DARIA'S PROFILE
Daria
71
I make games for fun, sometimes.
I also review RPGs on YouTube, sometimes.
I also review RPGs on YouTube, sometimes.
Search
Filter
What are you thinking about? (game development edition)
author=Bluefeathr42author=DariaAnd I remember last year on the RPG Maker reddit someone was complaining about not being able to sell FES games...author=Bluefeathr42Heh, I hear that a lot. I'm starting to think I seriously underestimated the popularity of the system. :P
I'd play it if I had a 3DS!
Derp. I meant overestimated. But yeah that's
Crazy. No one would buy them. It is a shame though there's not a way to port the games to PC tho.
What are you thinking about? (game development edition)
author=Bluefeathr42
I'd play it if I had a 3DS!
Heh, I hear that a lot. I'm starting to think I seriously underestimated the popularity of the system. :P
What are you thinking about? (game development edition)
Currently building player customized housing as an option in my FES game because apparently I like self imposed challenges that result in a product virtually no one will ever experience. :P
Also, I'd argue (weakly) that there are few truly terrible ideas. Just terrible implementation. But the conclusion I have to that is the same as LockeZ, "don't be paralyzed, just try to be better."
Also, I'd argue (weakly) that there are few truly terrible ideas. Just terrible implementation. But the conclusion I have to that is the same as LockeZ, "don't be paralyzed, just try to be better."
Game denied. My mapping needs "some pretty serious help." That's less than helpful...
author=bulmabriefs144author=LockeZ(RANT)
Realism is a useful tool for bringing the world alive, which bulma apparently thinks is actually a bad thing to do, based on that horrible point #2 about removing details. Conservation of detail should never be a goal in my opinion. It's a common time-saving method, and one that players have been trained to accept. But it doesn't improve your game, it takes away from it. Your maps will look better if they look more like what they're representing - the player will see them and think "these are the ruins of an ancient temple, people probably worshipped here 600 years ago" instead of "this is a stone room with monsters, I should kill them to get to the boss."
No, you shouldn't remove the details (I often do, but that's because I believe in minimalism). I'm saying, you should take responsibility for every detail you put in. If you have a graveyard, a library, or a kitchen, every grave should have an inscription, every book on the shelf should at least have a crappy poem about unicorns (the crappier, the better when it comes to unicorns), and every cabinet should have knives or ingredients and tell about them. Yes, there are pro games that don't, but you aren't a pro. You don't have the luxury of good graphics, even if you don't use the RTP, so you have to make the game a meaningful representation of what you want the game to say. Unless you want to go up to every flower in a bed ("this flower hasn't been well-watered" or "what a beautiful flower" or "This flower is a (Genus species)") inside a shop, it might be worth considering that while quite a few shops do grow flowers to appeal to customers, there are some shops that are dusty and bare (they sell insurance?) except for the items on display. Within the limits of sanity, you aren't expected to make every object count, but being a slacker and having a ton or pretty but non-functional objects is lame. If the ruins above, the character should be able to search the rubble, or notice whether the disrepair is ancient or recent.
(/RANT)
Condition_icons provided as an example appears to be able to display more than one at once, at least from the picture I've seen. But I can't get it to work that way, so I dunno (my status effect are all different priorities).
Eh. Those background details should only have text associated with them if it's interesting. Otherwise no. Anything that bores your players needs to be removed, swiftly. No one cares if the flower hasn't been watered. If the graphics show that obviously the flowerbed is brown and withered then everyone gets the point instantly. However, if you wanted to write something like "You could have sworn you heard the desperate cry of a soul in anguish, but upon closer inspection you find that it really is just a dead flower." Then go ahead, it's weird and interesting.
I do like things with obvious inscriptions, like tombstones and books, to have something to say. But make sure you spend some time making them worth reading.
choosing a good-looking rpg engine
I have to say I love that extra layer for mapping in XP. But if I did another game I would probably switch to parallax maps anyway.
Pew? Pyuu? Peuw?
Game denied. My mapping needs "some pretty serious help." That's less than helpful...
I didn't see the screenshots, the link is dead. So I watched the video. Also Lockez has a good point. Because your maps are so expansive they are going to look less interesting in singular screenshots than in a moving video.
Game denied. My mapping needs "some pretty serious help." That's less than helpful...
Eh. Your mapping was very sparse and blocky. But it's not the worst I've ever seen. You should seek some advice in the screenshot thread but it seems harsh to deny you a game page over.
You can still have an area that feels vacant and desolate but still be visually interesting.
You can still have an area that feels vacant and desolate but still be visually interesting.













