Suggestions for the next RPG Maker

[Heretic86]

I do include both Pathfinding and a sort of Enemy AI in my "Collection" for XP, and while I think it does open up many doors for expanding the potential for RPG Maker in general, I dont think that the solutions I offered are appropriate for all game situations.

A lot of it, again, has to do with complexity of the system.  RPG Maker is notorious for being quite easy to pick up, yet robust enough that it can take years to fully master.  There is an inherit balance between ease of use and functionality that needs to be addressed for every suggested feature for every next version of RPG Maker, and I will be the first to admit some of my scripts are not that easy to use, but with the benefit of exceptional functionality.

 

[Ralpf]

I thought there was a limit on number of common events?

 

 

Ok, but the ability to define the limit in the event editor would be nice

There is a limit, it's 999.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Ok, but the ability to define the limit in the event editor would be nice

Exactly, you define it in the event editor. You just define the limit before you even call the pathfinding. Why? Because the limit is more related to the trigger of the event than the pathfinding itself. It would be like we could have a new trigger which says "Player in range". It's more beneficial that way than tying it up with pathfinding.

I thought there was a limit on number of common events?

999 (or maybe 500)? That's quite a huge number. Plus the feature that you wanted is pretty much what common events are, so if there's anything else to add, maybe just increase the limit.

 

[Sharm]

I don't really agree with the people requesting a larger or more in depth character generator. These sorts of things work far better as separate programs specifically made for the purpose. If you add something like this to a program made to do something else you get longer development times, higher costs for the program to pay for it, and the end result is . . . well, like the character generator that we have now. Tacked on, a bit clunky and difficult to use. Imagine what a more complex version of that generator would actually look like. It'd take forever to load once you hit the button, it'd likely crash regularly, it still wouldn't end up being flexible enough to do what you really want to do with it, and we'd end up with more creepy faces. To get a good character generator it should be the focus of attention, not a side note.


Now, a character generator graphics pack released for GCH, that seems a much more effective way to do things for everyone. More parts for the same price, no reinventing the wheel, easier to expand later, could be used without GCH. I'm surprised there hasn't been a pack like this released already.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

exactly... We could do it way easier and more powerful even in free image editing program anyways. I have GCH and personally, I found that all that it could do are things that I could already achieve in programs like Paint.net

 

[Heretic86]

GCH?

 

[cabfe]

GCH?

The Game Character Hub software.

 

[Funplayer]

I for one believe XML is a great choice of data designs, and think it should be implemented as a possible feature for the future RPG Maker engines as an alternative output, instead of the default database serialized objects.  

This would allow players to write their own data editing tools for things like custom weapons, custom statistics, whatever.  This would ease the process of including new statistics into the database systems currently implemented in the makers, for the more advanced users, without being confined in the construct entirely, but still wanting to make use of many of the provided tools.

I for one believe XML is a great choice of data designs, and think it should be implemented as a possible feature for the future RPG Maker engines as an alternative output, instead of the default database serialized objects.  

<weapon id="0">

 <name>Stupid Sword </name>

 <custom>

   <customElement1 customAttribute="whatever">

      <customChild1>1232</customChild1>

   </customElement1>

</custom>

</weapon>

"whatever" << $game_weapons[0].custom.get("customElement1").attribute("customAttribute")

1232 << $game_weapons[0].custom.get("customElement1").getChild("customChild1").to_i

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

That's exactly how my custom note-files for database tags look like... XD

 

[amerk]

I don't really agree with the people requesting a larger or more in depth character generator. These sorts of things work far better as separate programs specifically made for the purpose. 

That's a very good point. Not to mention that with the current methods already available for free that can do it better, the people that don't need such a generator are still forced to pay the high cost for the maker simply because it's included.

 

[Revival]

I'll probably be long off on this one, but I started playing around with RPG Maker 3 a long time ago on playstation.... I was a kid then and damn that thing was hard as hell to mess around with.  But I enjoyed the 3d graphics and its probably the only thing I liked about it.  
I'd like to see another RPG Maker come along for more hardcore hobbyists, maybe something with built-in meshing and texture software geared at novices that way people can make their own resources with ease as well, teach basic 3D modelling.  It would probably be a bigger challenge for scripters though and I'm not sure it would sell as well but I think it'd be neat to see.

I just have nostalgia for the days of PSX and early PS2 RPG games and would love to create one.  

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

That has been discussed over and over again... Simply put, working with 3D is harder for the user. Adding it's own tools for "easily" creating 3D models would bring up the cost of this program by who knows how much. That would be counter-intuitive to the maker since it's marketed as easy enough for beginners. I myself have experience in some 3D engines, and they are simply on a different level of hardness to use.

Also, that means the program will then have to deal in a market that is already filled with "better" engines. Most users will probably just get one of the "better" commercial engines than the 3D RM. 

RM is RM, upgrading it is good as long as we don't go overboard and create an unnecessary clash. Plus AFAIK, EB isn't as big as those companies that make really good 3D engines. In which case, doing that will also be hard on their part.

Conclusion: Doing so is hard for the users, the engine itself, and EB. 

 

[amerk]

A separate series outside of the traditional maker would be nice to have. If they opt to make a different series and give it 3D touches, that's fine, but personally I'd much rather have them take another stab at a platform side scroll editor. I realize IGM more or less bombed and they probably don't have the manpower to designate resources to both the RM series and a different series together, but to stay competitive a company needs to take risks.

Another idea, albeit probably not practical - but what if they were to code the maker in such a way that allowed the users to customize it with what they want?

Editor Mechanics / Features:

Add a generator for sprites and faces? Check this box, and the price goes up.

Update the battle system to side view? (overrides front view) Check this box, the price goes up, can no longer use front view (unless a toggle option is included)

Add a color slider for tiles and sprites like we have for battlers? Check this box, the price goes up.

Add export capability, check this box, the price goes up.

RTP:

Have multiple complete sets the user can choose from (fantasy, scifi, Arabian, etc). Allow the user to purchase all of them (if they want) for a discount over what they'd cost individually.

Include the ability to purchase RTP from previous makers formatted for the next.

The idea being, the user determines what they want at purchase and customize it in such a way that's valuable to them. Some people will want everything by default, others not so much, but it's a win for EB since it encourages new users who don't want to script in missing features, and it encourages old users who can get the next updated program a portion of the cost without feeling they're paying for things they already can script or make themselves.

 

[Andar]

There are two problems with customization options:

1) Allowing different programmers to add to a main structure (especially if there isn't a very strict quality control that would cost a lot of money) will cause the editor to get a lot of bugs and make the support extremely difficult (and expensive). Just check the compatibility problems with scripts, and then imagine you get those problems not from the project, but from the editor - and can no longer check by a new project if the bugs are removed there.

2) A lot more of the internal programming would need to be given away in a SDK, increasing the problems with pirated versions - and Enterbrain has been burned by the past piracy in the RM series, I don't think they'll give that opening without a guarantee that pirating becomes impossible. And that can't be given.

 

[magnaangemon01]

I would like to see a PC 3D version. Like a combination between RPG Maker 3 and VX Ace.

 

[Clord]

I would be willing to pay for 3D models, yeah it is more expensive than ordering a 2D graphics but how exactly that is a big deal? We have RPG Maker VX Ace that currently suffices fine for 2D development, especially after that High-res DLL file and scripts aimed for it.


Granted RPG Maker series became so popular thanks to easy to use for hobbyists who want to spend five minutes doing their game and then run it, still I don't see a problem offering alternatives, more specialized RPG Makers.

 

[whitesphere]

The problem with offering a specialized RPG Maker that does 3D is there are already plenty of high end development tools that produce 3D games such as Unity. 

RPG Maker is so popular because it's easy to use and inexpensive to buy.  Add anything 3D and that key advantage goes away.  Try using the Unreal 3D Map Editor, for example.  I've done that for Goat Simulator.  I was completely, utterly lost.  And I'm sure that's a powerful, easy to use 3D map editor, when you know what you're doing.

If I were going to produce 3D role playing games, which would require a steep learning curve just in "How to build a 3D Map", let alone "How to customize the provided 3D models, meshes and textures" why wouldn't I just buy Unity and be done with it?  I think, the non-pro version of Unity is free, so I could learn and deploy on that and if I became good enough, cough up the cash for the Pro version (which, granted, is very steep at $1,500 not including Android or iOS support).

Now I WOULD like to see support for isometric tiles, which can really give a good pseudo 3D look, without making our lives as developers a LOT harder.  Technically, it should be pretty simple.  Conceptually, it just means the editor and runtime lay out their X/Y grid at a 45 degree angle instead of straight up and down. 

Add isometric tiles and support for multiple layers and we can do really nifty maps that give a really good 3D look without adding tons of 3D headaches.

I'm 100% sure it's harder than I just said but I'm also 100% sure it's a LOT easier than the cross platform mobile support they're working on.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

yeah basically, if RM would go 3D it will need to compete with a lot of "better" engines that are already out there for years and are used by most people who do 3D games...

If I were going to produce 3D role playing games, which would require a steep learning curve just in "How to build a 3D Map", let alone "How to customize the provided 3D models, meshes and textures" why wouldn't I just buy Unity and be done with it? I think, the non-pro version of Unity is free, so I could learn and deploy on that and if I became good enough, cough up the cash for the Pro version (which, granted, is very steep at $1,500 not including Android or iOS support).

Exactly.


If it would be an "alternative" RM, that's fine. But I don't see how EB can pull that off without not working on another 2D RM... Looking from a company point of view, I'd rather go with an upgraded 2D RM than a 3D one, because that would have less dev cost and I have higher chances of selling it than a 3D one. Remember that after all, a company exists to make money. That is the reality.

 

[Heretic86]

One thing that is often not considered is how much work Enterbrain would have to put into creating new features.  The more features that are requested, the more Enterbrain has to invest into creating those features for us.  While I am sure that Enterbrain reads many of our requests, only a handful of those feature requests will be considered for implementation based partly on the effort they have to put forth, which costs them money, and maintaining a balance between "Ease of Use" and "Functionality".  For example, Event AI.  Sure it is entirely possible for them to come up with something that would satisfy the request, the complexity would simultaneously drive potential users away.  Thus, very comples AI systems are best left to scripts.

The types of requests that Enterbrain will consider are features that allow the Community Base to expand the functionality through the scripts we create.  Such as a "Comment" or "Notes" field.

I have already made my recommendations in this thread and have tried to do so taking these specific things into consideration.  For example, allowing for more Terrain Tags as well as Terrain Tag Labels.  The consideration is that not too much burden is being requested from Enterbrain while allowing the Community Base to expand the functionality of the various forms of RPG Maker.  Going to 3D was also addressed.  Sure it would be neat, but probably wont be realized as there is too much competition in the 3D enviornment.  One advantage that Enterbrain may ever consider is using Hardware Acceleration to overcome many Lag issues due to the way Sprites are handled.  But this will also be a tremendous undertaking by Enterbrain and may not prove to be within the companies best financial interests.

The best types of requests for features that we can make are the ones that allow the Community Base to carry the burden of the effort, which is mostly going to be in the User Interface of each iteration of RPG Maker.  The things that simply can not be achieved by Scripts alone.  The Scripts, those are ALL on us.  We just need the User Interface to be as functional as it can be while still offering the balancing Ease of Use.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

For example, Event AI. Sure it is entirely possible for them to come up with something that would satisfy the request, the complexity would simultaneously drive potential users away. Thus, very comples AI systems are best left to scripts.

Yeah, users would do a lot to make an intricate AI even if the functions for it exists, which by the way the most basic functions for that does exist already in RGSS... You cannot really hope to cram all of those into the eventing system without compromises. Imagine the event window comprised of maybe 100 pages/tab. That won't be easy to use...


Also, if you just take time to actually delve into what RM has to offer, you would realize how most of things that other people suggest are already doable if they put a bit of effort. What we only really need are some more basic stuff and the rest should be done by us.