WHY IS RPG MAKER STUCK IN THE 20TH CENTURY, GRAPHICS-WISE?

It was an isometric program. It has a really ugly RTP. You can find it/download it if you please.

For RPG Maker, I would have no problems if the sprites were 2D, but the tilesets were in 3D, like in DQ 4 and 5 DS. It would be harder to make your own tilesets, but at least you would be able to make your own graphics.

author=Natook link=topic=3974.msg80583#msg80583 date=1245009161
This really isn't hard to figure out.

If you want 2D, stay right here.

If you want 3D, download something else.

Problem solved.

The problem with this statement is that it implies this community only welcomes/caters to people who used RPG Maker/other 2D makers, which is blatantly false.

If you want 2D, stay right here.

This statement implies that 'stay right here' meant stay here, in regards to the community.

I wouldn't want anyone feeling turned away.

As for 3D gaem programs. I heard some programs like DarkBASIC are pretty good. You do have to know how to code, but I think if you're serious about making 3D games in the first place, you might as well learn actual programming.

I don't know if being 3D is really my issue with RTS games in the past few years. I get what you're saying though, I think particularly around the PS/N64 era many games were forced into 3D when they really didn't need to be and really shouldn't have been (Castlevania just works better as a 2D side-view game). I think the fail with RTS games lately is on a more fundamental level than 2D/3D though. I mean most that I've played even if they were 2D would still be pretty mediocre titles. Hopefully StarCraft 2 breaks the trend.

Also 3D at those DS levels and things isn't very hard or time consuming at all - those are really really low poly. Cloud you could make in around 10-20 minutes even with textures, and bumping up the texture res and reworking the popeye arms you'd have the DS "style." Blender is completely free and in many ways rivals the expensive apps (UV Unwrapping most notably) - so anyone has access to it too. However...

Artists determine good graphics not technology. Good artists can make amazing things out of just about anything (seen the guy who paints with ketchup and french fries?). Most RM games look pretty bad graphically, I can't say with a straight face that it's because the technology is holding them back either. Graphics just aren't everyone's strength is all. Jumping to 3D wouldn't change that.

author=Shinan link=topic=3974.msg80853#msg80853 date=1245093513

author=kentona link=topic=3974.msg80726#msg80726 date=1245078393
3D RTSs are less fun than 2D ones, as they are harder to play (and NOT because the AI is better - they are just unwieldly).

Except for TOTAL WAR that just wouldn't work in 2d.

Well it could considering Shogun had 2d sprites in a 3d environment.


Now Homeworld on the other hand...

How the engine was laid out is a 3-D plane was imposed on all the pre-rendered backgrounds, so that you could move the animated character models around and give the illusion of depth to a flat background image. If you played the PC version, in high-res you can always see where buttons and switches are, because they are usually models, which stand out compared to the low-resolution backgrounds.
The battles were entirely 3-D though, and for its time, the effects were very well done.

author=Blitzen link=topic=3974.msg80932#msg80932 date=1245160917
The battles were entirely 3-D though, and for its time, the effects were very well done.

So was the world map!

Considering the importance of higher ground in the Total War series it's still something that 2d has difficulties with.

Hm yes, but I still feel Homeworld is a better example. 8)

The main reason rpg maker is still 2d is because 1. japs like 2d graphics and 2. because imagine how much a 3d game maker will cost if the normal 2d maker is 60 bucks...