ISRIERI'S PROFILE

author=halibabica
Soli’s plan, as outlined above, is a decent one the only way. I don’t agree with it 100%, but it could theoretically will beyond any doubt result in a well thought-out Mario game.

I'm afraid you're missing the point there hali. All 3 games had their individual flaws as you noted but the one big overreaching problem that will have resulted in each game sucking no matter what was exactly what Solitayre said: There's no sense of progression. This shit is absolutely crucial for a Mario game, and each time we've blown that. The RMN3 hub wasn't bad because it was cramped but because it didn't feel like you were going anywhere: there wasn't any change there wasn't anything fresh or exciting. RANDOMNESS IS NOT HOW FIX.

Let me reiterate that I initially supported Kentona on the series stance because I did indeed view RMN Bros not as a game, but as a gallery of levels to be judged on their own merit. And so that's how I wanted people to look at it. But I also said in my LP that no one liked the game anyway because they can't look at it as such when it's presented in such a format. And if that's the case the whole approach we've been previously taking just needed to out the window.

The thing about your plan is that what you're proposing is alright if you're doing a level contest, or a level compilation like All-Stars. It's not what you'd call a real game, and so players will judge each level on their own merit. That ain't happenin' here: we're setting out to make a GAME this time. Fixing the bad level design alone does not a good game make. Even if we have all the best levels in the world, if the game sucks no one's going to like it anyway. Even the very first Mario Bros game was as popular as it was because it did something previous games didn't do: it felt cohesive, it felt like a world, instead of a bunch of pixilated hoo-hah dancing on the screen.

You don't necessarily need to have worlds, or a world map. But you absolutely absolutely need to do what the worlds are there for in the first place: to act as a difficulty curve and emulate the feeling that you're going someplace. I say the best thing to do is to have preset difficulties or areas first. Like remember how Mario 64 had the different areas of the castle where the levels where? And those sort of served as the worlds? We need something like that with this art-gallery idea. Limit certain areas until other areas are completed, and then we have those "worlds" as the slots the devs can allocate their level difficulty with. Once again, I don't think this inhibits them, its actually much better for the developers to have a general idea of what our difficulty curve will be like: It helps them make better levels as a result.

We judges do indeed know what we're doing. That's why I'm on Solitayre's side here. Because if we do it your way we'll basically end up doing it Soli's way in the end but with more work on our part. It's stupid and dumb.

Next, having themed worlds or any sort of guidelines restricts people’s creativity

This will not happen. I guarn-damn-tee you. Just look at Talking Time. Limitations don't stifle creativity, they inspire it. Your worries are needless.

If you make an in-game reason for why things are the way they are, then it ceases to be a problem almost entirely. If you want a commercial example of this, look no further than the Super Mario Galaxy series.]

1) In that game you have to do things in order still. There may not be world themes, but they're still "worlds." Same with Mario 64. There's still a sense of progression.
2) That's 3D. This is 2D. That is significant. It's like how Red Coin hunts work in 3D but you'd never ever do in 2D.

You should've just said "Do what Dragon Warrior did."

author=Solitayre
Make this happen.

I would, but I have no idea how.

ATTACK MAGIC
PARRY >FLEE

author=Craze
It is not a very serious graphic set and should probably not be used for serious games

This should be hung this up on the main page's List of RPGmaker Do's and Don'ts because I feel it needs to be common knowledge.

I have no problems with RTP. In fact, because I am a 90s kid who fears new things, I sometimes prefer it to games that have fancier graphics and custom stuff. The game doesn't have to have those things as long as actual meat and potatoes is good enough. That's why I loved Dead Moon Rising, and Earthbound. They didn't have super-awesome graphics but the dialogue and gameplay was where it was at.