RPG MAKER MV OFFICIAL PAGE

[Celianna]

I think the trees look like green turds. Everyone should know I have lots of better trees available on my website

 

[Ms Littlefish]

Celianna trees for life. Even before MV!

 

[EternalShadow]

Yeah it seems it would be very involved as regards servers and communication protocols, but I would be willing to put in the work if it was something that was actually possible in MV. I'm not really looking to do anything really fancy, I'm just thinking of including some kind of extra mode in my game where you could take your party and battle other people online or locally, similar to the newer Pokemon handheld games or Golden Sun's GBA link battle mode.

I'll let you know once I know more about how MV's scripting works then.  

 

[cabfe]

I think the trees look like green turds. Everyone should know I have lots of better trees available on my website

Agreed. I don't know what the artist was thinking, but when I see those trees I think of this:

 

[nio kasgami]

I have to admit CELIANIA TREES FOR LIFE!!

CELIANIA FOR PRESIDENT!!!

....

what? why did you say I am out of subject : D I don't see why you say that!

but on a more serious note I see they actually make more smoother edge for the whole design and I love this new water who seem less square!

.

 

[JosephSeraph]

For those of you who don't understand the importancy of a good relation of tile size and resolution, this is what Final Fantasy IV would look like if we upped its resolution to 816x624 and kept the tile size at 16x16.

edit: an analogy to increasing resolution and not tile size like you guys so badly seem to want would be increasing resolution and not increasing font size. Though 64x64 would have been a better tile size...

 

[Stapleton]

For those of you who don't understand the importancy of a good relation of tile size and resolution, this is what Final Fantasy IV would look like if we upped its resolution to 816x624 and kept the tile size at 16x16.

That has nothing to do with it. If you are in the editor and you have a tile size of 32x32 or 16x16 with higher resolution then you would clearly edit the map to look well in that resolution.

If you take a 48x48 tile size map and throw it into 1920x1080 resolution the same thing will occur. It has nothing to do with tile size but rather how you make the map!

 

[Hudell]

Now that I think of it, when I tried the high resolution DLL, my first reaction was: "nope, not with those small tiles" and I even considered writing a script that would zoom in the game to 2x, while keeping the HUDS and menus at 1x.

 

[EternalShadow]

A distinction should be made here: resolution is not screen size. Screen size can be increased to accompany more tiles, but resolution increases the detail of the actual image(s).

 

[Reavenator]

The new features look good, but I can't help but assume the new program will have some drawbacks, like the previous versions.

I learned some JavaScript in web design class a year ago, it's syntax isn't too different from C#. Learning it shouldn't be too hard.

I never did make any real progress with my game, so starting all over again with MV won't be too bad.

 

[Bastrophian]

For those of you who don't understand the importancy of a good relation of tile size and resolution, this is what Final Fantasy IV would look like if we upped its resolution to 816x624 and kept the tile size at 16x16.

 so then...why cant the 816x624 be optional to. Why cant we be optional!?!? LETS HAVE ALLLLL THE OPTIONS!! LET GO OPTION CRAZY!!!! OwwwwwwwwO

 

[IdarG]

Will I be able to start my project in RPGMVXA and then transferring it to RPGMMV when it comes out? I mean if the graphics are in the same place, so the big trees in RPGMVXA will be the same as in RPGMMV?

 

[Banquo]

That has nothing to do with it. If you are in the editor and you have a tile size of 32x32 or 16x16 with higher resolution then you would clearly edit the map to look well in that resolution.

If you take a 48x48 tile size map and throw it into 1920x1080 resolution the same thing will occur. It has nothing to do with tile size but rather how you make the map!

I don't know how you would "edit the map" better to make 16x16 tiles work with a 816x624res. If you use 16x16 tiles without zooming them, they would look just like in JosephSeraph screenshots. How exactly would you make the map better? Make all areas larger, so they player won't see the entire map at once?

 so then...why cant the 816x624 be optional to. Why cant we be optional!?!? LETS HAVE ALLLLL THE OPTIONS!! LET GO OPTION CRAZY!!!! OwwwwwwwwO

I think it is, or at least will be via script.

 

[R4B]

Will I be able to start my project in RPGMVXA and then transferring it to RPGMMV when it comes out? I mean if the graphics are in the same place, so the big trees in RPGMVXA will be the same as in RPGMMV?

No, it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to transfer your projects from vx/ace to mv.

 

[Stapleton]

I don't know how you would "edit the map" better to make 16x16 tiles work with a 816x624res. If you use 16x16 tiles without zooming them, they would look just like in JosephSeraph screenshots. How exactly would you make the map better? Make all areas larger, so they player won't see the entire map at once?

I think it is, at least will be via script.

If you were to make a map the size of 288x288 pixels it looks the same either way!

I am not saying taking a map that is 32x32 tile size, 17x13 tiles or 544x416 pixels large is going to look well in that resolution.

If you had a resolution of 832x640 the default map would just be 26x20 tile spaces large for 32x32 tile size.

In which case the 26x20 would look exactly the same as the 17x13 48x48 tile size map.

The downfall of having 48x48 in the designing of the game is that it looks blockier.

edit: and let me clarify why. The edges of tiles would have to abide by the 48x48 so you are stuck with 16 pixels that you want to cut off and the end of a trail or what not. Why does parallax mapping offer the least blocky option?? Because it edits maps using a tile size of 1 pixel!! Does parallax still give off the same result josephseraph mentions??

 

[JosephSeraph]

You guys know that a tile = a character, right? You can't have a character bigger than a tile if you're using the interface rpg maker uses. So no, you can't have 32x32 tiles in a high resolution together with a 48x48-tile based character.

Unless you were implying not to reduce the tile size, but to break the tiles down. In such a way that a tile would be 1/4th of a character's size.

Generally, such as in Final Fantasy IV, the tiles are actually 1/4th of a character size, and not the same size. So SNES games had 8x8 tiles, not 16x16.

And this is a lot more flexibile! But a lot harder to work too. And it'd really change a lot of what we know about RPG maker.

For RPG maker, a tile = a character. If you have 32x32 tiles, your character is tied to that. And so must be your screen size unless you want to have horribly small tiles and almost undecipherable characters.

If you amp the resolution, you must amp tile size, character size, icon size, hud, font, everything.

edit: and yes @stalepton, parallax mapping will give the same scale problem as the aforementioned maps if your base tile / character is not proportional to the screen size.

Legend of Mana in 816x624

 

[Stapleton]

You guys know that a tile = a character, right? You can't have a character bigger than a tile if you're using the interface rpg maker uses. So no, you can't have 32x32 tiles in a high resolution together with a 48x48-tile based character.

Unless you were implying not to reduce the tile size, but to break the tiles down. In such a way that a tile would be 1/4th of a character's size.

Generally, such as in Final Fantasy IV, the tiles are actually 1/4th of a character size, and not the same size. So SNES games had 8x8 tiles, not 16x16.

And this is a lot more flexibile! But a lot harder to work too. And it'd really change a lot of what we know about RPG maker.

For RPG maker, a tile = a character. If you have 32x32 tiles, your character is tied to that. And so must be your screen size unless you want to have horribly small tiles and almost undecipherable characters.

If you amp the resolution, you must amp tile size, character size, icon size, hud, font, everything.

That just does not make sense.

Rpg maker xp (for just one example) used a character size twice that of a tile. You have to denote the collision box of the character thats it. After that your character can be the size of the map if you wanted it to be.

 

[Hudell]

so then...why cant the 816x624 be optional to. Why cant we be optional!?!? LETS HAVE ALLLLL THE OPTIONS!! LET GO OPTION CRAZY!!!! OwwwwwwwwO

The resolution is optional, like it was in Ace, but now we don't have that small limit anymore.

 

[Banquo]

If you were to make a map the size of 288x288 pixels it looks the same either way!

I am not saying taking a map that is 32x32 tile size, 17x13 tiles or 544x416 pixels large is going to look well in that resolution.

If you had a resolution of 832x640 the default map would just be 26x20 tile spaces large for 32x32 tile size.

In which case the 26x20 would look exactly the same as the 17x13 48x48 tile size map.

The downfall of having 48x48 in the designing of the game is that it looks blockier.

edit: and let me clarify why. The edges of tiles would have to abide by the 48x48 so you are stuck with 16 pixels that you want to cut off and the end of a trail or what not. Why does parallax mapping offer the least blocky option?? Because it edits maps using a tile size of 1 pixel!! Does parallax still give off the same result josephseraph mentions??

Having a higher resolution, without increasing the size of the tiles will result in having more tiles on the map.

I.e. a 32x32 tile size map that is 26x20 tile spaces big, has more content then a 48x48 tile size map that is 17x13 tile spaces big. It does not look the same. The smaller the tiles are, the more you can fit in.

And this is clearly not desired if you want to use unscaled 16x16px resources, as in JosephSeraph screenshots. You don't want the player to overlook the entire dungeon. No matter how well you map, you won't change the amount of tiles that is visible on the screen.

So the only viable way to use 16x16px tiles is to reduce the Resolution of the screen to a classic standard or scale the tiles, so that the 16x16px tiles are actually 32x32px or 48x48px big.

@JosephSeraph:

Character size is not fixed. You can make them as big or small as you like.

 

[Stapleton]

The resolution is optional, like it was in Ace, but now we don't have that small limit anymore.

The bigger the tile pixel size the more limits you have!!!

Edit:

 

Having a higher resolution, without increasing the size of the tiles will result in having more tiles on the map.

I.e. a 32x32 tile size map that is 26x20 tile spaces big, has more content then a 48x48 tile size map that is 17x13 tile spaces big. It does not look the same. The smaller the tiles are, the more you can fit in.

And this is clearly not desired if you want to use unscaled 16x16px resources, as in JosephSeraph screenshots. You don't want the player to overlook the entire dungeon. No matter how well you map, you won't change the amount of tiles that is visible on the screen.

So the only viable way to use 16x16px tiles is to reduce the Resolution of the screen to a classic standard or scale the tiles, so that the 16x16px tiles are actually 32x32px or 48x48px big.

@JosephSeraph:

Character size is not fixed. You can make them as big or small as you like.

 

You are taking screenshots that are fixed amount of pixels and throwing them into higher resolution.

Making a map with 16x16 or 32x32 still allows you to make a map to fit any resolution. 

Parallax mapping uses a tile space of 1 pixel yet its the best looking way to map.