ZACHARY_BRAUN'S PROFILE

Unfortunately, there is no built-in palette animation, but it's reasonable to do if you're emulating an old-enough system that has few colors. It's a bit of work, though.

In one of the RGSS makers, you have to make each sprite a portion of the sprite that has its own color. This is easy with GameBoy or NES sprites (3 colors, plus that invisible background color which doesn't count). Then, you give them the same dimensions and put them all in the same place, so the sprite is really a bunch of separate sprites, each with their own color. Then, you give the sprite its own homemade palette data and just cycle those sprites' colors according to the palette data. (Or, you can cycle the palette data itself and just update each part's respective color.)

In the 320x240 makers, it's more difficult, because there's no .color attribute. You have to jump through more event command hoops. But I think it's still possible. Using the "Color" property in the Move Picture settings is awkward, though. And you have to keep track of which color settings you're using.

author=LockeZ
..also nobody will ever find or play what you make..

You act like this isn't the norm for everybody.

You either don't want him to answer your PM, or it's an R-rated PM...

author=Roden
I'm not entirely certain why people want Square to return to 2D pixel rpgs, since that would reduce the space that pretty much everyone on this site and a lot of indie devs outside of it occupy.

Right now, "looks like an RPG Maker game" is used as an insult among people who are looking for video games to play or buy. If Square were to start developing them again, they might be able to turn that into less of a burden.

We know what goes into developing those kinds of games. It's gotta be easier and less expensive than doing all of the high-resolution stuff and 3D stuff. This would just allow them to focus on the other things that make games interesting.

Technology marches ever onward and developers rush in to fill the gap and make money... as well as justify the purchase of said technology. (I believe that console manufacturers would commission or give a grant for games from studios for the specific console that they would be developing, so that they could sell their products... the consoles themselves.)

But this is a vicious cycle.

It reminds me of art... the way that, in the past, before we had the camera, painters were trained to paint with extreme realism and romanticism. But along the way, as more and more art was developed, and cameras were able to easily capture what artists did before, artists were now free to follow something else that didn't have to do with the fidelity of a subject: whimsy. You got impressionism and modern art, abstract art, new ways of presenting subjects and thinking.

As long as companies keep trying to sell consoles and the games that invigorate them on amazing graphics, we're still living in that era before the camera.

You shall feel the wrath of increased energy savings.