What're peoples' thoughts on the MV RTP?

[Iron_Brew]

Does anyone actually like the art direction of the RTP in RPG Maker MV? Not its convenience or its flexibility, but the way it looks in and of itself? I'm curious.

Every discussion we have here surrounding it seems to be whether it's something people should use, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone say "I like the RTP and use it because I think it looks good", it's usually more along the lines of "I can't/don't want to make my own art so I'm using it and I think that's fine."

And, in my opinion - yeah, that is fine. But I am curious as to whether or not people actually think it's an appealing artstyle or not. Asking specifically about MV, I know other RTPs have existed in the past but I'm restricting it to the most popular engine choice for reasons of wanting to be specific in my questioning.

 

[Tw0Face]

I think we need to make a difference here between the assets that RPG Maker comes with (Runtime Package = RTP) and the whole graphical style that came out of it and builds upon it. All edits and expansions to the RTP, and there's a lot of them thanks to a lot of great artists, cannot really be called RTP anymore, as when we talk about the RTP, we actually mean RPG Maker's default assets. We call it RTP anyway, probably because we all don't have a single idea what this art style is actually called and if it even has a real name.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone say "I like the RTP and use it because I think it looks good"

I like it and use it because I actually think it looks good. I make all my games in this art style, however, for me this mainly includes the RM Vx Ace graphics style.

When it comes to RM MV RTP, however, I feel quite uncomfortable about those MV sprites as well as the sideview battlers with their huge heads compared to the rest of their body. It doesn't look appealing to me. On the other hand, I really like the Battle Backgrounds that RPG Maker MV comes with.

So in your poll, I can't properly decide for yes or no. Depends.

 

[jonthefox]

It's a decent base. There have been enough community edits to make it more in the visual style you prefer; my main gripe with it is the heads/eyes/bodies of the generator sprites and sv battlers.

 

[Iron_Brew]

I get what you guys are saying, my question is broadly about art direction rather than the assets themselves

 

[rpgLord69]

They made a downgrade from XP so they could sell people DLC

 

[TeiRaven]

I appreciate the specificity of this question!

For the most part--no. Like Tw0Face said, I like some aspects more than others. I think the battlebacks are neat, but...on the whole, the art style is not my thing. Everything looks very squished to me, characters and tilesets alike. The colors are very highly saturated, which can be nice in small doses but really tires out my eyes in a hurry in large swathes. I like that the larger size of the tiles allows for more detail, but I don't really care for the style that that detail was done in.

And like you said, I'm not knocking people who do like it or use it out of lack of other options--it's just not my thing.

 

[123edc]

as for the rtp ... like previous posters already said,
it's important to differentiate between the different asset types

when it comes to all the sound effects, they're quite helpfull
[even, if you don't go with the rtp's graphical assets] ...
the songs are kinda mixed ... some are realy good ... others not so ... and a few are simply overused

as for the tilesets ... let's say, i don't dislike them ...
but yeah, the main point is it's versitality and that you have many community addits to them ...

the sheer ammount of tiles ... bought in dlc's or selfmade could cost you a fortune - which many of us simply don't have - ... if i'd have 500$ to spend ... sure, i would jump to kokoro imediatly without even thinking about it

the battlebackgrounds on the other hand are realy neat,
especially their seperation in front / back allows quite the number of combinations!

the titlescreens on the other hand are 100% obsolete and unneccacary xD

and yeah, the chibi battler ...
they're great for more anime-ish types of games,
they're good for comical or not so serious games ...
but i'm not yet sure, what i should think about them for more story driven / serious gameplay ... there i probably liked the xp/vx style more ...

 

[Iron_Brew]

They made a downgrade from XP so they could sell people DLC

That seems like quite a cynical take on the RTP and is quite an allegation

I'm made this poll in good faith out of simple curiosity.

 

[HexMozart88]

I don't like MV's art at all, really. XP's was too desaturated, Ace's was that perfect in-between, but MV is just so... bright. Not that I dislike saturation, there's just a point when it gets excessive.

 

[TheoAllen]

You made the choices, a binary yes and no.
But my take is not that simple.

Do I like it?
If I say yes, this would be a statement.

So, you don't like it?
Not that either.

I would say "I don't mind" rather than "liking/disliking". I'm already too used to RTP styles that it gets too blurry whether or not I like it. I just don't mind playing RM games with its default asset.

If someone went too hard to replace every graphic and I personally see it worse than the default style, then I would say the default RTP style is better and they should stick with it. But, if the custom style looks better, I would say, it's indeed better.

 

[AkiraKotatsuhime]

Art-direction for the MV/MZ graphics has strong variety by asset-type.

The backgrounds, battlers, faces and effects (recycled from Ace, some even since VX) are a YES.
RTPs hardly ever deliver any bad or ugly drawing of humans, creatures or landscapes, they're great.

But if I didn't miss anything, the rest is NO. And some parts of that (e.g. tiles) go hand-in-hand with bad restrictive technical design-decisions made.

～炬燵あ

 

[AphoticAmaranth]

I think the MV RTP is mostly okay. In fact, I like some of their animations, and still sometimes use/edit them despite having a few animation DLCs. The SV character generator aesthetic isn't too bad either, albeit lacking in options. The iconset is terrible, though. VXAce's was better.

 

[Cymaiden]

My answer averages out as a "no", but I'd like to qualify it.

The sprites can be easily made to look at least reasonable to me if one uses the Sprite Height Extender that was recently released as DLC. So for the moderately low price of an official plug-in, my answer there goes from a "no" to an "eh, acceptable".

The face generator is deeply restrictive in a way that I find myself buckling against constantly, but as I lack any alternative to it right now, I still use it in of grudging tolerance.

The tilesets I've grown to hate over the five months that I've had MV for. They look janky unless one is very strategic about how one uses them and that takes a great deal of practice. RTP tilesets are not in any way user friendly. Furthermore, it is clear to me that the sci-fi tilesets were an afterthought and it is especially difficult to get satisfactory results out of them even by the low standards of the RTP genre fantasy tilesets. I only use them at all for lack of a good alternative right now if I'm making a "modern style" high res RPG.

The battlebacks and battler sprites I don't hate, but they're also not the art style I wish to use in my projects and I've built up a big enough library of both in other art styles that I scarcely need to touch the RPT assets in that particular area anymore.

The music is a mixed bag to me. There are some tracks that I love (looking at you, Scene2 & Scene4) and others that are way too generic fantasy for my liking. I might still use a few of the tracks, but only a few.

 

[CleanWater]

The artwork itself is good. I personally prefer the old-school look from RM2k/3.

I had grow playing games like the SNES Final Fantasies and Chrono Trigger, so this kind of artwork is more appealing to me, since it reminds me of good and old times.

I also prefer the MIDI styled music of the old RTPs, because of the same reason above. Nostalgia.

 

[Ingwer]

I personally do not mind the direction they went with since VX. I did like the look of XP for the most part, even though the way they... portrait some of it looked a bit stiff. The same way around, the new style does has its shortcomings, as well. But overall, I would not mind it if they would stick with it.

The thing that does actually bother me in that regard is that since MV it does not seem as coherent, nor does it feel as polished. In VX Ace the different assets worked better together, I think. Like the enemies, battlebacks, portraits, tilesets, even the music if you want to go that far. Everything felt like one package, even if all those were obviously not made by one person.
Since MV, it feels more like "Yeah, we hired person A for this, and Person B for that" - and you can very much see that. It feels more... on the nose. Like, we provide assets for our product - here you go.
The "not as polished" part is a bit difficult to point out without searching for evidence - but I got the feeling they had more issues to correct with it than back in Ace.

So... I guess "yes" to the art direction in general, because I do not think anything in itself is actually "bad". If they would stay with one route based on a certain kind of asset, it would probably even end up in different iterations having a quite distinct look to each other. If that is what one/the creators would like is of course another question. As said, I do like the art of the characters and tilesets, personally. Although I have to admit that I preferred it more blocky instead of the rounder style since MV. But maybe that is only bias because of the whole "one-package" "polished" aspect.

In regards of how the whole thing is presented... obviously "no". I would even dare to say that I feel like it gets more and more out of hand with every iteration. Or said differently: I hope they will someday top the package they got with Ace, no matter what art direction they choose. It just has to fit and feel "right". Which again is subjective, of course.

I also believe the reason these discussions normally focus on "use it or not" actually do come from the same thing. If the art direction is just... there, you do not really have something to talk about. You may like something from the package, maybe something you do not (Like people not liking the big heads of the characters, for example). But at the end, what most people are probably thinking is: "Alright I got all this without asking, should I use it as everyone else does, anyway?"
I think this specific situation these assets are in actually devalue them and will always make their question of existing a matter of "efficiency", never really going into specific details of their art. Because even if we would go into discussing the art style of "RPG Maker xyz", the very first person may already say: "Who cares, it is overused anyway."

 

[Bex]

I realy like MV Art. Also the POP Horror Style, if that also counts to MV.

 

[Cymaiden]

Since MV, it feels more like "Yeah, we hired person A for this, and Person B for that" - and you can very much see that. It feels more... on the nose. Like, we provide assets for our product - here you go.

I get the sense that even individual tiles were delegated to different people. It would explain why the tilesets look so aesthetically incohesive.

 

[fungolem]

I'm fine with everything but these character's dead fish eye.

 

[Lord_Bluffkin]

It looks to me like a perfect upscaling of the VX RTP.
It made me realize that I need my RPG experience to include visible pixels and low frame rates.

 

[jonthefox]

the more i think about it, the faces of the sv battlers is the thing i hate the most about it. The base is so distinct that it makes every char look too similar to each other, and it's hard to make men characters not look like they're teenagers.

(as some others have said, some of the tiles are just too bright for my old eyes. but at least that is something that's not too difficult to edit)