Next gen RPG Maker

[Milennin]

What eventing options do you find are missing? I haven't used 2k3 in years and can't remember anything in specific, and I would like to get a list of event

commands that disappeared between versions.

(the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is the variables as pointers thing.)

Hm, for example splitting the choose faceset from message command. Might seem like nothing, but it allowed for an easy way to make different facesets show up for a character depending on, for example their equipment, by putting the choose faceset command in a common event or a conditional branch. Also not being able to choose if you want to have a faceset show left or right of the message, and not being able to mirror a faceset in a message.

When selecting change class it's missing the options that came with the same command in RM2K3, although that one's not as big of a deal because there's ways around it with some extra events.

To set up a complete list I'd have to start a project again in VX Ace, because it's been a while since I've really worked with the program. I just found it annoying how it removed or changed some events in ways that limited their functionality.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

I think some event options were removed to streamline things a bit that could have been left in, the choose faceset being merged into the message system is easily one that was changed for streamlining.

Also, with scripting, most of that stuff is easily accomplishable.

I think that one thing that older 2k3 users don't seem to realize coming into Ace is that finding a premade script that handles something and plugging it in is super simple, and I think that some things were offloaded into that on purpose.

 

[Milennin]

I think some event options were removed to streamline things a bit that could have been left in, the choose faceset being merged into the message system is easily one that was changed for streamlining.

Also, with scripting, most of that stuff is easily accomplishable.

I think that one thing that older 2k3 users don't seem to realize coming into Ace is that finding a premade script that handles something and plugging it in is super simple, and I think that some things were offloaded into that on purpose.

True that. When I tried making my game in VX Ace I kept running into obstacles that would've been easily handled in RM2K3, but were tons more work in VX Ace using events only. I never really checked much on scripts besides a few combat ones.

Oh well, to get back on topic. Just seeing more event options, and at the very least 1 extra mapping layer would be enough for me to consider upgrading to a next version.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

The things I want to see are as follows:
 

Higher max resolution

Dynamic tile size

Return to 3 controllable layers ala XP

Better Autotile format.

Better Collision detection.

There is more stuff but that is off the top of my head.

 

[Seacliff]

The real problem is how much math and time is involved into making 3D games, I've never tried to make a 3D game before, (just 3D models) but I know people in person who made (or is making) a 3D game. They take forever to make, my real point is that can a group of five people or less (or just one for most cases) make a deep, in-depth 3D game within, say, five years?

Skyward Sword, Chrono Cross, World of Warcraft, Team Fortress 2, took just as long or even longer to develop with hundreds of people working on it.(of course they did build the engine and graphics from scratch but that's besides the point) RPG maker is designed for a small group of people.

2D art was in development since the stone age and didn't reach it's limit until the renaissance. 3D needs to be simplified a lot more for 3D game making itself to be simple.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

The thing is, if you simplify 3D enough to be easy to do, its going to be like, really really dated.

And good 2D is infinitely better than decade and a half old 3D.

 

[Seacliff]

The thing is, if you simplify 3D enough to be easy to do, its going to be like, really really dated.

And good 2D is infinitely better than decade and a half old 3D.

Exactly, some things are just not worth the time. Retro 2D and Retro 3D are two completely different things.

 

[Andar]

The thing is, if you simplify 3D enough to be easy to do, its going to be like, really really dated.

That is only the case because the 3D-methods are still limited by computer capacity and are constantly improved every other year.

After 3D-sculpting hits an absolute limit that will no longer be the case.

Or in other words: our children might be able to think of simplifying 3D programming in about 50 years or so...

BD

 

[Taien]

There are plenty of 3D engines already and too little in the way of 2D engines.

I think there'll go for isometric options eventually, probably not in the next one. I think it very likely to see a side battler system as a standard option, more maximum maps/assets as standard, as well as event move to event etc. The common scripts people install built in.

 

[DiamondandPlatinum3]

You should take a look at this 3D RPG Maker before you decide you want to tell Enterbrain to make their own.


The video of it shows it has a character creator as well, neat 0_o

 

[Touchfuzzy]

Isometric is something I really like personally.

 

[gRaViJa]

I think the new rpg maker will have the much requested porting abilities to Mac & Android and variable screen resolutions.

 

[Jesse - PVGames]

I would gladly pay like 5x the normal amount for decent isometric game-making software that has the usability of RPG Maker. 

 

[Infinite Angel]

Usually, I just observe forum discussions ... but I think it may be worth to "speak up" in this particular case. 

It may be helpful to communicate the following points: 

Tech progress or "RPG Maker tech progress" doesn't have to inevitably include "2D should later evolve to 3D". In other words, advancing and improving RPG Maker doesn't necessarily have to include making it 3D.  

It is just one probable aspect of its future technical advancement. 

Now, if you look at RPG Maker and how it's designed, you may realize that "evolving it" has to take into consideration not making it too complex ---- its designers  are probably not just simply thinking in terms of "adding the latest tech". The thinking is probably more about how to advance RPG Maker without compromising its "design integrity" ( things that make IT an RPG Maker) and without making it too technically complex (which would defeat one of its purposes).

The point is "next gen" evolution is not just about "technology"; it's mainly about design (just like "game design"). 

Personally, I think the designers of RPG Maker should, (despite the "seeming pressures" of some tech advances), never drop the idea of simplicity or just anxiously add "new technologies". It can be improved in many ways without totally altering its basic design. 

For example, you can also look at it this way:

Why not make RPG Maker a "game maker" which could continually advance and "keep up with the times" while on the road of more and more expert 2Dness and fully exploiting "2D expertise"?  .... A 2D engine which continually evolves its 2D tech  + plus other specific and necessary tech advancements. 

I think RPG Maker's "evolution" will be of more benefit if it never strays from its "basic design" and the idea of simplicity. Regardless of any relative tech advancements, I think optimum simplicity for the user's personal creativity should always be in mind. 

It could be this one "game maker" that is always the "nostalgia of the modern times".

 

[Seacliff]

I tend to think top-down 3D differently than FP or 'behind the back' type of 3D. The math is easier, not totally simplified, but easier. I do know of RPG maker 3D, maybe a few twist could work for an enterbrain rpg maker, but I won't know that until I try it.

 

[amerk]

I think the new maker will break the tiles down for us even further, allowing us to have separate layers for each A group (A1 through A5 would each be on its own layer), and a separate layer each for tabs B through E. They'll probably add note boxes and switch options for map data (the area where you indicate random troops, BGM, etc). And they'll hopefully give us more options for controlling battles, by creating event sheets for each individual battler, as well as having more control over how luck plays out (for critical hits, for pre-emptive attacks...). Maybe they'll include a sort of in-editor parallax feature that allows you to freely map your games without grid restrictions.

I would like to see better options for BGM control (being able to change pitch in the middle of a track without having to restart it).

Unfortunately, the mapping system will probably still remain blocky, and our characters will walk with the same 32x32 pixel movements. And they'll probably remove a few features, as well.

Edit: I agree, no 3D, however a stagnant isometric view might be interesting.

 

[Knil]

Whoa guys didn't expect this many responses had to my computer to get cleaned 

for viruses.Anyway it seems like all of you think no rpg maker 3D no i kinda wish i opened a poll

at the beginning of this.Oh well i have read most of your responses and I (unfortunately) agree with not

having a 3D maker.

EDIT: I opened a poll vote it up!!

 

[Misaki]

Well, it depends. I personally like the fact that I can re-use everything from RPG Maker VX to RPG Maker vx ace. Adding a 3D Engine would make it very, very unlikely to have any use of those resources.

 

[Shaz]

I don't know why everyone is still focussing so much on the 3D, whether they want it or they don't - it's been made perfectly clear there will NOT be a 3D RPG Maker. Let's move on, folks.

 

[Tsukihime]

EB has stated there will not be a 3D RPG maker?


Or is degica working with the devs?