player never finds themselves "stuck".  Mandatory puzzles should have ample hints or multiple solutions, mandatory quests should be shown in journals or should have other easily-accessible ways for a player to "remember" where to go next, and mandatory boss battles should be winnable within a few tries for any player who is generally doing well in the game's combat.

Presentation

1. Games that do anything unique with controls or gameplay need to make liberal use of onscreen Pictures to explain the UI to the player.
2. The default blue windows might hold the interest of somebody who is playing an RPG Maker game for the first or second time, but it won't hold the interest of most veterans.
3. Item (and skill) descriptions should do two things: explain the gameplay function of the item, and give the player enough "flavor" to draw a mental picture about what it would be like to own that item.

Database Content

1. Failure to use the Features box (or Troop events or Scripting) to add "incomparables" (aspects that cannot be directly compared mathematically) to equipment will almost invariably result in a system that feels like a chore instead of a fun gameplay experience.  It's better to have no equipment system at all than to have a boring one.
2. There are lots of different ways to design a good skill system, but using Ace's defaults is not one of them.  Again, use the Features box, Troop events, or scripting to make interesting and situational skills. 

Gameplay & Framing

1. Games should zealously avoid telling the player "you can't go there yet" - it causes disappointment and breaks immersion.  If you don't want the player to enter a town or dungeon yet, don't let them get near the entrance.
2. On-screen encounters are categorically better than truly random encounters.  (I know this is one some people will disagree with, but I think it's an airtight rule.)
3. Games don't need to include violence to be fun, and games (such as Pokemon) that do contain violence don't need to contain killing to be immersive.

Combat

1. Combat during the first hour of gameplay should feel exciting, difficult, and even scary - but the underlying mechanics should tilt the odds way in the player's favor.  Clearing rats out of a cellar does not feel exciting.  Getting hit for 1 damage usually does not feel difficult.
2. If players can get through most regular battles comfortably by constantly choosing "Attack", there is no reason that most of those battles should be there in the first place.
3. Overpowered healing destroys strategic gameplay.  Not all games need to be strategic, but if you want to design strategic gameplay, then healing needs to be one or more of the following: situational, expensive, risky, unavailable in dungeons, or contingent on a character's other actions.
4. RPG Maker's "LUK" stat is completely useless by default.  Designers should use scripts, damage formulas, or map-based events that make use of the "LUK" stat, or should leave it out of their game entirely.
5. Battles should not include Missing or Evasion unless the designer can make a clear and strong argument why misses or evades make the battles more interesting (and not just longer and more random).  The same applies, to a lesser extent, for Critical Hits.
6. As a general rule of thumb, Instant Death skills represent bad design.  Exceptions do exist.
7. Even for an RPG Maker game, at least three people that didn't work on the game mechanics should test battle balance before the game is released.

 

[Kalin]

In an RPG (a genre that usually contains a fairly wide variety of gameplay interactions within a single game), the player should never have to do two of the same type of activity consecutively.  The player should also never have to do the same type of activity more than four times in the course of your game, unless it's something really fun.

RPG Maker's "LUK" stat is completely useless by default.  Designers should use scripts, damage formulas, or map-based events that make use of the "LUK" stat, or should leave it out of their game entirely.

I'm not sure what you're saying in the first part, but I think I strongly disagree. I feel that once something is introduced as part of the world, it should remain part of the world. If an NPC offers me a collection side quest, I'll expect collection side quests in each major area. If reaching an area requires pushing boulders to make a path, I'll expect all boulders to be pushable. Something that is only used once in the game is a bad gimmick.

I share your dislike for LUK, but does anyone have a tutorial on how to change its default behavior without scripts? The damage infographic says I can disable it by setting it to 1 for everyone (allies and enemies), but then I can't use it for something else.

 

[Kes]

@Kalin

Could I suggest that you put your LUK query into a separate thread, as it will only derail this one if it is pursued here.

 

[Wavelength]

I'm not sure what you're saying in the first part, but I think I strongly disagree. I feel that once something is introduced as part of the world, it should remain part of the world. If an NPC offers me a collection side quest, I'll expect collection side quests in each major area. If reaching an area requires pushing boulders to make a path, I'll expect all boulders to be pushable. Something that is only used once in the game is a bad gimmick.

As far as "not doing the same things twice consecutively" there's some wiggle room in how to define it, but as an example, if one dungeon contains a puzzle where you have to push boulders to make a path, I hold that it is almost always bad game design to have another puzzle in the next place you visit where you have to push boulders to make a path.  If you just completed a mandatory plot quest to collect 15 Rabbit Hides, the next thing you want to do is probably not another mandatory plot quest where you have to collect 25 Wolf Hides.  This kind of thing.  Making game mechanics (like "boulders can be pushed") behave consistently throughout your game is not what I meant by this rule, and is in fact very good game design.

As far as repurposing LUK, it depends entirely on what you want to do with it.  Having it affect damage or having it affect what you find in treasure chests can both be done without scripts, for example, but you'd go about doing both of these in completely different ways.  (I usually use it to determine Crit rates, but that requires scripts or scripting.)  If you have something specific you want to do with it, feel free to PM me or post in Ace Help!

 

[DoubleX]

Gathered some more beliefs from the RMVXA communities:

- Popularity doesn't mean much to the games' qualities. 1 excellent game review serves way better than 1 million fan votes.

- No game can ever avoid all cliches now and it's completely ok by itself. What separate good and bad games are which cliches are chosen and how they're used.

- Great games excel at teaching players via actual gameplay experiences. Never assume new players know how to play the games well before they even start the games.

- "Show, don't tell" should be your motto. Let the games implicitly speak for themselves instead of explicitly voicing out the obvious loud.

I hope I can incite more of you to share more of your beliefs by continuing to gather more beliefs from the RMVXA communities

 

[Matseb2611]

In regard to the newly added beliefs about RM games, here are my responses:

Popularity being unimportant - Partially agree. I definitely agree that a game being popular doesn't mean its quality is great (I certainly couldn't enjoy many of the RM classics that are universally loved by the community). However, in regard to reviews, it's still an opinion of a single person. A game having only one 5-star review doesn't tell me much. It just means that one person enjoyed it very much. But having many positive reviews will have more of an impact towards potential players.

The use of cliches - Agree. Yep, going for 100% originality is a futile task, because everything's been done by now. What you can change is how you use and present the ideas. The execution can make a world of difference.

Teaching via gameplay - Agree. I'd rather learn a new game mechanic by trying it out for myself rather than just reading a wall of text about it.

Show, don't tell - Strongly Agree. I'm a huge supporter of this notion. Of course it's understandable that you might have to 'tell' every once in a while, but having to 'tell' the player too much becomes an info dump, especially in regard to story an world building. It can be very easy to lose track of the plot this way, and the main reason this happens is because people and events of high importance to the plot only get briefly mentioned in the early stages, which the player forgets soon after.

 

[DoubleX]

Before I challenge any of your(not referring to any specific person here) beliefs, I want to show how I'd challenge a belief. For example:

Belief - A game almost entirely consisting of RTPs are bad as it shows that the developers didn't care enough about their game resources. RTPs are just overrated and overused which makes too many games to look too similar.

Challenge - Remnants of Isolation consists of mostly RTP, yet it's judged as the best game among all the IGMC 2014 entries by the IGMC 2014 judges, and that judgment was agreed by at least a sizable portion of the RMVXA communities. If this belief were grounded, it'd mean most of those judges were either not capable enough to judge all the IGMC entries, or they were intentionally or unintentionally biased towards Remnants of Isolation, or both. It'd also mean the majority of the RMVXA communities were either intentionally or unintentionally biased towards Remnants of Isolation, or they mere themselves using mostly RTP for most of their games. Although my challenge for this belief is nowhere near solid, it's still strong enough for me to believe that it's reasonable to remain highly skeptical towards this belief.