Suggestions for the next RPG Maker

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

in the end, all we can do is wait for it.

 

[Caustic]

If they made it so that scripting and note-tagging was no longer available in the next maker then the next maker would be pretty junk unless they provided an equally manageable way to maintain data.

Considering that RM didn't have these things in the earlier iterations ( pre-XP, if I'm not mistaken? ), and people still managed to make great games with them, it's more of a personal choice. A luxury, really. Then again, a lot of functionality was taken out with XP/VX/VXA, but in exchange custom scripts were allowed, and became the popular way to "fix" problems or add new functions.

More than likely not even a fraction of these ideas will ever be implemented, or even considered, but we can still dream, and there's nothing wrong with wanting "your" RPG Maker

 

[amerk]

Just to be clear, I prefer to work less with scripts and utilize more things from the default and events. Scripts are nice, but they have a tendency to clash if not implemented right, or implemented with another conflicting script.

I was not aware of Tsukihime's script that does this since I have not used Ace a whole lot, but I'll have to give that a go when I start working more with Ace.

@Tsukihime:

However, suggesting people want a game that writes/maps/designs itself simply because they want more things added by default is not only arrogant but idiotic. We realize that not everything can or will be added to the new maker. However, I don't see what's wrong with having a more versatile database by default, especially if it means the program will generate higher publicity, and I would be willing to pay for some of the features mentioned here if they were added by default, rather than a third party script that may or may not work the way it should.

This is a "wish list" of what people would like. It doesn't mean it's going to happen, nor does it mean having these features will make better games.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

yeah... if the engine becomes in such a way like most are done via scripts, then I don't think it can compete with the other engines out there... I personally have no problems with that as I like scripting (I like using that for most things, even things that might be possible with just a common event), but a lot of the RM users are not into that, some even seem "afraid" of it... so having the default engine do more without scripts is a good thing, market-wise

 

[Zoltor]

yeah... if the engine becomes in such a way like most are done via scripts, then I don't think it can compete with the other engines out there... I personally have no problems with that as I like scripting (I like using that for most things, even things that might be possible with just a common event), but a lot of the RM users are not into that, some even seem "afraid" of it... so having the default engine do more without scripts is a good thing, market-wise

Yea if RPG Maker was run by almost entirely on scripts, I would go back to Byond, and try even harder to learn DM/C++, as It's more powerful, and versatile(both the engine, and coding wise). However I'm no master coder, and It's sure as hell not easy to learn such a complex/versatile code(I've been spending years on, and off trying to learn it, but to learn enough of it to make a full game with it, is insanely hard/not realistic).

 

[Tsukihime]

yeah... if the engine becomes in such a way like most are done via scripts, then I don't think it can compete with the other engines out there... I personally have no problems with that as I like scripting (I like using that for most things, even things that might be possible with just a common event), but a lot of the RM users are not into that, some even seem "afraid" of it... so having the default engine do more without scripts is a good thing, market-wise

I don't know who suggested having a fully scripted game engine but that's a terrible idea and contradicts the RM way.

 

[Caustic]

I don't know who suggested having a fully scripted game engine but that's a terrible idea and contradicts the RM way.

.......

At what point did Shana say that people were making a fully-scripted game?

They only mentioned that people use battle scripts a lot.

Taking that for "we make our game out of scripts only" is quite a stretch.

 

[Tsukihime]

.......

At what point did Shana say that people were making a fully-scripted game?

They only mentioned that people use battle scripts a lot.

Taking that for "we make our game out of scripts only" is quite a stretch.

People don't.

It's when RM becomes a fully scripted engine, then it wouldn't be able to compete with other engines.

It doesn't matter how flexible the programming language is, it doesn't make a difference if it's not easy to use.

 

[Tigersong]

I have a suggestion for the forums. Instead of having tutorials piled pell-mell and good luck to ya, have a look at The Elder Scrolls Alliance. There they put together a set of "classes" where modders can learn from an actual person and get feedback on their work.

This would help, trust me. I know for a fact that finding a tutorial on events is not as simple as looking for "event" or "eventing" in the title. It should be.

 

[Zoltor]

Have more condition options for Common events, making them only being able to be controlled by switches, is a nightmare when designing complex events. You should be allowed to set anything that you would normally see listed in the condition Branch options, as a condition for a Common Event's trigger.

I just spent 3 hours, yes "3" hours trying to find a work around for something that should've been easy, and the only, the only reason I was able to make it work "in my case", is because I had a 2nd common event tied to a item you have to use, thus allowing you to use condition branches(so I used the item's common event to pull it off/reset the event cycle, since the item common event, is loosly related to the event I have as a stand alone common event).

All this hassle for no other reason then the fact, you can only trigger common events with switches, otherwise you need something to call the Common Event(sigh talk about it being limited).

 

[Tsukihime]

I have a suggestion for the forums. Instead of having tutorials piled pell-mell and good luck to ya, have a look at The Elder Scrolls Alliance. There they put together a set of "classes" where modders can learn from an actual person and get feedback on their work.

I suppose someone or a group of people is going to have to volunteer their time to help others out of pure good will.

 

[Caustic]

People don't.

It's when RM becomes a fully scripted engine, then it wouldn't be able to compete with other engines.

It doesn't matter how flexible the programming language is, it doesn't make a difference if it's not easy to use.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm asking, at what point did s/he say that the whole software should be pre-scripted?

Besides, the idea here is giving more options w/o the additional hassle of setting up more scripts that could possibly conflict with each other. And they do; oh yes they do break. Try to weasel out of that and someone will drop a good half-dozen examples of scripts that aren't even partially compatible (namely ones that do the same/similar things, but I've had other troubles with different scripts before).

So what's wrong with giving additional battle options (TBS and FBS, or ABS even?), more space in the actors section, or some-such without needing to "install" the next iteration of scripts for RGSS4 (what I assume it'd be called) and possibly having to do a lot of debugging before every game could be stable? I don't see anything wrong with giving additional options that are more readily available for people, besides the difference in price that it'll have. And let me reiterate that I'm fully against taking scripting away - it's a great tool, when used correctly - but I don't think there's any reason to say that RMVXA is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. There's plenty that could be improved, added, or fixed, and that's the whole idea of this thread, as far as I can interpret. 

@Zoltor: I like that idea. Say, you pick what kind of condition (switch, var, when "x" is "y" or "z", etc.), right? At least that's what I got from it XD

Common events should be more accessible. Right now they're kinda shoved in the back along with complex variables and the like. They have their place, but still aren't as well-implemented as they could be.

 

[Tsukihime]

I'm not disagreeing. I'm asking, at what point did s/he say that the whole software should be pre-scripted?

if the engine becomes in such a way like most are done via scripts

Before all these complex game engines like Unity with user-interfaces came around, people wrote games using engines that were just a framework that provided an API for making it easier to create a game.You would have to program everything yourself, except the engine, which is done for you.

That is what it means to have a game engine that is mainly just "scripting": you get someone that knows their coding and they'll write all the logic for you.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

@Tsukihime - no one AFAIK, I just said that if it did turn out that way, it will be bad for the engine itself. Which could happen if we don't really improve or at least maintain what the non-custom-script functions do. Not "pure" scripting in an absolute sense, but still a large portion would be made via scripts...

 

[Zoltor]

I would like to restate how much we need the next RPG Maker to not limit us on damn tilesets.

It's byond annoying(infact It's so annoying, I would rather it be like other engines, where you have to code in each individual tile, because atleast that way, you don't have to do a damn juggling routing, to use the tiles you want on a single map).

Beds are on a different tileset then the other furniture, well screw you(that's what this editor says to the mapper), and oh hell no, you want to use a certain well tile, but nothing else on the mostly useless for towns tileset, oh well, screw you mapper.

Seriously, there's so much the mapper has to do, just to beable to use all the tiles they want, it would frankly be easier/faster to make the mappers code in each individual tile from scratch(this way there's no tiles sets at all, just a list of tiles people can use for all their mapping needs, no restrictions), It's that annoying of a limitation.

Edit: Along with increasing the game viewing screen size, which has been asking a million times by now I'm sure, the scanrate should be increased a lot as well, as It's abysmal at best("possibly" the worst out of every engine out there, so yea it definitely needs a big upgrade in the next RPG Maker)

 

[2d_quest]

New Move Route Command

(change sprite)

-different than change graphic because it will let you pick an invidual sprite image not just a sprite set (meaning the 9 sprites images)

-with this you could set the sprite to any one of the 9 images or any of the 9 images in another sprite.

 

[Erling01]

It's ALOT of features i miss. My idea is better than vx ace in all ways expect a 3d feature. I like 3d but maybe not everyone like 3d. Idk if my whishes is too big.

Features:

+3d like RPG Maker 3.

+Easier to customize the scripts.

+A quest system.

+Full window when playing.

+RGSS4.

 

[Aurorain]

There are a lot of features I want. My ideas are opinions that I believe are better than vx ace in every way. I like 3d, orz. Idk if my wishes are too big.

Features:

+3d like RPG Maker 3.

+Easier to customize the scripts.

+A quest system.

+Full window when playing.

+RGSS4.

Okay:

1. No. There's Unity 3D for that.

2. Easier how? Unless you just don't know scripting/coding, in which you shouldn't even be messing with this stuff in the first place.

3. We already have one. It's called events.

4. Hit Alt + Enter, or check it to always enable fullscreen.

5. Maybe, but Ace is still fairly new, and is still receiving plenty of updates.

:x

 

[Andar]

There already is a topic for this:


http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/1823-suggestions-for-the-next-rpg-maker/


To your specific ideas:


3D is a no-go


This has been discussed multiple times before, the problem is not only the big effort needed to make both the editor and the models, but also the limitations of a 3D-Engine from an artist's standpoint and the problem that it's impossible for beginners to make 3D-resources (as opposed to 2D-Artworks).


Script customisation depends on the people writing the scripts - there is nothing Enterbrain can do in that department. Only the scripters themselves can decide whether or not they put in the effort to make script customisation easier or not. Some do, but not all.


Full Window (by which I assume no borders, because fullscreen is already available) depends on the monitor's aspect ratio - if you change the default resolution to 640x480 (which several scripts do), then you won't have a border on 4:3 displays, but it's impossible to prevent a border on widescreen without distorting the picture (or a big rewrite of the internal engine).


Widescreen Support might come, but that's for Enterbrain to decide.

 

[drago453]

Before you go around saying your ideas are better in every way, maybe you should think

1: What am I saying?

2: Is it possible?

3: Do I already have it right in front of me?