Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WORLD EASE OF USE: INTERACTIVITY AND YOU
Posts
Craze
View playlists
CloseRPGCrazeTells you plenty about the site, doesn't it? Keep it up and you might surpass calunio.
I wonder this sometimes myself. I don't see my projects as having a NEED to punch the status quo, but I also have no fear in doing so (and *gasp*, I have one of the most-downloaded games on the site, how does it work).
This. I. Just.
Quoting for the sake of remembering to show Karsuman later.
***
Fallen-Griever
"<VXPuser> any game sucks unless at least three scripts are used in each frame of the game"
"defeating the purpose of the system beyond the VXP idea of ALL THE SCRIPTS!!!"
Craze
The observation is based on the 2k3 Show Picture addiction. The VXP addiction is Tankentai and HUDs. I'm an equal-opportunity shit-hater.
Nice try, but that attack was ineffective Grievasaur.
***
LockeZDarkenIf making indie games is just a way to spend time to you, then that's great for you I guess.
it's weird that people think making something different or personal sacrifices quality or even thinks ultra professional quality even matters when this is what most people call a "hobby"
For me, it's what drives my life.
Yeah, this is by no means a hobby to me. For those who it is, great. They're usually not who I'm targeting with my posts, although they're certainly welcome to chime in.
I also think that a one-man team is not going to create ULTRA PROFESSIONAL QUALITY in a reasonable timeframe (Cave Story's five years was not a reasonable timeframe). However, working toward quality and polish is, to me, essential.
[quote author=Darken][quote author=Max McGee][quote]too many of you rely on this supposed LOGICAL DESIGN when it's all just square enix bullshit. if i wanted a super quality game i would probably stop digging through RM games in general.[/quote]
There really are actually good RPG Maker games.[/quote]
idk dude, to me the best RM games are pretty average story/gameplay/graphics/whatever wise but there are a lot of cool things in them that no big name developer would dare to do. like uh there's a certain charm to [url=http://rpgmaker.net/games/2502/]Aptos Adventures[/url] where it's obvious that it was made by a bunch of juvenile teenagers and lacks any sort of polish but there are a lot of entertaining stupid moments in it that could only happen in an amateur game.
The same could be said for TTHW, ABL, Love and War, Leo and Leah, Space Funeral etc. i guess my point is that you can't really expect ONE GUY to make the perfect game in facking RPG Maker. Might as well do something interesting, rather than molding the ultimate DQ3 clone lol. The original topic is kind of dumb since I don't really care about whether or not someone implements a "enter key" system or w/e but I guess since "sticking out" was brought up i felt i needed to lay it down on why it's important, it has nothing to do with DIFFERENT VS QUALITY but rather how being different can be the strength behind the quality of amateur games. startling concept I KNOW.[/quote]
Bro I was really just saying there are good RPG Maker games. Some of them [url=http://rpgmaker.net/games/3410/]are[/url] [url=http://rpgmaker.net/games/3554/]quality[/url], some of them [url=http://rpgmaker.net/games/761/]are[/url] [url=http://rpgmaker.net/games/3427/]unique[/url], some of them are [url=[url=http://rpgmaker.net/games/789/]both[/url].
I am not actually looking to get involved in this debate, I think it's silly; anyone who puts "different" and "quality" on opposite ends of a continuum or phrases them as mutually exclusive objectives is doin' it wrong, IMHO.
(Although, I mean obviously out of the limitations of time, energy, and resources inherent in the one-man design process, I have consistently prioritized my games being unique over them being perfectly polished. This wasn't a conscious decision made at project start; it was a bunch of little decisions made over the course of developing the game. There are times I have actively tried to do the exact opposite (Wanderer, Journeyman, Mage Duel: Extreme) but all of those times were times when my initial concept was pretty weird to begin with.)
DBAce9Aura
52
I had some idea on how to make it clear what objects can be looked at/taken/etc., but since it would require some serious eventing in regards to any RPG Maker program (2k3 and onward), but I'll keep it to myself.
Less is always better. If there's any way to eliminate clutter, do it. Your game should *theoretically* teach the player everything he needs to know without actually telling him anything.
but slash this is an RPG there's no way to not have text
NO SHIT but you should limit it whenever possible. Instead of putting a big 'ol obnoxious ! over your head when standing next to a chest, you should imply that, hey it's a chest you should open it.
If you have a character walk up to a dresser in the first 5 minutes of the game and get you something, the player will immediately think OH MAN I CAN OPEN DRESSERS. If you have a 2-frame dresser open/close state and a sound effect, even the most obtuse player will get it, and bam, you've heavily implied that they should search ALL dressers from now on. Earthbound gave you present boxes, but everyone who's played it knows to search through the trash cans, pick up junk, whatever.
If something's really, unbelievably important, give it a sparkle. But don't make your players feel like idiots by telling them what to do. Use some subtlety.
EDIT: I find it extremely appropriate that someone posted the Sequilitis pic here, because that video's topic is pretty much exactly what we're talking about here - teaching the player in smart, subtle ways instead of an obtuse and overbearing way.
but slash this is an RPG there's no way to not have text
NO SHIT but you should limit it whenever possible. Instead of putting a big 'ol obnoxious ! over your head when standing next to a chest, you should imply that, hey it's a chest you should open it.
If you have a character walk up to a dresser in the first 5 minutes of the game and get you something, the player will immediately think OH MAN I CAN OPEN DRESSERS. If you have a 2-frame dresser open/close state and a sound effect, even the most obtuse player will get it, and bam, you've heavily implied that they should search ALL dressers from now on. Earthbound gave you present boxes, but everyone who's played it knows to search through the trash cans, pick up junk, whatever.
If something's really, unbelievably important, give it a sparkle. But don't make your players feel like idiots by telling them what to do. Use some subtlety.
EDIT: I find it extremely appropriate that someone posted the Sequilitis pic here, because that video's topic is pretty much exactly what we're talking about here - teaching the player in smart, subtle ways instead of an obtuse and overbearing way.
TheNecromancer
3160
author=DBAce9Aura
I had some idea on how to make it clear what objects can be looked at/taken/etc., but since it would require some serious eventing in regards to any RPG Maker program (2k3 and onward), but I'll keep it to myself.
haha This post makes me laugh. So you have it; the answer to all our problems buuut you're not gonna share.
Why did you even post this??
DBAce9Aura
52
@Link_2112 Okay, fine. I'll spill the beans. Basically it would involve using the mouse cursor and having it shaped like a magnifying glass, which would tell you some flavor text about it and whether or not you can interact with it in some way. Basically like in one of those point and click adventure games.
To some degree, it does resemble the ! over your head when there's something you can interact with, only it's not so hand-holdy.
To some degree, it does resemble the ! over your head when there's something you can interact with, only it's not so hand-holdy.
author=DBAce9Aura
@Link_2112 Okay, fine. I'll spill the beans. Basically it would involve using the mouse cursor and having it shaped like a magnifying glass, which would tell you some flavor text about it and whether or not you can interact with it in some way. Basically like in one of those point and click adventure games.
To some degree, it does resemble the ! over your head when there's something you can interact with, only it's not so hand-holdy.
You were awfully protective of what isn't an original idea.
DBAce9Aura: "Rahahaha, I'll never tell anyone my idea, I will hold my precious all to myself. Precious."
TheNecromancer
3160
author=DBAce9Aura
To some degree, it does resemble the ! over your head when there's something you can interact with, only it's not so hand-holdy.
Having a ! over your head when you are in front of an interactive object isn't hand holdy either. If there was an ! over the object, yes, but you still have to walk up to the object to investigate. With your method you use the mouse to "walk" up to each object. It still involves checking each thing.
Same with the method that teaches the player that drawers can be checked. Sometimes a drawer will have nothing in it, but you are going to check it anyways. With a ! at least when you stand in front of a drawer you know there is something in there. If there is no ! you can save that precious second and not click accept to check it.
What bothers me with this is it ruins the immersion : you imagine yourself in an unknown house looking for something to grab, you're not going to know exactly where anything worthwhile is...
Cozzer
0
author=chana
What bothers me with this is it ruins the immersion : you imagine yourself in an unknown house looking for something to grab, you're not going to know exactly where anything worthwhile is...
But in RPGs usually you can interact with things the character, not the player, finds "worthwhile".
I'd say it ruins the immersion more the fact that I have to search every tile of a room for something my character would istantly see.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=slashphoenix
I find it extremely appropriate that someone posted the Sequilitis pic here, because that video's topic is pretty much exactly what we're talking about here - teaching the player in smart, subtle ways instead of an obtuse and overbearing way.
Yeah, in fact, I'm just going to link the video to you guys.
The entire video is worth watching, but fast forward to around 6:30 for the part that's relevant to this topic: how Mega Man X explains everything you need to know about the game by the end of the intro stage, without saying a single word.
Good video ^ although I'd say just watch the whole thing because the first few minutes give some funny examples of games that do the exact opposite of well-designed teaching through gameplay - crazy amounts of directions, tutorials, etc.
Cozzer) :"I'd say it ruins the immersion more the fact that I have to search every tile of a room for something my character would istantly see."
?, how could your character instantly see what's in a drawer, or know before hand that there is something in that drawer, your character is supposed to be the image (at least in that field) of a normal human being??
?, how could your character instantly see what's in a drawer, or know before hand that there is something in that drawer, your character is supposed to be the image (at least in that field) of a normal human being??
author=Cozzer
I'd say it ruins the immersion more the fact that I have to search every tile of a room for something my character would istantly see.
Why would a player ever have to search every tile of a room unless the designer actually put items in invisible places for no reason? You can imply an item is there without having to put a generic sparkle. I mean, there's a damn contact lens in the desert of Earthbound and they didn't put a huge sparkle there.
I remember DQ3 having no visual clues for plot-necessary items, but at least characters hinted to their existence. Except for the Tiny Medals, which were meant to be hidden and were for collecting freaks and people with a player's guide.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I like how you say that something would never be done and therefore shouldn't really be taken seriously as a possible option, and then in the same breath tell us about an extremely popular and well known game that does exactly that thing.
Sparkly in my game ruins the immersion, but having enemies pop up out of nowhere and having them wait for you to input your command totally doesn't. Nor does shrugging off meteors. Nor does seeing how much time you have left to escape the dungeon on the top left.
Blocked by a small tree log in the way "Oh I guess I can't go that way"
Sparklie in a cabinet "My immersion is ruineddd"
Blocked by a small tree log in the way "Oh I guess I can't go that way"
Sparklie in a cabinet "My immersion is ruineddd"
