MY FRIENDS THOUGHTS ON OLD MAKERS VS NEW ONES.

What makes a game good? The technology that backs it? The complexity of the game, or it's simplicity? Is a game with more crap shoved up it's ass (ie features and bonus content) better than a game with only a few? Are difficult games better than ones that are easy enough for my little cousins or nephews to play them?

We might as well say that pizza is better than cupcakes, or vodka is better than brandy. What makes a game "good" depends on the tastes of the player. How good a game is also depends on this factor. Of course, there are games that are just plain terrible, sure. If I see one more bad Mario Party clone based on whatever terrible kid's movie is all the rage right now, I swear I will murder everyone on this godforsaken planet.

Bad game dev's will dev bad games. Good game dev's will (mostly) dev decent games. Of course, they can't all be gems, either. The Megaman games were awesome, but Capcom just kept churning out game after game. It's pretty safe to say that if you played any NES Megaman after the first, you've played ALL NES Megaman games. However, were they bad games? Not unless you personally didn't like any of them. Minor changes were made throughout the series, but for the most part, they remained the same. Why? That's because the gameplay just worked. Capcom has an "if it's not broken, don't fix it" attitude, for better or worse.

What I'm saying is that if the individual engines we use to make our games suit our needs, than none are truly better than that (except for SimRPG Maker 95, which was terrible as BALLS). I've played some awesome games made with the RPG Maker 2000-2003, but I've also played games made with the OHR back when the OHRRPGCE still ran on DOS that wiped the floor with all other games. Game developers must choose the right tools for the job. Bakers don't knead dough with a jackhammer, and neither should we. All that matters is that everything we put into our games "works". This goes for gameplay mechanics, art, sound, story, everything. Games suffer from clunky controls and physics, and to a lesser extent (moreso if it conflicts with the game's overall presentation) music and sound effects. It's up to us as developers to use these tools to bring our imaginary worlds to life in a way that is both believable and accessible.

Now that I'm done repeating a lot of what everyone else said, I'm going to go get drunk on rum, because that's what I personally like.

imitation can lead to innovation, too!

Also, pizza is better than cupcakes and vodka is better than brandy. /derail.

But, slightly on topic, a maker doesn't suddenly get worse (objectively/quantitatively) if something newer comes out. That maker is the same as it was the day before and the day after the new maker gets released.

...I wish we could all be transcendent beings like PentagonBuddy...

can you please explain the difference in user-friendliness? like i have always thought that all the makers were equal in that regard... except I feel like Ace is the most intuitive with its overhauling of "traits".

i mean, eventing is pretty much the exact same in every single maker from 2k-Ace, and the database is virtually the same aside from flip-flopping of where you define stats (actors vs. classes), so... I have never understood this argument.

Nostalgia is blinding a lot of people here.

who are you even referring to? all of RMN?

author=UPRC
I don't think that an RPG Maker itself determines how great a game is. What matters is how competent and skillful the user is.

The older makers are definitely more user friendly and I'll give them immense credit for that. I'll recommend RPG Maker 2000/2003 over the newer engines to a first timer nine times out of ten strictly because they're easier to pick up and learn without having to have much prior knowledge.

Anyone who has fiddled around in any RPG Maker for more than a year or so should really be using XP or VX Ace by now though. Once you have the experience and general knowledge of how the programs work, it's time to advance to one that allows you to accomplish greater feats.

2003 is not easier to learn then VX. Maybe you just used it too many times.

Limitations=/= easier for newer people.

author=LegendaryCreator
2003 is not easier to learn then VX. Maybe you just used it too many times.

Limitations=/= easier for newer people.

Depends on whether you count copying and pasting scripts as "learning how to use scripts". It takes more work to learn to do something non-default, on your own (no pasting shit), in VX than it does in 2k3.

author=LegendaryCreator
Nostalgia is blinding a lot of people here.

Aloof and cryptic comments are not conducive to discussion.
If you have a point to make and grounds to support it, say so. Leave the derisive criticism back at Gamefaqs or wherever it is you developed your online social habits.

I have a strange feeling that you're not going to be around much longer.

author=LegendaryCreator

author=Dyhalto
I have a strange feeling that you're not going to be around much longer.

Sorry you were not able to understand what I was trying to point out and decided to use random assumptions instead.

A fair assumption, as you seem to be quickly heading to Ban City for trolling and flame-baiting.