RMVX a step backwards?

[Marked 197]

Ok I know this topic is a few years too late. But I read something the other day that kind of annoyed me, because it got me to thinking: Did enterbrain take a step backward by making RMVX easier to use than RMXP, thus reducing game making talent and detering new RPG Maker users from RMXP?

 

The big issue that I have personally with enterbrain deciding to make RMVX more user-friendly (which is a euphemism for lazier game makers), because RPG Maker XP is very easy to use. It may be harder than RMVX, but just because something is harder than something really easy doesnt make it difficult. Anyone who finds RMXP too hard to use isn't putting in the time to learn it. If you chose RMVX over RMXP solely because its easier, then you're a lazy game maker.

 

The reason i think RMVX deters new RPG Maker users from RMXP is because, who would download the 2nd latest version? And secondly but less so, its 'easier' reputation will attract more users to it, sadly so.

 

I was thinking that perhaps it caused a negative effect in terms of RPG Maker users. There have been some talented people over the years making games with these engines. I think that RMVX has reduced the pool of talented RPG Makers by detering/killing RMXP and creating lazier RPG Makers with RMVX. That's just a theory, what do you guys think?

 

Or perhaps RMVX has extra 'newbie' features but can also go as advanced as RMXP, so enterbrain was trying to accompany 'everyone'. I think one weakness with this is the limitation on tilesets.

 

 

 

Discuss.

[CrimsonInferno 35]

I picked XP because it was harder to use and meant that I was actually trying to learn how to use the software. I also picked it for the more detailed graphics, but that's besides the point lol

 

I was thinking that perhaps it caused a negative effect in terms of RPG Maker users. There have been some talented people over the years making games with these engines. I think that RMVX has reduced the pool of talented RPG Makers by detering/killing RMXP and creating lazier RPG Makers with RMVX. That's just a theory, what do you guys think?

I agree with you. A lot of people use it, but it seems to easy and less...um, "full" than XP? If that makes sense...?

 

I have bought both softwares and used them both and felt like RMVX was too simple and it did less than XP. But I'm always told its "better" than XP, but I don't really see how. :sweatdrop:

[FranklinX 37]

I disagree with your opinions. VX is easier. However, Enterbrain added simple features that should be in XP. In VX it has a quick event option to quickly make a chest and door. In XP, you must create the event yourself which will take longer. The mapping in VX is very simple. You don't have many layers to worry about. If you make a mistake when mapping in XP then you most likely have to start all over for that particular object.

 

You also failed to mention that XP does not have some of 2k3's features such as media videos and a side view battle system.

[Kiriashi 117]

I didn't even know RMVX existed when I downloaded RMXP. xD

 

Then I tried RMVX and the chibi characters pissed me off.

[Marked 197]

I disagree with your opinions. VX is easier. However, Enterbrain added simple features that should be in XP. In VX it has a quick event option to quickly make a chest and door. In XP, you must create the event yourself which will take longer. The mapping in VX is very simple. You don't have many layers to worry about. If you make a mistake when mapping in XP then you most likely have to start all over for that particular object.

 

You also failed to mention that XP does not have some of 2k3's features such as media videos and a side view battle system.

Yes I lack the knowledge of RMVX so I needed someone like you to create the discussion :P

In XP, you must create the event yourself which will take longer. The mapping in VX is very simple. You don't have many layers to worry about.

I feel like this backs up my point. Should making games be point and click? Or should some 'design' go into it? Mapping is definitely an art. Good maps in XP is difficult, but you can make some pretty amazing maps.

 

Mapping may be a big attraction in VX because it reduces the necessary time and skill that XP takes. Therefore, thats lazy isnt it? Its a tradeoff between time/skill and quality of maps. Unless you're saying you can make equally good maps in less time?

[FranklinX 37]

Should making a good game be hard? It should be as simple as possible. You can produce the same results in VX with less effort. The RPG Maker shouldn't be a pain to use. XP's mapping system is a pain in my opinion. New features need to be add while older features need to be made more simple.

Edited February 16, 2011 by RATED-RKOFRANKLIN

[Marked 197]

I would say that a good game requires skill, not that it is necessarily hard to make.

 

Can you really produce the same results in terms of mapping? I thought you could create more complex maps in RMXP.

[Bigace360 38]

I use XP because the mapping and events look better on it. Only thing that VX has is a better database, with the user able to do more stuff with there characters and skills. Also it has a easier way of scripting stuff into the database by useing that notebox on the bottom right corner of the database during scripting. Other then the database i find mapping and eventing in VX alot more confusing the XP.

[CrimsonInferno 35]

Can you really produce the same results in terms of mapping? I thought you could create more complex maps in RMXP.

In Mapping through the software, VX cannot replicate the detailed maps RMXP could.

 

There is the option of parallel mapping which means to create a map in a graphics program and then put it into the game as an image and put blank spots over the sections of the image where the character isn't allowed to walk.

 

So the mapping is completely different, and that's the biggest reason I didn't like it. I could get use to the Chibis as they aren't that bad (reminds me of a DS game xD), but the mapping was extremely limited.

[Polraudio 122]

In Mapping through the software, VX cannot replicate the detailed maps RMXP could.

So the mapping is completely different, and that's the biggest reason I didn't like it. I could get use to the Chibis as they aren't that bad (reminds me of a DS game xD), but the mapping was extremely limited.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

Mapping is the key in any game. You could have an awesome story, awesome systems and stuff but if you have bad maps with not very many details it could mess up your whole game. If i play a game for the 1st time and i see bad mapping or lack of detail i stop playing.

 

I even quit playing my own games that i tried to make in VX because the mapping system sucks so much.

 

Sure you can import your own tilesets but your so limited on the tilesets size that you cannot even create a good game(long game). Its like trying to take 1 can of pop and giving a drink to 100 people. You would have to only give some people pop and the rest wait.

 

What im trying to say is that you would have to split your 1 game up into 10-20 games just to use all the tilesets you need.

 

XP ='s Sports car with lots of detail.

VX ='s Rusty car with no detail.

[CrimsonInferno 35]

There is also the SwapTile option for VX, or the new German created map creation script, but as for as the software goes, its too limited and square. It wouldn't be so bad if they made is so you could have multiply tilesets, or bigger ones. >.>

 

But surprisingly, there are a lot of RMVX games out there. So I wouldn't not test a game or read it or anything because its a VX game. I just prefer XP :P

Edited February 16, 2011 by CrimsonInferno

[ProjectTrinity 8]

I hate mapping. It's a weakspot of mine. I wish it were easier, or rather, quicker. Because quite frankly it's the main reason I'm not producing MORE games far more frequently. I can do everything else lightning fast for an RPG Maker.

 

Yet I never plan on getting VX.

 

I ~LIKE~ three layers. I like my control. I like my non-crushy-sprites. And I like looking at pretty maps when I play other games. [irony] People could always show us some okayish-even surprisingly good VX maps, but the XP maps?

 

Well it's nice to know everyone can do clearly two layered maps. ^_^

Edited February 16, 2011 by ProjectTrinity

[Knuckles 1]

VX is a great concept with flawed execution. The concept is to revert back to the original point and click roots of RM2K(3) that appears to be absent in RMXP. Many long term RM users find it rather of a nuisance than anything else, and no I am not getting started with the assorted drawbacks besides the infamous tileset limitations.

 

I believe the best route to overcome the tileset clamp is to use Disk Changer for VX. The annoyance is you have to literally spread your project across multiple projects, as each tileset will have its own dedicated project file. However when playing the game they work seamlessly as if it's only one game.

[Kiriashi 117]

I hate mapping. It's a weakspot of mine. I wish it were easier, or rather, quicker. Because quite frankly it's the main reason I'm not producing MORE games far more frequently. I can do everything else lightning fast for an RPG Maker.

 

Yet I never plan on getting VX.

 

I ~LIKE~ three layers. I like my control. I like my non-crushy-sprites. And I like looking at pretty maps when I play other games. [irony] People could always show us some okayish-even surprisingly good VX maps, but the XP maps?

 

Well it's nice to know everyone can do clearly two layered maps. ^_^

 

Lol. Mapping might be harder in RMXP, but I think that makes RMXP better.

 

 

What's the point of making a game if you barely do any of the work?

[Bigace360 38]

Lol. Mapping might be harder in RMXP, but I think that makes RMXP better.

 

 

What's the point of making a game if you barely do any of the work?

 

But wait whats so hard about XP that people switch to VX again. They look almost the same except for the mapping and somethings in the database. To be honest anyone finding XP hard should probably stop using it as it's very simple system, unless there talking about the scripting part. Then maybe they should learn how to script, because thats really the only hard part other then set up events that VX copies as well. :huh:

[Kiriashi 117]

But wait whats so hard about XP that people switch to VX again. They look almost the same except for the mapping and somethings in the database. To be honest anyone finding XP hard should probably stop using it as it's very simple system, unless there talking about the scripting part. Then maybe they should learn how to script, because thats really the only hard part other then set up events that VX copies as well. :huh:

 

 

 

RMVX makes a lot of changes that make it easier than RMXP, but the main one is the mapping, which IMO in VX sucks.

[Bigace360 38]

RMVX makes a lot of changes that make it easier than RMXP, but the main one is the mapping, which IMO in VX sucks.

 

Are you talking about the database because that's the only thing that i find simplier other then that everything else is the same: Events/scripting. Mapping like we've already said is the setback and that's where enterbrain went wrong.

Edited February 16, 2011 by bigace

[Broken Messiah 20]

YEAH IMMA THROW TWO CENTS IN HERE!!!

 

RMVX is my favorite because it has better graphics, rmxp has cartoony styles while rmvx has a more anime style. I also like how it has a better scripting style. I will also say that rmvx is more newb friendly which sucks because that leads to sucky games which almost always use the rtp/kaduki resources which then make the games repetitive. Also I think that it takes a better mapper to map really good in rmvx, and even harder to make decent games due to the restrictions it have.

 

 

[Chief 30]

Point of view from an artist:

RMVX Graphics are horrible Its the main reason I don't use the engine, even though I make my own graphics. Theyre so offputting. The straight edge, mess of colors, horrible transition tiles. Everything about it makes me want to puke.

 

Now, personally, I find RMXP to be easier, but only because I've been using it ever since it came out. I know the enventing screen like the back of my hand.\

 

Nothing about RMVX would ever make me switch to it. ever.

[Kiriashi 117]

YEAH IMMA THROW TWO CENTS IN HERE!!!

 

RMVX is my favorite because it has better graphics, rmxp has cartoony styles while rmvx has a more anime style. I also like how it has a better scripting style. I will also say that rmvx is more newb friendly which sucks because that leads to sucky games which almost always use the rtp/kaduki resources which then make the games repetitive. Also I think that it takes a better mapper to map really good in rmvx, and even harder to make decent games due to the restrictions it have.

 

 

RMVX does not have better graphics (obviously thats my opinion, but thats my point..) You see, its about what the developed wants their game to look. RMXP doesn't have better graphics in general, nor does, its an opinion thing. Though in my opinion, RMVX graphics looks like a pile of sh*t regurgitated hot-dogs.

 

Though RGSS2 IS better than RMXP. Or at least from what I've heard. But your point about it taking a better mapper to make something good in VX is quite insulting to me. My main RMXP Class is mapping, and I take pride in my work if it ends up good.

 

Its not easy at all for RMXP Mappers to make something pretty compared to RMVX mappers. I'd say Its equal in difficulty, or even greater than in RMVX. RMVX does so much for you when it comes to mapping. In fact, shadows (and thats just one aspect of mapping) are completely automatic.

[Broken Messiah 20]

I didnt say mapping in rmxp wasnt hard, just it requires a higher level of creativity to get pass the layers system in rmvx. It is a lot simpler to map a forest like that in rmxp than in rmvx. In rmvx you have to add paralaxes and tile swapping

 

And another thing is that rmvx is blocky, which looks terrible by default in comparison to rmxp so rmxp have better possibilities for mapping without having to use scripts and 3rd party software to get the same effect.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2011 by Broken Messiah

[Kiriashi 117]

Well yes RMVX does require some creativity because of the lack of tileset diversity. However that should and is bypassed in the majority of RMVX games.

 

Furthermore, RMXP requires so much more creativity; you have to be able to find a use for everything available to you. And mapping isn't robotic in RMXP, so you have to pull all the strings.

 

EDIT:

 

mxp has cartoony styles while rmvx has a more anime style

 

This really irks me. RMXP is sooooooooooooooo not "cartoony" compared to RMVX. That is like the main complaint I hear from people: "RMVX's characters look way too chibi and cartoon like."

 

And and how the heck is RMVX more anime esque if RMXP is cartoony? Anime are cartoons. RMVX characters look like dwarves. How is that anime like?

 

 

(I hope you know that I'm not trying to be offensive whatsoever. Just having a conversation. :3)

[CrimsonInferno 35]

This is what I think about the graphical differences. :)

 

RMXP is more "cartoony" in a sense, while VX takes on more of an anime feel. XP is cartoony because its resources are tall, wide, more detailed. VX is anime like because its small, short, brighter and less detailed. Anime is mostly chibi'd anyways, as opposed to cartoony look of let's say, American cartoons.

 

If that makes sense...Cartoony isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially in the case of XP :P

 

Or at least that's how I see it. xD

Edited February 17, 2011 by CrimsonInferno

[Marked 197]

I think they mean anime as a style. In the context of charactersets I can distinguish between something that looks cartoony and something that looks anime styled. So I don't think that should be interpreted so strictly... or the OP can clarify/

[Broken Messiah 20]

I mean that rmxp battlers look like a 5 yr old drew them while vx battlers look very detailed and hd

[CrimsonInferno 35]

That's true...the battlers look really bad in XP. xD

 

I suppose they each have their pros and cons?

[Leon 55]

I have personally toyed with both engines to a great extent. My breakdown follows:

 

Database:

About even between the two, but XP barely wins this one. More to the default graphics.

WINNER: XP

 

 

Events:

VX Does have the preset events, HOWEVER, you can't make these presets your own, like in XP. give them special attributes, etc. Further, VX's events are limited, comparatively speaking.

WINNER: XP

 

Graphics:

Debatable. Depends on your personal style. But, overall, XP offers more graphics overall than VX.

WINNER: XP

 

Mapping:

No contest...

WINNER: XP

 

Scripting:

Believe it or not... I wish XP had VX's scripting setup and framerate. If it did... my dear lord... I would be in heaven. a 60 frame rate as opposed to 40; PLUS the scripts are so much better organized. I have seriously debating creating my own SDK for XP, set up similar or exactly like VX's.

WINNER: VX

 

Ease of Use:

VX is very easy to use, and fairly organized; whereas XP takes some learning and tinkering. However, as my dear friend says, anything worth while is worth time. For this one, it depends on how detailed you want your game to be, but for category...

WINNER: VX

 

 

In the end, it does depend on what exactly you want in a maker, but overall, my vote goes toward VX being a step ahead, and a step behind XP.

[FranklinX 37]

Graphics are not debatable for either side. Anyone can convert graphics from one system to another. There is nothing about either systems that restricts the graphics. It's an invalid argument.

[Chief 30]

RKO, True as that may be, and do agree, most people stay with the RTP, and I won't play a game with the VX RTP.

[ProjectTrinity 8]

 

Scripting:

Believe it or not... I wish XP had VX's scripting setup and framerate. If it did... my dear lord... I would be in heaven. a 60 frame rate as opposed to 40; PLUS the scripts are so much better organized. I have seriously debating creating my own SDK for XP, set up similar or exactly like VX's.

WINNER: VX

 

Ease of Use:

VX is very easy to use, and fairly organized; whereas XP takes some learning and tinkering. However, as my dear friend says, anything worth while is worth time. For this one, it depends on how detailed you want your game to be, but for category...

WINNER: VX

 

 

In the end, it does depend on what exactly you want in a maker, but overall, my vote goes toward VX being a step ahead, and a step behind XP.

If you made that SDK, I'd follow you ~forever~ *w* (...Forever~)

 

But in all seriousness, I wouldn't mind having a little easier/quicker time with RMXP. I think I got over most of the learning curve except mapping, and even now, with someone with as busy of a schedule as me, I'd love to be able to have easier eventing/mapping without it restricting you like in VX. They do that sometime and I'd buy it right away. 8D