Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsJALEX'S PROFILE
Jalex
979
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
World map or not?
As a player, I'm neutral toward world maps. As a designer, a world map is far more appealing than the thought of building dozens of location maps that are likely going to feel samey, especially as the size of the game world increases. What you call "lazy", I call "economical". Then again, I'm pretty sure there isn't a rule saying your game must take up the entire planet, perhaps you can get by with a small enough setting that you don't need a world map anyway.
Now that I think about it, my favorite approach is to use location maps, but later on provide players a flying airship/creature/whatever that travels via world map, a la Secret of Mana.
And an original game with a world map is lazy, but a fangame isn't?
Now that I think about it, my favorite approach is to use location maps, but later on provide players a flying airship/creature/whatever that travels via world map, a la Secret of Mana.
And an original game with a world map is lazy, but a fangame isn't?
Do RPGs need a story?
Most games need some sort of context, even if it's as simple as "Save the Princess", but I don't think a complex story is necessary for an RPG. I'm probably in the minority here, but I think that whatever story there is should serve to enhance the gameplay rather than the rest of the game serving the story.
On the other hand, if you remove the combat and other "unnecessary" elements, then why are you making a game rather than some sort of non-interactive media? I'd think it would be better to work on improving the combat instead of ditching it altogether, but I'm admittedly biased toward gameplay
author=ShortStar
If the combat is boring, why have it? When you can just have a story.
On the other hand, if you remove the combat and other "unnecessary" elements, then why are you making a game rather than some sort of non-interactive media? I'd think it would be better to work on improving the combat instead of ditching it altogether, but I'm admittedly biased toward gameplay
PepsiOtaku's DynRPG Plugin Emporium!
I tried out the ATB overhaul plugin, and for some reason it doesn't seem to take effect on the first battle (it appears to use the default ATB formula), but works fine for every battle after that. Assuming that this applies only to the first battle in a new game, I could easily work around it, but I still think it's worth mentioning.
[Poll] All Hallows' Event II: Theme Poll
What do you call a "Great Mario Level"?
There aren't really any concrete rules of what makes a "great" level, but the most common mistake I see (especially in SMBX levels) is levels that are really, really long. It's amazing how many designers forget (or ignore) the fact that SMBX limits you to one checkpoint per level.
RPG Maker VX Ace battle system
There's nothing inherently wrong with the default battle system, and it's your game, so go ahead and use it if you want.
If you're concerned about not seeing your characters, you can use a script that shows facesets during battle, which I think is a good compromise (I'd recommend Yanfly's battle script, which adds this and a few other tweaks to the default system)
If you're concerned about not seeing your characters, you can use a script that shows facesets during battle, which I think is a good compromise (I'd recommend Yanfly's battle script, which adds this and a few other tweaks to the default system)
The Screenshot Topic Returns
What if you were to use the same event to cover the transition after shift+click? Perhaps that might work?
What do you like in a turn based battle system?
author=DFalcon
If my enemy is paper, what reasons would I have not to choose scissors? This is probably the most important question you can answer if you go this route.
Simply tie side effects to each element. Ice freezes enemies, Fire reduces defense, Lightning reflects off metal armor back at the player...
What do you like in a turn based battle system?
author=Sion
At what point though, are you adding too much strategy to your battle system?
When I have to consult a strategy guide on how to level up (or something equally mundane).
The key here is to not overwhelm the player with too many choices, especially at the beginning of the game. Start with a relatively simple scenario (say, 2 elements and 2 fields), and then have a slightly more complex one (4 elements, 3 fields), and keep gradually building up from there as the game progresses.
What do you like in a turn based battle system?
author=Ratty524
Considering that RPGs are supposed to be strategic games, I prefer turn-based battles in that they give me some time to think about my next move, similar to playing chess. That being said, work needs to be done with the fights themselves to incorporate strategy. As Alexander pointed out, mashing the attack button repeatedly ruins the strategic element and makes for a boring game.
I don't think that it ruins strategy so much as it is... just not strategic. That said, mashing Attack can theoretically work in, say, an action game, and I don't think the Attack command is necessarily bad in itself. You could have, for example, different weapon types (such as bows being effective against flying enemies) or the ability to buff up your attack (and debuff your opponents' attack).
Games - Tester
Games - Other
