More than 999 maps in a project

[Kes]

Just a small point, but worth, I think, keeping in mind.

Anyone who does demographic statistical analysis will know the problem of self-selection. Yes, it is true that there is a significant number of people out of those who have voted who answered Yes. However, unless this forum is out of the normal pattern, people who want something are more motivated to vote than are those who do not want it.

This does not invalidate the vote, but it should lead to a lot more caution in making sweeping generalisations about what "most devs" want.

 

[Andar]

Additionally to that, there is the vote option of "yes, but not important" - If you read my posts here I stated very early that while I'm against any need to increase the limit, I voted that because it does not have technical disadvantages, only conceptual ones.

And I bet that a lot of those who voted that option are in the same line, sp you can't count those votes as an unrestricted yes either.

 

[SamJones]

Lol, count again. Keep in mind that there are ages with different versions of maps, dungeons with many different screens, houses and shops, the End of Time, etc etc etc..

137.. lol no

http://www.snesmaps.com/maps/ChronoTrigger/ChronoTriggerMapSelect.html

I stopped counting at 450

Keep in mind that these screen are crammed together. Many map frames are many maps.
Many maps are also enormous

Okay, I counted again. I took the ROM, I took the editor and I made my way through the list of Locations and Overworlds.
The counting starts with 0 in the editor and the highest map number for an Overworld is 7 while the highest map number for a Location is C8. That means there are 8 Overworld maps and a separate 201 Location maps, for a total of 209 maps.
The game has 512 locations in total which includes locations without maps, locations that share a map and locations that are left unused.

Oh, and the overworld maps, they are generally 96x64 tiles in size.

 

[Shade Aurion]

Just a small point, but worth, I think, keeping in mind.

Anyone who does demographic statistical analysis will know the problem of self-selection. Yes, it is true that there is a significant number of people out of those who have voted who answered Yes. However, unless this forum is out of the normal pattern, people who want something are more motivated to vote than are those who do not want it.

This does not invalidate the vote, but it should lead to a lot more caution in making sweeping generalisations about what "most devs" want.

Currently most voters have voted yes, the second most amount of people have voted yes but not important so MOST people are either for it or just not against it. It's surprising to see so many people arguing against something that likely wouldn't even effect them in the slightest.

With 28% of people against it, those against are by far the minority.

I don't see any sweeping generalizations here. I was pretty to the point. Though to be clear I am aware that even this community as a whole doesn't even begin to represent the majority of users. Plenty don't use this or any forums. Many use the steam communities.

Okay, I counted again. I took the ROM, I took the editor and I made my way through the list of Locations and Overworlds.
The counting starts with 0 in the editor and the highest map number for an Overworld is 7 while the highest map number for a Location is C8. That means there are 8 Overworld maps and a separate 201 Location maps, for a total of 209 maps.
The game has 512 locations in total which includes locations without maps, locations that share a map and locations that are left unused.

Oh, and the overworld maps, they are generally 96x64 tiles in size.

Thats still a big leap from your original estimate. And I personally counted 450+ in the link I left you. Thats nearly halfway to the limit. Still its worth taking into consideration that many Chrono Trigger maps are HUGE. Such is a standard in SNES era active based RPGs and though Chrono Trigger was wait based, its mapping was similar to games like Secret of Mana 1 and 2, Terranigma, Secret of Evermore, etc which used much large tiles also. Replicating that effectively would be difficult and not many devs from what i've seen make near world map sized dungeons the norm.

Either way, my point still stands that Squaresoft were pushing the boundaries of hardware and software at the time. Such a limit these days is unnecessary. People making large projects shouldn't have to abide by someone else's standard when its literally just a number that can easily be changed. One that people who are being extremely mindful of their map number and compression wouldn't ever need to worry about or notice. Arguing against it when it's literally not a issue for you if you aren't going to be making a large project seems silly to me.

 

[Tai_MT]

Well you're right. That was super jerky.
1-6 hours is the general length of many completed projects, especially those available on Steam which for the sake of this argument i'm using as the baseline for completed projects. Immediately after my post is a guy who apparently has a 20 hour project who has reached a third of the limit so there is no need to make negative assumptions about my project. I am aiming for a SNES era RPG full length project. Its fine that you want to make every single map 'useful' in your own opinion but the implication that that MUST be the case is ridiculous. As ridiculous as the notion as not doing that makes the integrity of a project questionable.

I don't really care about "The average" of game time created in the maker, unless you're going to try to use it to justify more maps than you really need. The vast majority of those 6 hour games rarely break more than 100 maps themselves.

As for maps being useful... I go by the rule of, "If this exists for no reason, it's pointless padding created by the game devs in order to increase playtime". In other words, a marketing scam. "Our game has 20 hours of play!". It's not really 20 hours when 15 of it is pointless hallways with 3 battles a piece on it that does nothing for the game, the immersion, or the story, and merely exists because someone decided it should, to have a longer game. Padding in a game is usually accepted as "bad game design". Or "inefficient use of resources".

Lets use Chrono Trigger as an example here. How many maps do you think are in that game? (Its LOTS) Is every map useful? Not in the sense that they're filled with story, battles or monsters but they're useful for depth and spacing the world out. There are plenty of maps people don't return to or cruise through and maybe return to once or never again. Does that mean they shouldn't exist? I don't think so. It makes the world full and rich.

While Chrono Trigger is my favorite RPG of all time and the only one I deem "the absolute best", yes, it has that problem of pointless maps that exist for no reason. There are several that exist in many of the main story areas that serve simply to pad out the game and make it longer, forcing you to fight lots of enemies along the way (with no way to dodge many of them). It's one of a number of flaws the game itself has. However, even with all of it's maps... It's a 20 hour RPG. 25 if you go and explore everything and complete every sidequest and do most of the endings to the game. So, for a 25 hour game, it's got maybe three or four dozen pointless maps to draw the game out, and the rest are wholly necessary.

Also! I've never said a "map that is pointless shouldn't exist". I've said that a map you spend very little time in and never return to... is pointless. What that means is, you've wasted space in your game for something nobody is going to remember, nobody is going to care about, and nobody will miss if you were to simply axe it. It means that if you're going to have a map a player won't return to, you should perhaps get your mileage out of it before the player leaves it. I've got small maps in my own game. The smaller, the more purposeful I try to make them, so that they leave an impression, and they don't feel like needless padding. Especially if a player were never going to return to them again. If your map is going to exist as padding... it should be padding and offer you a minute or two of gameplay before a new map transition.

Your gripes are all based on the assumption that maps are not used effectively but that is entirely subjective. That is up to the creator, not something to generalize. The vast majority of AAA games aren't dedicated top down JRPGs so that argument is irrelevant but still, i'd call BS on this anyways. Any Tales game would break the 999 map mark. Many Final Fantasy Games would too. I dunno what JRPGs you're playing but your perception of the genre doesn't represent everyone elses. What you strive for in your project may not necessarily be what others strive for. All of that **** is subjective man. You're opinion and your approach. Not the one true truth.

My arguments are based on the assumption that maps aren't used efficiently in these 6 hour games with 600 maps. That's the difference. It's also not subjective. I'm not even sure "effectiveness" is subjective. Especially when in the context you're using it would likely be, "Does this map accomplish what it's meant to accomplish?". If yes, it's effective. If no, it's not effective.

Also, you still have "maps" in games that don't use top/down JRPG (or even Western RPG) elements. Most modern games simply use 3D mapping to create maps. Games like Skyrim and Minecraft load "Chunks", which are tiny maps that are stitched together to form a single and continuous map. Open world games like GTA have very few maps (usually just one, or maybe as many as 20, if you can go into buildings), but they only load in certain assets (people, cars, other things) when a player gets close to them, and they "cull" stuff the player can't see, so that the engine doesn't try to render it.

Finally, I'd like to know which Final Fantasy games, and which Tales games would break the 999 map limit. I'm interested to know how many of those do. Especially since before PlayStation, most of those games were 20-30 hour RPGs as well.

If you don't think you'll reach the limit, cool. This isn't an issue for you even slightly then. Why are you even posting here? It is an issue for those that worry about the limit though and petty jabs at the structure and integrity of other peoples projects, of which you've seen nothing of is BS. Cut that **** out. The bottom line is, you lose NOTHING from an increase in the limit. Those that need an increase have a lot to gain.

I wish you'd read my post to you. Or even subsequent posts before replying. You might not have typed this final paragraph here if you had. I'm posting here because I use the program. Is my opinion less valid because you don't agree with it? I would argue "no, it isn't". I'd have the same opinion of anyone's project who has 500 maps and only six hours of content. Doesn't matter if it's you, Joe Winston down the street, Molly Beckinrige across the state, or anyone else. Such a statistic worries me. As a person who buys and plays games, this is a red flag to "do not buy, do not play". This is valuable marketing information for you, as a game dev. The opinions of people who disagree with you is valuable information in creating and marketing and getting a playerbase for your game. You can absolutely do it the way you want. But, for the record, people may not want to play your game when they find out that it's so many maps for so little content. Some may still give it a shot. Reviews may even touch on the subject of, "I think I spent more time in map transition than I did actually playing the game". It happens. In modern AAA games, this takes the place of "loading screens" and complaints about so many. Things like that are red flags for a reason. Whether you agree or not is your prerogative. It's just like why seeing the RTP is a "red flag". Someone may make an amazing game with just the RTP (something I'm trying to do), but people looking to use strictly that... should know what kind of uphill battle it is, and should know there are "paths of least resistance" to the same end goal of "great game".

As for your quip about thinking I said I'd lose something if the increase existed... I said no such thing. You're welcome to try to put words into my mouth, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't. In fact, I've stated multiple times that I wouldn't mind if the limits on absolutely everything were raised. Maybe even into infinity. But, does it really matter? If nobody would use it, why do it? If very few people would use it, why do it? Why waste time and effort creating a maker that does it... When you can spend that time making the features of the editor itself much better, more versatile, with more options?

I vote "no", because while I'd love it... I don't think it's necessary currently. May not even be necessary until we're two more makers out... Or maybe more. May not even be necessary then. Would it be nice? Absolutely. But, you know:

"You can't always get what you want. But, if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need."

 

[Shade Aurion]

@Tai_MT

Spoiler

I don't really care about "The average" of game time created in the maker, unless you're going to try to use it to justify more maps than you really need. The vast majority of those 6 hour games rarely break more than 100 maps themselves.

What i'm saying is that what maps myself or other devs 'need' isn't for you to decide.

As for maps being useful... I go by the rule of, "If this exists for no reason, it's pointless padding created by the game devs in order to increase playtime". In other words, a marketing scam. "Our game has 20 hours of play!". It's not really 20 hours when 15 of it is pointless hallways with 3 battles a piece on it that does nothing for the game, the immersion, or the story, and merely exists because someone decided it should, to have a longer game. Padding in a game is usually accepted as "bad game design". Or "inefficient use of resources".

While Chrono Trigger is my favorite RPG of all time and the only one I deem "the absolute best", yes, it has that problem of pointless maps that exist for no reason. There are several that exist in many of the main story areas that serve simply to pad out the game and make it longer, forcing you to fight lots of enemies along the way (with no way to dodge many of them). It's one of a number of flaws the game itself has. However, even with all of it's maps... It's a 20 hour RPG. 25 if you go and explore everything and complete every sidequest and do most of the endings to the game. So, for a 25 hour game, it's got maybe three or four dozen pointless maps to draw the game out, and the rest are wholly necessary.

Thats fine that thats YOUR rule but it's not everyone else's. Also, 100%ing Chrono Trigger in 25 hours? All techs, maxed characters, all chests, all endings, all subquests? I doubt that. Maybe if you already know what to do but I doubt the first time most people played it they finishing it that quick. Most likely were pushing between 40 and 55 hours. Regardless, without 'padding' the game would be much more barebones and while that might appeal to you, others like a bit of padding in the games to space them out a bit. Technically it could be argued that sub-quests are padding too but its up to the dev what they want to make and up to the player what they want to play. You're entitled to your opinion but please do remember it is your opinion and as valid as it is, so is everyone else's. What you view as a flaw is again subjective. A lot of people don't want to speed run their games. A lot of people like the depth for the exploration factor and the depth it gives a game. Considering Chrono Trigger can be speed ran in 5-6 hours.. it probably could've used MORE padding. God knows it had plenty of story as it was.

Also! I've never said a "map that is pointless shouldn't exist". I've said that a map you spend very little time in and never return to... is pointless. What that means is, you've wasted space in your game for something nobody is going to remember, nobody is going to care about, and nobody will miss if you were to simply axe it. It means that if you're going to have a map a player won't return to, you should perhaps get your mileage out of it before the player leaves it. I've got small maps in my own game. The smaller, the more purposeful I try to make them, so that they leave an impression, and they don't feel like needless padding. Especially if a player were never going to return to them again. If your map is going to exist as padding... it should be padding and offer you a minute or two of gameplay before a new map transition.

Again, thats YOUR subjective opinion dude. While some people might agree with you, others wouldn't. What you view as useless, others might view as depth or more game for their time or more time for their money if you end up selling your project. Again, it's fine if you want to get the absolute most out of every map you make but for some, an extra map before a boss might build up atmosphere. Or it might express the size of a city. Maybe that want a lot of world map secret areas or maybe they don't want all their shops to look the same or even use the same tilesets that the interior of houses use. Regardless, that is for those devs to decide, not you.

My arguments are based on the assumption that maps aren't used efficiently in these 6 hour games with 600 maps. That's the difference. It's also not subjective. I'm not even sure "effectiveness" is subjective. Especially when in the context you're using it would likely be, "Does this map accomplish what it's meant to accomplish?". If yes, it's effective. If no, it's not effective.

It is subjective actually. In fact its the definition of subjective. Its YOUR opinion of what is efficiency. What I consider as a map accomplishing what it's meant to can differ to your opinion. Subjective.

Its not like I don't see what you're coming from. A lot of what I am arguing for isn't even for myself. I think I might scratch the limit but the fact that I might even come close to the limit is a thing that shouldn't be. To assume though that it inherently means i'm ineffectively using my maps is kinda BS though. I agree maps should be used effectively. I also agree most devs will NEVER need that many maps ever. But some will and it matters to me because I might. Regardless, you don't tell me how to make my project. Our philosophies don't have to align.

Also, you still have "maps" in games that don't use top/down JRPG (or even Western RPG) elements. Most modern games simply use 3D mapping to create maps. Games like Skyrim and Minecraft load "Chunks", which are tiny maps that are stitched together to form a single and continuous map. Open world games like GTA have very few maps (usually just one, or maybe as many as 20, if you can go into buildings), but they only load in certain assets (people, cars, other things) when a player gets close to them, and they "cull" stuff the player can't see, so that the engine doesn't try to render it.

Thats fine but we're not making games that pull assets within a radius. We're talking about RPG Maker MV which uses different maps so we don't have to make a 20km map of a city or mountain range. I mean it would be nice if we had that option but we don't so the point is moot.

Finally, I'd like to know which Final Fantasy games, and which Tales games would break the 999 map limit. I'm interested to know how many of those do. Especially since before PlayStation, most of those games were 20-30 hour RPGs as well.

Tales of Symphonia has 3 worlds if you include Derris Karlan with a city that gets destroyed that you have to rebuild, several long forests, 8 long temples outside of the many dungeons and end game content included a 100 floor dungeon with multiple maps per floor in a few instances. The towns were also fairly large and you could enter many of the houses. If it didn't break the limit it would be right on it. Tales of Graces f was also rather large with a LOT of different maps too.

Final Fantasy games that used a lot of maps. 5 and 6 were rather long. Maybe they didn't break the limit but they probably got close. The amount of secrets that included screen transitions making even a hidden room a separate map was pretty enormous was pretty staggering.

I wish you'd read my post to you. Or even subsequent posts before replying. You might not have typed this final paragraph here if you had. I'm posting here because I use the program. Is my opinion less valid because you don't agree with it? I would argue "no, it isn't". I'd have the same opinion of anyone's project who has 500 maps and only six hours of content. Doesn't matter if it's you, Joe Winston down the street, Molly Beckinrige across the state, or anyone else. Such a statistic worries me. As a person who buys and plays games, this is a red flag to "do not buy, do not play". This is valuable marketing information for you, as a game dev. The opinions of people who disagree with you is valuable information in creating and marketing and getting a playerbase for your game. You can absolutely do it the way you want. But, for the record, people may not want to play your game when they find out that it's so many maps for so little content. Some may still give it a shot. Reviews may even touch on the subject of, "I think I spent more time in map transition than I did actually playing the game". It happens. In modern AAA games, this takes the place of "loading screens" and complaints about so many. Things like that are red flags for a reason. Whether you agree or not is your prerogative. It's just like why seeing the RTP is a "red flag". Someone may make an amazing game with just the RTP (something I'm trying to do), but people looking to use strictly that... should know what kind of uphill battle it is, and should know there are "paths of least resistance" to the same end goal of "great game".

This is another assumption. I did read your comment. Of course your opinion is equally valid. Thats part of my argument here because by the implication of your posts, other people's opinions to you aren't equally valid. Maybe you didn't mean to come off that way but it did a bit. Its fine if thats a red flag for you but to gamers like me and other devs like me i'd rather have an immersive experience and have a long game to finish and enjoy rather then something I can smash out in one sitting. Also, it's not valuable marketing information. Its advice, one dev to another. If you had a high selling project it'd be valuable marketing information if my project was similar to yours but I doubt thats the case. I'm open to criticism and opposing opinions but I don't have to just accept anything thats crammed down my throat dude. This is an example of you thinking your opinion is MORE valid then mine. By all means give advice but it's up to me whether I listen or not and it's not the one true truth because what works for you might not work for someone else. If everything were the same, everything would be boring.

You're right, I absolutely can do what I want and I will. But again, you've made the assumption that my game will have lots of map with little content. You don't know anything about my project other then I am making a large project yet here you go again making all these negative judgement calls and you wonder why I resist your advice.. Cut that **** out dude. For the record people might not want to play your game if they find out its another short RPG maker game you can smash out in a few hours and doesn't differentiate itself from the rest. Was that nice to read? Me averaging off your project while knowing very little about it? Probably not, but it was to make a point. I don't actually think that of your project. I'd be interested to check it out when its completed for sure. Especially after how anal you've been lol but its like you're just not understanding that my project isn't like yours. I know the demographic i'm aiming for. I have my ins to get it on Steam, PSN and XBL once complete from my days as a gaming journalist. I am quite aware of the process of reviewing. But i'm not gonna sit here and take your opinion as gospel while you don't know crap about my project. Its just assumption and snarky condescension. Some may ignore my game purely because its an RPG Maker game too. Those same people will ignore your project on the same basis. Thats not who i'm marketing my game to and i'm not going to bend my ambition to please them.

As for your quip about thinking I said I'd lose something if the increase existed... I said no such thing. You're welcome to try to put words into my mouth, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't. In fact, I've stated multiple times that I wouldn't mind if the limits on absolutely everything were raised. Maybe even into infinity. But, does it really matter? If nobody would use it, why do it? If very few people would use it, why do it? Why waste time and effort creating a maker that does it... When you can spend that time making the features of the editor itself much better, more versatile, with more options?

I think i've made it pretty clear that I personally would use it and others have also. That.. would be why it matters to me and others. WHy does it matter to you to argue against it outside of trying to tell others how to make their projects?

I vote "no", because while I'd love it... I don't think it's necessary currently. May not even be necessary until we're two more makers out... Or maybe more. May not even be necessary then. Would it be nice? Absolutely. But, you know:

"You can't always get what you want. But, if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need."

Considering only 28% of voters have voted alongside you, i'm inclined to disagree using that stat as pretty solid justification. Its easy to implement and most are in favor of it. So it seems in this instance, many could get what they wanted. If you really would love it but don't think its necessary, you've have voted "Yes, but not necessary" Instead you're here grilling people on their personal creative process. Your vote is up to you. Thats your opinion but people don't have to agree with you and if they don't it doesn't make them wrong dude. You need to get that through your head.

Anyways.. Its clear you and I aren't going to agree on much here and if you'd like to continue this conversation, shoot me a PM so we don't clutter this thread any further. I doubt people voting in this thread need any more walls of text

 

[bgillisp]

=" And I personally counted 450+ in the link I left you. .

Side note, Samjones' number is going to be more accurate, because the way things are designed each map is a separate file in 99.99% of systems used in games (this is due to how loading data is handled). So you actually need to count the number of map files, not the number of maps in the link you have, because the link does not tell you if those maps are on the same 'map' as another (but unknown to the player).

 

[Shade Aurion]

There are transitions drawn in many of those maps. You can also make out where the backgrounds don't match. Just sayin'

 

[bgillisp]

Easy to change backgrounds though. Again, the file count is what decide it. Ever wonder why RPGMaker has one file per map? Same reason.

And honestly, I don't know any system at all which can do more maps than map files, due to how file organization works (you *might* get it to work if every single map was the exact same size, but only then). Hence why I say you need to look at the map files, not the number of maps that show up in a guide to get a true count.

But, we're off topic, unless someone really wants to redesign Chrono Trigger using as few maps as possible

PS: I wonder how hard it would really be to change the limit honestly in the engine?

 

[Fornoreason1000]

@bgillisp
Modify one conditional expression . (999 to 9999)
Modify data manager. Load map data. Like I did in my break map limit instructions.
Modify the naming convention to allow more digits.


In all 3 lines of code, you changing a single number . only two of them are compiled editor code.

 

[TakeHomeTheCup]

I think he meant the engine code itself. I'm not sure though.
Anyway, seeing that we can change the map limit already through the method Fornoreason1000 mentioned, I don't
think this is much of a big deal.

 

[Tai_MT]

@Shade Aurion

Spoiler

What i'm saying is that what maps myself or other devs 'need' isn't for you to decide.

This is true, but it's also a statement that entirely misses the point. In a conversation where I ask you, "Do you really need so many maps or can you condense them? Use your space more efficiently? Combine several locations into a single map?" You're telling me, "I should be able to do it the way I want to do it, efficiency be darned!".

Look, you're welcome to do it however you want. Nobody is stopping you. However, any game design on any platform for any company has to deal with hard limits. Whether those are limits on the software or limits on the hardware, or even just limits on the dev's talents.

I'm essentially asking you this: "If you were to start using your maps creatively, your space efficiently, and learn some neat dev tricks that apply to more than just map design... Could you fit your entire game into the 999 limit? If so, then why do you need to raise the 999 limit, except as a means to be a lazy designer?"

If, however, you can answer "no, I still can't", then in my opinion, my friend, you've got a fantastic argument for prioritizing the increase of map limits. I'd readily stand behind you and trumpet your cause.

Otherwise, I'm sorry to say, I think the whole, "I must absolutely be able to do it entirely my way without learning anything about tricks you can do with the program" sounds a little childish and a little lazy.

Maybe that's not your intent. Maybe you don't mean it in that way. Entirely possible that I've read it wrong. After all, text has no tone of voice or inflection. So, if I'm wrong on that account, please feel free to correct me or to clarify. It seems like an interesting point to debate to me.

Thats fine that thats YOUR rule but it's not everyone else's. Also, 100%ing Chrono Trigger in 25 hours? All techs, maxed characters, all chests, all endings, all subquests? I doubt that. Maybe if you already know what to do but I doubt the first time most people played it they finishing it that quick. Most likely were pushing between 40 and 55 hours. Regardless, without 'padding' the game would be much more barebones and while that might appeal to you, others like a bit of padding in the games to space them out a bit. Technically it could be argued that sub-quests are padding too but its up to the dev what they want to make and up to the player what they want to play. You're entitled to your opinion but please do remember it is your opinion and as valid as it is, so is everyone else's. What you view as a flaw is again subjective. A lot of people don't want to speed run their games. A lot of people like the depth for the exploration factor and the depth it gives a game. Considering Chrono Trigger can be speed ran in 5-6 hours.. it probably could've used MORE padding. God knows it had plenty of story as it was.

Doesn't have to be everyone else's. As a friend of mine who loves science is frequent to quote, "Where there's one, there's usually more". Basically, shorthand to mean that maybe I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Or feels that way. Or even reasons that way. But, there are plenty of books on "the psychology of game players" (or something that sounds much fancier that I can't think of right now) that specifically talk about the mental states a person who plays games goes through. These books exist to detail the human psyche and to provide insight to the people who design games... in order to design BETTER games. Yeah, it's a thing. Lots of extensive studies. It's quite interesting when you peruse it. The stuff most commonly known is the "Skinner Box", but the study of player behavior doesn't really end there. I'd suggest watching some YouTube videos of "Extra Credits" to get the "layman's terms" of much of game design. It's wonderfully simplistic and easy to understand. It's also extremely useful.

Getting to Chrono Trigger... My first playthrough of the game (first time I ever touched it), I completed the game in about 16 hours and change. Missed most of the sidequests, missed most of the extra loot, didn't explore many of the extra areas (didn't even get the Masamune 2). Many of the enemies were extreme pushovers once you got several of your techs... or once you learned which Double Techs were the most powerful. Namely, I ploughed through the whole game with Chrono, Ayla, and Marle. Aura Whirl is so devastatingly overpowered as a healing move that you need nothing else... And "Falcon Strike" usually murders any enemy formation in a single hit (or does a crapload of damage to most bosses).

But... I'm honestly not sure where you get this "100%" idea. Never did 100% of the game (at least by your standards). I didn't waste time maxing out characters' levels who were ridiculously broken by level 35 anyway. Saw no reason to. Especially when the Prism equipment and the individual "best weapons" in the games were pretty broken most of the time (except for the characters I never use... because they're boring... and underwhelming). I never got 100% of the items either, frankly because once you have Prism equipment and the best weapon for everyone (or best two weapons, if you prefer), there's no reason to pick up everything else in the game. The only reason to even do the Rainbow Shell quest twice is just to get enough equipment to equip everyone in your party. After that, no reason to do it again. In the DS remake of the game, though, if you're curious... I'm four items short of the 100% item completion. Two of those items are Ayla's fists... which she only gets via level up. The other two have to do with the "multiplayer" mode they tacked onto the game... so they're not even original items. That game is sitting somewhere near the 32 hour mark, I think. Never saw the point to maxing out the levels because even the endgame creatures give so little XP that you're looking at maybe another 20 hours or 30 hours of raw grind just against them. I'm not in favor of grind. Especially when it's not necessary.

I see endgame gauntlets of unskippable enemies as "padding", because... that's what it is. I found it "not fun" because by the time I got to it, I was steamrolling everything in sight and combat has lost its luster (meaning, it became "spam best move, move on to more story... which was frequently Luminaire"). By the end of my second run, I even had the stats of every character maxed out, because I figured out you could steal Tabs from some enemies. Anyway, maybe you found the pointless slogs of battles in endless corridors at the end of the game fun. You're allowed to. My thought on that first playthrough was, "When the heck does this dungeon end? How many more freakin' monsters do I have to kill!?" I found the maps pointless because I found the combat pointless. I don't have a "murder itch" to scratch in games and really never have... killing enemies is a means to an end, and is typically justified to me by their loot, their xp, or their gold. Or, maybe their challenge... when a game dev decides their combat system should have some challenge. In any case, I don't get any sort of satisfaction from winning combat in a video game, unless it was particularly difficult... or they dropped something I really wanted.

Anyway, enough about Chrono Trigger before we derail the topic (Sorry mods!).

Again, thats YOUR subjective opinion dude. While some people might agree with you, others wouldn't. What you view as useless, others might view as depth or more game for their time or more time for their money if you end up selling your project. Again, it's fine if you want to get the absolute most out of every map you make but for some, an extra map before a boss might build up atmosphere. Or it might express the size of a city. Maybe that want a lot of world map secret areas or maybe they don't want all their shops to look the same or even use the same tilesets that the interior of houses use. Regardless, that is for those devs to decide, not you.

You're talking about giving your maps purposes while arguing that maps don't need to have purposes. Frankly, that's confusing. If your map adds to the atmosphere, it's not useless and needs to exist. If your map helps a player feel like a city is significantly large, then it's necessary to exist. If your map literally does nothing but add steps to walking and maybe the hope of a single random encounter (or two if the player gets really unlucky!) then... Why does it even need to exist? Couldn't you just lengthen the distance of an already existing map to fulfill the same end goal or causing a player to fight more? That's what I've been talking about. It's usually the pointless stuff that gets axed in a game. "This is a long narrow hallway with stairs at the end... no obstacles to dodge, nothing neat to look at, it doesn't do anything except add steps to the game". I'd cut it from my own game immediately. If I didn't want to cut it, I'd find a way to make it absolutely necessary in some way. Then, I'd playtest it to make sure the players were getting out of the map what I wanted them to get out of it.

Anyway, way off topic again with this stuff.

It is subjective actually. In fact its the definition of subjective. Its YOUR opinion of what is efficiency. What I consider as a map accomplishing what it's meant to can differ to your opinion. Subjective.

Here are the definitions of efficiency:

1.
the state or quality of being efficient, or able to accomplish something with the least waste of time and effort; competency in performance.
2.
accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort:
The assembly line increased industry's efficiency.
3.
the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage.

Efficiency cannot be subjective because it's very definition suggests you need to measure it objectively (to determine if time or effort is actually wasted. A person may not feel like their time is wasted if they enjoy something, or may not feel like their effort was wasted if they enjoyed doing it, but these things can be measured against outcomes and alternatives to accomplishing the same task with the same quality of completion).

Efficiency isn't an opinion. It isn't subjective. If what you're doing can be done objectively better, faster, or with higher quality, it is demonstrably more efficient.

Its not like I don't see what you're coming from. A lot of what I am arguing for isn't even for myself. I think I might scratch the limit but the fact that I might even come close to the limit is a thing that shouldn't be. To assume though that it inherently means i'm ineffectively using my maps is kinda BS though. I agree maps should be used effectively. I also agree most devs will NEVER need that many maps ever. But some will and it matters to me because I might. Regardless, you don't tell me how to make my project. Our philosophies don't have to align.

Where do you keep getting this idea that I'm telling that you must make your project a certain way, and why does it seem to offend you? In my opinion, 600 maps for 6 hours of gameplay screams "don't play this game". Nothing more. Nothing less. I measure the likelihood I'll have fun with any game in ways like this. "Graphics didn't really get an upgrade between sequels, devs didn't put much work or stock into their art department... wonder where else they skimped... I don't want to waste my time or money to find out". Etcetera.

By all means, design it the way you like. I'm simply telling you that maybe there's a better way to do it. Maybe there are things you haven't yet considered that could actually improve the quality. Who knows? I don't. It's why I've been asking you if you're being efficient.

Frankly, you seem more upset that I would dare say that your game would be something I consider of "suspect quality" due to content size and resource usage than anything else.

Don't take it personally. It isn't personal. It's my personal opinion on games that have those two statistics. I'm not telling other people not to play your game. I'm not reviewing your game. I'm telling you that just based duration of game and amount of maps used, I wouldn't play it and I would consider it "not high quality". Can I be wrong? I certainly can. Could it be amazing? It certainly could. I'm telling you that I, personally, don't want to take the chance of spending my time or money on a game with an immediate "red flag" against it like that. I do not count the "I don't play games with default RTP" attitudes against my game. Those people are free to use whatever criteria they like to determine quality of my game. Some of it might even be valid (like being unwilling to pay for custom assets and being unable to make them myself). They're welcome to assume that I'm just using RTP 'cause I'm lazy. I'd be willing to try to prove them wrong, but it's okay if they don't want to be proven wrong.

My opinion on your project (what little I actually know of it) is from the perspective of a person who plays video games and has for over 26 years. I have to spend my money carefully and use my time wisely. So, I'm stricter on what games I will and won't play. Chalk it up to that if you must.

But, again. It isn't personal. It's also really not the place to discuss whether your own personal project has any merits, so I apologize if it seemed like I was attacking your project personally. I'm arguing against the concept of a 6 hour game with 600 maps, not your game itself.

Thats fine but we're not making games that pull assets within a radius. We're talking about RPG Maker MV which uses different maps so we don't have to make a 20km map of a city or mountain range. I mean it would be nice if we had that option but we don't so the point is moot.

This has nothing to do with anything, as my point about such a thing was in retort to your thinking that only top down JRPGs had "maps" in them. My point was that other games have maps as well, and they resort to programming trickery to make the few maps they have work (which is something useful to learn about RPG Maker for anyone who uses it, honestly). So, we'll leave this at that.

Tales of Symphonia has 3 worlds if you include Derris Karlan with a city that gets destroyed that you have to rebuild, several long forests, 8 long temples outside of the many dungeons and end game content included a 100 floor dungeon with multiple maps per floor in a few instances. The towns were also fairly large and you could enter many of the houses. If it didn't break the limit it would be right on it. Tales of Graces f was also rather large with a LOT of different maps too.

I've never played the Tales games. Were they for PlayStation and above? With disc space being larger than cart space (and many games on PlayStation covering multiple discs), this may explain the large map counts (if indeed they do exist). Might be interesting to have that one guy who chimed in earlier tell us how many maps are actually in the games. I'm legitimately curious.

Final Fantasy games that used a lot of maps. 5 and 6 were rather long. Maybe they didn't break the limit but they probably got close. The amount of secrets that included screen transitions making even a hidden room a separate map was pretty enormous was pretty staggering.

Two games I've actually played. Most of the maps were quite small, usually never more than a few dozen spaces. Story locations were much larger. I'd wager FFV came in at just over 300 maps and FFVI came in at roughly the same amount. These were also games I beat in about 20 or 30 hours. I actually completed substantially more of the content in both of them than I did in Chrono Trigger (because the games kept offering more challenging fights and kept upping my loot and Level).

This is another assumption. I did read your comment.

The fact that you missed me saying, in three separate posts (including the first!) that I would welcome more than 999 maps tells me you never read my posts, but simply skimmed them for things to reply to. You're welcome to do so, but please don't lie to me about doing it.

To refresh you. I currently do not see the point in increasing the map limit above 999 as most people aren't going to hit that limit unless they are extremely inefficient in their map design or game design. Some may need it, but I'd prefer a number of people somewhere around 15% of users before I'm willing to say "YES! WE NEED MORE MAPS!". Would it hurt me to have more maps now? No. Hurt anyone else? No. Is it important right now? Not really. We have other issues with the maker at current and I'd love to see new features make it into the thing before lifts on map limits. I see it as "not important" due to how few devs actually need the increase (as in, nothing they can do to make their game complete without it, including trimming fat, more efficient use of maps, or even using a script). We get enough of those people, I would support increasing map size. As of right now, I just don't see it as necessary in any way, shape, or form, because I don't consider there to be enough people requiring it for it to be a useful addition/alteration to the program. That may change in the future. I hope it does. I don't like hard limits on anything. But, I can work with them in place. That's part of learning for any game dev: How to work within the limitations of your programs.

Its fine if thats a red flag for you but to gamers like me and other devs like me i'd rather have an immersive experience and have a long game to finish and enjoy rather then something I can smash out in one sitting.

I'm not sure what the point of this sentence is other than to insinuate that I don't play longer games, I guess? Not sure how that's relevant at all. But, if you must know, I prefer narrative experiences in video games. Played Mass Effect 1 a grand total of 7 times (working on two more playthroughs, I picked it up on PC earlier this year, finally, and restarted my file on Xbox One). Each of those playthroughs runs roughly 50-60 hours for me, if I do every single sidequest. Played Mass Effect 2 a grand total of 3 times (just to complete the achievements) and I'm working on a second playthrough of Mass Effect 3. I'm working on a second and third playthrough of Dragon Age Origins as well. I played all of StarCraft, Brood War Expansion, and all three episodes of StarCraft 2. I play Guild Wars 2 as well.

Are those enough credentials for you?

Also, it's not valuable marketing information. Its advice, one dev to another. If you had a high selling project it'd be valuable marketing information if my project was similar to yours but I doubt thats the case. I'm open to criticism and opposing opinions but I don't have to just accept anything thats crammed down my throat dude. This is an example of you thinking your opinion is MORE valid then mine. By all means give advice but it's up to me whether I listen or not and it's not the one true truth because what works for you might not work for someone else. If everything were the same, everything would be boring.

Much of this is just you venting at me because you think I've slighted you... as well as missing the point. Any feedback from any potential customer is valuable marketing information. The only real exception is people trying to troll you, just to get a rise out of you. Since I'm not trying to troll you, my personal opinion (as well as everyone else's, mine isn't above theirs, theirs isn't above mine) is a valuable piece of marketing information. What you do with that information is up to you (as well as how much importance you place on it... maybe mine is less important because I'm not your target demographic. So, maybe disregarding my opinion is better overall to your project).

Also, it's kind of egocentric to say someone's opinion of a game (or potential game) isn't valuable simply because that person doesn't have a "high selling project". That feels very "elitist" to me. Maybe you didn't intend it that way. That's how it sounds though.

Finally, just because I'm an amateur hobbyist game dev using a third party program to create stories that he knows will probably never see the light of day... Doesn't mean I'm not also a person who plays video games and judges those video games from the standpoint of a player as well as dev. People can be both things, you know. Even yourself. There's no reason to assume my opinion as a person who plays video games is less useful or less valid just because I also happen to play around in an RPG creating program.

You're right, I absolutely can do what I want and I will. But again, you've made the assumption that my game will have lots of map with little content.

Unfortunately for you, this is how the world works. People making decisions about a game without having played it, and sometimes without knowing very much at all about it. Why? Because we have a limited amount of time and money to go around, so we need to maximize the chances of us finding something we might enjoy playing. It's a method of "wading through the ocean of content to get to the drop we want to drink".

You don't know anything about my project other then I am making a large project yet here you go again making all these negative judgement calls and you wonder why I resist your advice.. Cut that **** out dude. For the record people might not want to play your game if they find out its another short RPG maker game you can smash out in a few hours and doesn't differentiate itself from the rest. Was that nice to read? Me averaging off your project while knowing very little about it?

Advice is just advice. I don't care if you take it or not. I care that you understand my point of view. That's all. Take it or leave it. My advice is frequently not the best that can be given (other people know far more than me), but I freely give it anyway, because if you think it's good advice, you'll take it. If you think it's bad, you'll ignore it. As for whether or not people would want to play my game? Eh. I operate under no illusions that my game will be good. I operate under the assumption that whatever I produce will likely be panned and be crap, but I'm trying very hard anyway. Criticism I get will be noted, recorded, and considered. I am not such a dainty little flower that I cannot handle people tearing my project a new one. Even if they know little about it. In fact, I've made several topics here asking about specific things I wanted to put into my game and got overwhelming cries of "no" on some of them. I put them in anyway. Because I liked them. My only plan and goal at this point is just to at some point create a game that more people like than dislike. My project is finished at that point. Feel free to "average off" my project if you wish. Much of it is quite cliché. I don't even think my idea of 5 hours of content in a demo is going to be equal to other players finding 5 hours of content in the same demo. It is what it is, it can be improved. Some people are more sensitive to criticism than others. Since I started trying to be a writer, I learned how not to be. That most criticism isn't personal in the slightest.

For the record, it hurts much more to be ignored by people than it does to have them tell you what you created is crap. Being ignored means you don't even rate so much as a "This game sucks" comment. It means nobody even bothered to play your game, or thought it was so unremarkable that it wasn't even worth leaving feedback.

I'll take 20,000 posts of "your game is trash and you suck for making it!" over 3 total posts of "yeah, it was fun". At least with the first example, I know 20,000 people cared enough to tell me I suck. With the second example, only 3 people cared enough to let me know they even enjoyed it.

I think i've made it pretty clear that I personally would use it and others have also. That.. would be why it matters to me and others. WHy does it matter to you to argue against it outside of trying to tell others how to make their projects?

If you don't know by now, you never will. I suggest wiping the anger from your eyes and reading through my posts in here again. You might read something you missed the first time.

Considering only 28% of voters have voted alongside you, i'm inclined to disagree using that stat as pretty solid justification. Its easy to implement and most are in favor of it. So it seems in this instance, many could get what they wanted. If you really would love it but don't think its necessary, you've have voted "Yes, but not necessary" Instead you're here grilling people on their personal creative process. Your vote is up to you. Thats your opinion but people don't have to agree with you and if they don't it doesn't make them wrong dude. You need to get that through your head.

By this point, I'm not even sure what you're talking about. What I've been doing (aside from quoting your post the first time) is bouncing my differing opinion off of what others have already said. I don't hold their opinion against them or even criticize them for having it. Again, go back and reread my posts. You may read something you missed the first time.

If you see me attacking someone for having a different opinion, than please, point out where. I'd be interested in knowing what you constitute as "an attack" on someone.

Anyways.. Its clear you and I aren't going to agree on much here and if you'd like to continue this conversation, shoot me a PM so we don't clutter this thread any further. I doubt people voting in this thread need any more walls of text

I agree. Since my entire response is like 900% off topic due to the contents of the last couple posts, I'd be more than willing to talk to you in a Private Conversation should you wish to follow up on anything I've said here.

I also don't see why it's important if we agree or not. I care more that you understand my opinion than whether or not you agree with me. At least if you don't agree, there can be the possibility of a civil discussion and maybe a side that can win. Or, even if not, maybe the possibility that I can learn something or you can learn something.

For me, your opinion on the subject has come down to, "I might need it, therefore, we should have it as quickly as possible". Others have come down and said, "Yes, it's a great idea, but it's not really important right now". And I've said, "I wouldn't mind the update, but I don't think it's truly necessary at all, and I'd rather the programmers work on other things and prioritize other things until a point when roughly 15% of the userbase needs the more maps, in order to implement it".

Does that help clear things up a little?

EDIT: Oh, dear lord, I just realized how massive my wall of text is. I'm putting in the spoiler box so that people don't have to read my nonsense if they prefer not to. Especially since it's simply aimed at a reply to me and has little to do with the topic at hand. Sorry for any inconvenience.

 

[Shade Aurion]

@Tai_MT
I thought I asked you to PM me rather then clutter up this thread moreso, but I guess you just couldn't help yourself.

Actually, you know what? No. I got a quarter of the way through replying to you properly and i'm just going to not give you that sort of paragraph by paragraph decency again. You imply i'm childish yet you repeatedly judge my project with very little basis, you hypocritically disregard my opinion while questioning why your opinion isn't equally valid (despite me saying several times that it is, but so is mine. Paraphrasing) and you clearly cannot accept that I disagree with you averaging anything that doesn't suit your narrative as poor game design. You then later after writing a novel on essentially how to be a up yourself are like "Oh my my, my post is 900% off topic. Guess I should have taken it to PM" (Yes, you should) You're not just a jerk at this point Tai.

Until you have a high selling game game of your own DO NOT expect me to take your 'marketing information' and don't expect me to just accept your game design method over my own when you cannot prove your own validity through anything else but an opinion you think better then anyone elses. It seems more like you have some sort of strange superiority complex which is interesting in the absence of a completed project.

Get this through your head man. Not everyone thinks like you, likes what you like and plays for the same reason you play; Or in this case, develops the same way you do. If you were THAT concerned with the integrity of your project you wouldn't be making it on an RPG Maker and until you have your own game studio, you and I are on equal footing. Fact.

I am done arguing with you because you're just being silly at this point. Have fun with your:

20000 posts of "your game is trash and you suck for making it!

Regardless, since my opinion means little to you, yours means little to me and i'm done with this public spectacle.

Frankly your reasons against the increase in a cap are just not good enough for me, your personal stabs and assumptions at my project have run their course and I couldn't care less at what else you have to say at this point.

 

[SamJones]

My count of 137 derives from the same website you linked and it was STILL closer to the number taken directly from the ROM than your own count.

Frankly your reasons for the increase in a cap are just not good enough for me.

 

[bgillisp]

One thing I should mention is that market demographics change constantly too, so market research done even 3 - 4 years ago is usually invalid now. For example, it used to be that if you got a game on Steam, it usually sold really well. Now there are games on Steam that (per steamspy) struggle to break 1000 copies sold. In fact, it was for this reason I had to rerun my numbers this last weekend as I had to update them to compensate for how things have changed in the last few years.

But, again, the debate on how many maps Chrono Trigger used is pointless everyone, unless you want to know how to make the game using as few maps as possible (which is a fun design practice, but not the point of this thread). The honest truth is, we will never know how many maps they used due to how easy it is to reuse the same map and do minor edits to make it look different. And remember, since the suggested feature is to increase the map limit, which means we are debating whether to increase the number of allowed map files, not the number of allowed maps (bold for emphasis, since you can put multiple maps on the same map file, and it will show as on the same map in the editor).

 

[Rose Guardian]

I don't know why anyone would want more than 999 maps. If your game ends up with that many maps, then I would just break the game into two different games, like a sequel, or just try to shorten the game. I never had 999 maps in any of my games. It would be a nice to have more than 999 maps, but not really important.

 

[Shade Aurion]

Thats the point though. It would be nice and its easy to implement. I imagine if you're gonna break the limit it would leave very little content for a sequel and if your going to attempt to balance the length, it may be a bit difficult if you have a coherent story as splitting it could mess with anything from character development to story flow. Theres a lot of factors to take into consideration. Frankly there is little reason not to increase it (even by 500) except for "But use less maps" and while limits like that were set in iron back in the day, they aren't these days.

My reason is even with compressing my maps together I worry about possibly reaching the limit and i'd hate to hit a stone wall in terms of progression. I don't want the limit to be approachable or like a weight on myself or anyone else's shoulders. Especially when it literally just doesn't have to be.

 

[Zeriab]

I have never been a fan of the weirdly arbitrary map limit of 999 map files. The default scripts do not actually load the map information file, just the current map. The current map contains information about maps reachable from it (MapId + transfer info). This structure scales exceptionally well. Keep adding new maps and you will likely run out of disk space before you encounter performance problems in-game. (Yes, you can have millions of maps if you have enough hard disk space)

From an in-game perspective the 999 map limit simply does not make sense. RPG Maker is not just a game engine, it also comes with an editor, and maps matters there as well. My guess is that they messed the map tree view somehow in RPG Maker XP and noticed that reducing the limit to 999 preventing whatever it was from happening. Under time pressure such things happen. A tree structure can organize maps well for way more than 999 maps, so that is not the issue.
What about the map tree view in MV? How difficult is it to allow more maps in it? Do weird issues pop up or does it just work? The map tree views decide whether implementing this suggestion is difficult or not. If there are no hidden nasty surprises, then yeah. It is easy.

A solution can be to use a new filename pattern for when the map id is greater than 999 and otherwise use the old filename pattern. That way you have backwards compatibility with previous games. The JavaScript change for the game engine could look something like this:

DataManager.loadMapData = function(mapId) {
    if (mapId > 999) {
        var filename = 'Map%1.json'.format(mapId.padZero(5));
        this.loadDataFile('$dataMap', filename);
    } else if (mapId > 0) {
        var filename = 'Map%1.json'.format(mapId.padZero(3));
        this.loadDataFile('$dataMap', filename);
    } else {
        this.makeEmptyMap();
    }
};

Similar conditional logic can be added at the relevant places in the editor.


@bgillisp brings up a good point I want to put into focus. The number of map files you use in your game is an implementation detail that does not correspond to the number of maps perceived by the player. You can cram multiple maps into a single map file, and you can use multiple map files for the same map. Say you have one version of a map where the player can wander around, and two others for two special cutscenes. You could also do with one and just event it. The player sees no difference.

Luckily few players actually reach the limit. Unfortunately, many more are affected by the limit. When I see people ask or wonder about the limit they are usually at the 100~250 maps range, calculate forward, notice the limit and wonder if it could end up being an issue.
As a guiding limit this hits peoples way too late in their game development process. If they choose to change their map design it will typically require a lot of work. This is not good game engine design.

Then there is the issue of what the limit teaches.

And that's the problem. Using a new map for every shop, building, cave and different scene is seen as bad design, as it is a wasteful use of maps. You can cram multiple shops on the same map. You can put multiple interiors on the same map. In both cases, the player will not know they are the same map.

From a performance optimization that is very much a good design choice, not bad.
From a QA perspective you have to be aware that changes in one interior is more likely to affect another interior if they are on the same map than in separate maps.
When creating cutscenes the drop-downs over events only show the events on the current map in the editor. Only having relevant events shown is simpler and typically also faster.

Showing another interior outside the current one can give an interesting feeling, and playing around with map representations can be fun. The bolded sentence though. In my eyes it means that increasing the map limit is not just a nice to have, but important to fix.


As for working around the issue. I created a plugin allowing you work with more maps before MV was released. Other workarounds exists as well. You do not have to limit yourself to 999 map files.
*hugs*
- Zeriab

 

[Rukiri]

It'd be easier to create an event object and depending on where you are in the game load the data that needs to be loaded at that point or for that cut scene. The chances of actually using 999 is rare and most 3D RPGs don't even use 999 scenes they dynamically load the data in the scene, and you should be doing this. Just create a simple plugin and name it create_event than depending on the roomID and the _scene equals to just do several checks for every cut scene or what will happen if you reach x part of your game. It'd be a little work but having scene_check script would certainly save you a lot of rooms.

 

[NeoPGX]

I bet that (with some personal trickery of mine) I could perhaps make a huge open world game with less than 999 maps.

If it wasn't for the trick that allows the user to go beyond the in-editor map size limit 999 would prove to be a real problem to me. I would need way more for the amount of content I'd like to include.

In case anyone is wondering I have such a game in mind but it will be years before I even start working on it assuming I ever get the chance to finish my current project. -_-