MV VS 2003 FOR 16-BIT AESTHETIC

Posts

Pages: first 12 next last
Hey guys, I was wondering if I could get your input on something. If someone were making a game using a 16-bit aesthetic, which would be the better choice to use, MV or 2003? Obviously 2003 is more designed to support larger pixels, but it's fairly easy to triple the size of 16 by 16 tiles and plug them into MV. However, a pixelated font would be much harder to achieve in MV. But MV does come with its own benefits, such as distributing your game to other platforms besides Windows. Which one would you guys use? What are some pros and cons of each version? What has been your experience making 16-bit style games in RPG maker?
Kloe
I lost my arms in a tragic chibi accident
2236
I'd use RM2k3 since MV does lots of annoying anti-aliasing, though it really depends on the gameplay, MV has a wider range of Gameplay stuff possible yet RM2k3 has it's own cool style and battle system.
i think the main problem with any rpgmaker above the 2k3, is that even with doubling the pixel size of sprites and stuff, everything still moves in a resolution of 640x480 pixels. so you can move one pixel just half of its length. and since the engines of all these rpgmakers are made for 640x480 pixels, every movement looks quite odd with the fake lower resolution (which is the problem with so called "retro" games anyway). id suggest rm2k3 for everything really retro looking. you may not have all the sweet programming possibilities with the 2k3, but you still can do a lot of stuff, if you dig deep enough.
Yeah, RM2K3 is much easier if you just want the 16-bit look. It's possible in MV, but it'll take more time and effort to make it work.
Both engines are capable of producing the aesthetic you want, so your choice shouldn't be influenced by aesthetic concerns.

For example, here is a game made in RMVX using RM2K3 RTP for the characters and mapping.
Craze
i bet she's a diva with a potion popping problem
14360
Sated
Both engines are capable of producing the aesthetic you want, so your choice shouldn't be influenced by aesthetic concerns.

For example, here is a game made in RMVX using RM2K3 RTP for the characters and mapping.

MV, absolutely. You can make the game you want instead of a shitty hybrid of SNES FF and Dragon Quest.
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.
6003
The only reason to use RPG Maker 2003 over RPG Maker MV is if FF4 with half of the features removed is the exact game you want to make. Because that's the only game it's designed to make. Doing anything else with it is like hammering a nail into your own hand while using that same hand to hold both the hammer and the nail.

As has already been said, the font is the worst part of making MV look 16-bit, but there are pixel fonts you can use, and plugins to let you use them. Windowskins also require a little effort. Making up for both of these problems, though, MV's fullscreen mode works much better on modern computers, preventing the game from getting distorted, which is extremely important to people with high screen resolutions. Your aesthetic will be lost if the game looks impossibly tiny or weirdly stretched out. It's better to have technical problems that you have to solve than to have technical problems that every player has to solve; RM2K3 has technical problems that the player has to solve.
Craze
i bet she's a diva with a potion popping problem
14360
I'm not sure if it was due to a plugin or english 2k/3, but I actually had very little trouble with betatesting Ara Fell or playing Helen's Mysterious Castle. STILL, it wasn't ideal -- it just wasn't stretched poorly or anything.

Otherwise yes what lockez said
The English RM2K3 does things a lot differently to the unofficial translation; it has more options than simply full-screen and not full-screen.

In terms of just looks? RM2K3.

In terms of actually making a good game? MV. The difference in power and capability between RM2K3 and well...anything that came after it is absolutely massive.
LockeZ
The only reason to use RPG Maker 2003 over RPG Maker MV is if FF4 with half of the features removed is the exact game you want to make. Because that's the only game it's designed to make. Doing anything else with it is like hammering a nail into your own hand while using that same hand to hold both the hammer and the nail.

Or if I want an engine that doesn't absolutely destroy my computer and runs at 6 fps for a good 20 seconds before stabilizing to 40 then going back to 15 fps to show the battle whoosh and slowly return back to 40 then just plain freeze whenever i open the menu

mv's default stuff feels clunky and staggery, its performance is really bad BUT it is definitely the most potent maker so far. So if you know how to program and can get around MV's issues, or have a good PC and don't mind the extreme jagginess present even so, MV is the answer. But 2k/2k3 handles events wayyyyyyyy better than MV can at the moment, so if you can't program but want to event...
(Im not sure which commands these two have over MV, but with an engine that resource intensive making evented systems is... not a good idea.)

That being said I'm absolutely moving to MV once I have enough money to hire a programmer and I start working on a big project. Although by then I could be making the game on Unity instead...

For now 2k3 when I wanna use events and VXA for scripts will have to do!

Now one nice thing MV has for it going (that no other RM had so far) is the Tile Size Changer plugin. with it you could make a 16 bit game using a true resolution and not some fake pseudo-retro thing with 3x upscaled graphics! It is also a lot less resource intensive in theory.

Good luck reprogramming the menus to work on low resolutions tho.
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.
6003
...It's all 2D graphics, a windows 98 computer could handle any of the rpg makers without issue. Stop spreading misinformation, you're causing new people to use the older makers, which is something that they should absolutely never consider.
If there are indeed performance issues with MV, then it is almost certainly does not have anything to do with the rendering of graphics, you're right. The slowdown would come from poorly optimized systems other than that - things that execute the scripts etc.

Also, just because something should be able to run without slow down doesn't mean it does.

But honestly, I would suggest if you have the income for it giving the various engines a try, because honestly some of them don't support things without a ton of modification via scripts and vice versa. Change is good, while sometimes for others the changes are bad. In other words: It's up for you to decide after giving them a try. But do keep others advice in mind.
I'm telling you MV runs like literal shit on my PC. I'm not spreading misinformation, I'm spreading my own experience which is similar to a lot of others'.
I'm even giving numbers.
And this "it's all 2D graphics" is not an argument by any means.

Edit:
In case you need info, I have 2gb RAM and I can easily run a lot of 3D games such as League of Legends that runs flawlessly (on minimum settings), so I definitely don't think my PC is abominable enough for MV's performance to be excusable, given that all other RM engines run flawlessly.
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.
6003
They haven't made computers with 2 GB of ram in over a decade... that's not even enough to run Windows 7 by itself with no programs. Even if you had Windows XP, that's not enough to run the computer with antivirus software as the only program installed on your computer.
And it still manages to run everything just fine with only MV having this morbid performance! Funny, no?
Yeah, I don't think he's spreading misinformation. MV has some problems. My old computer, which was so completely fucked that it literally took multiple minutes to change the volume, could run VX ACE with no issues. But on my new computer, which has a 240gh processor and 8 gigs of RAM (most of which is unoccupied when playtesting, I've checked), the water tiles lag like crazy.
AHEM, reminder that there are free trial versions that you can try out to get a feel for the engines and see which you like better. They do have some limits but otherwise... Yeah~
author=JosephSeraph
And it still manages to run everything just fine with only MV having this morbid performance! Funny, no?


Its because now RMMV is running on webgl and not directly on pc memory. If your video card is really bad then you need to run MV in canvas mode.

MV runs way better than any other RM games for me. But I would highly recommend to try the programs with trial first and see if your pc can handle it.
author=Archeia_Nessiah
author=JosephSeraph
And it still manages to run everything just fine with only MV having this morbid performance! Funny, no?
Its because now RMMV is running on webgl and not directly on pc memory. If your video card is really bad then you need to run MV in canvas mode.

MV runs way better than any other RM games for me. But I would highly recommend to try the programs with trial first and see if your pc can handle it.
If you don't mind me asking, how do you run in canvas mode?
Pages: first 12 next last