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 ListsSLASH'S PROFILE
Close
I make video games that'll make you cry.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Working in teams: Yay or nay?
Out of curiosity, I wonder if potential game makers here should be encouraged to work in teams. Not only do teams have more manpower and speed up a single project, people in teams usually work faster due to team pressure & motivation, and can also solve each other's dilemmas faster. Also, with the higher capabilities of a game engine comes the necessity for more manpower to use those capabilities. Finally, for anyone actually interested in the game industry, you will literally always be on a team, so you might as well start learning team skills now.
The reason I think many people don't work in teams is that they do not want:
-To compromise their vision
-To be relied on
-To have to deal with others
(These are the reasons I wouldn't want to be on a team)
I'm just musing. I think working in teams would increase the number of completed games and the overall quality of games made here due to the fact that you and your teammate can slap each other over the head when the other has an awful idea. However, I admit I would be wary of working on a team and I'm not particularly surprised no one else wants to either.
WHAT A CONUNDRUM
discuss
The reason I think many people don't work in teams is that they do not want:
-To compromise their vision
-To be relied on
-To have to deal with others
(These are the reasons I wouldn't want to be on a team)
I'm just musing. I think working in teams would increase the number of completed games and the overall quality of games made here due to the fact that you and your teammate can slap each other over the head when the other has an awful idea. However, I admit I would be wary of working on a team and I'm not particularly surprised no one else wants to either.
WHAT A CONUNDRUM
discuss
The Great Switch: Why VXP is Better
>.>
I thought that was converted 2k3 at first. I stand corrected. OKAY SO I'M LAZY
EDIT:
Well in that case, people probably don't realize there are resource converters, are too lazy to use them, think it will screw up their game, etc. I agree with you because an hour in VX made me feel like I was celebrating Drinko de Mayo, but I'm throwing out reasons why people are scared of it.
SECOND, WELL THOUGHT OUT EDIT:
...and convincing them not to be scared of these things is the point of this topic. I got distracted by the drama. Right. Carry on then.
I thought that was converted 2k3 at first. I stand corrected. OKAY SO I'M LAZY
EDIT:
Well in that case, people probably don't realize there are resource converters, are too lazy to use them, think it will screw up their game, etc. I agree with you because an hour in VX made me feel like I was celebrating Drinko de Mayo, but I'm throwing out reasons why people are scared of it.
SECOND, WELL THOUGHT OUT EDIT:
...and convincing them not to be scared of these things is the point of this topic. I got distracted by the drama. Right. Carry on then.
The Great Switch: Why VXP is Better
no u
Also if there are sweet-ass custom resources out there I can't find them. It's not that surprising since 2k has almost decade on VX, but w/e.
Also if there are sweet-ass custom resources out there I can't find them. It's not that surprising since 2k has almost decade on VX, but w/e.
The Great Switch: Why VXP is Better
VX is pretty easy to learn after learning 2k3. My guess a lot of the problem with switching comes from people having epics that are half-done in 2k3 after two years and "we're sure as hell not switching now." VX also severely lacks instantly available resources, the RTP is laughable, and the map limit sucks. Besides Mack's VX edits there is almost nothing out there for charsets.
On the plus side, the Melody Battle Engine is ridiculously easy to implement and customize and makes VX that much more fun to play with.
I dunno, I'd like to see some more unique games. After a while, RM2k3 games all start to feel the same. I suppose it'd be easy to say "use Game Maker and make platformers" but this is rpgmaker.net. Still, it'd be kind of badass to see another Barkley: Shut Up and Jam Gaiden, without the awful parts. People like adding systems, but trying to add unique systems to 2k3 is usually like beating your head against a brick wall.
On the plus side, the Melody Battle Engine is ridiculously easy to implement and customize and makes VX that much more fun to play with.
I dunno, I'd like to see some more unique games. After a while, RM2k3 games all start to feel the same. I suppose it'd be easy to say "use Game Maker and make platformers" but this is rpgmaker.net. Still, it'd be kind of badass to see another Barkley: Shut Up and Jam Gaiden, without the awful parts. People like adding systems, but trying to add unique systems to 2k3 is usually like beating your head against a brick wall.
Wanting to make your game difficult.
However, in RPGs there's often no reward for handling the fights better. Giving the characters the right equipment selection and other out of battle adjustment usually gives you advantages, but being clever during the battles is pointless.
This is a problem that needs a solution. But it's not something you can fix with one single solution. You have to solve it for each ability and tactic you add to your game. You have to make it so being smart is either necessary or helpful in each and every case. If you can only solve this problem for some abilities, people won't use the others. If you can't solve it at all, you will end up making a really boring button-masher RPG. I've played a lot of really boring RPGs that had this problem.
This is something I'm having fun with in my mini-RPG. You only have a limited health pool, no healing spells, and few potions. The only way to heal is by sleeping, and the whole game is time-driven events (ala Majora's Mask) so sleeping isn't cost-free. Thus, you have a limited number of battles you can risk fighting, and the better you fight, the less HP you lose and the more battles you can continue fighting. You can go all-out offensively and just try and burn down the enemies before you take damage, or you can play defensively and slowly defeat your enemies while taking only minor damage yourself.
The Tales games always had fun with "Grade", which you would get for every battle based on how long you took, how much you got hit, and the difficulty of the enemy. It was only used for New Game+, which is a little lame but since the games usually have multiple story options there is some replay value. It'd be sweet if games started handing out extra cash or EXP for better fighting - People might be more enticed to spam something besides attack.
Wanting to make your game difficult.
There's a tons of types of "difficulty". Mario challenges you to have good timing and depth perception (while jumping. FPS test you with quick reaction times and accurate movement. RPGs challenge you to use the strategy and prediction. I Wanna Be The Guy challenges you with rage issues. More seriously, the difficulty including random "Too Bad You Lose" traps that are completely unpredictable are different than games that make you think - and it's not just IWBTG that has them.
People enjoy difficulty that makes them think, because people like to feel smart. They like saying, "Aha, Squaresoft, you sneaky little bastard, if I use a Phoenix Down on the zombie boss he dies in one hit." If you have a boss that's challenging because he's complex and requires some mild thought process on the player's part, you have made a boss people will enjoy fighting. If you make a unstoppable boss with a ton of HP that hits your party for half their health every turn, you are a dick, and your players will either hate your game for making them grind, or quit.
On that note - Easy/Normal/Hard modes always struck me as a bit lame for RPGs, as they 99% of the time just involve increasing the stats of enemy monsters, because it's much easier to code. But in an RPG all this means is you have to grind more. A real challenge would be increased AI or at least extra spells that switch up the fights a little bit and makes the player think more.
People enjoy difficulty that makes them think, because people like to feel smart. They like saying, "Aha, Squaresoft, you sneaky little bastard, if I use a Phoenix Down on the zombie boss he dies in one hit." If you have a boss that's challenging because he's complex and requires some mild thought process on the player's part, you have made a boss people will enjoy fighting. If you make a unstoppable boss with a ton of HP that hits your party for half their health every turn, you are a dick, and your players will either hate your game for making them grind, or quit.
On that note - Easy/Normal/Hard modes always struck me as a bit lame for RPGs, as they 99% of the time just involve increasing the stats of enemy monsters, because it's much easier to code. But in an RPG all this means is you have to grind more. A real challenge would be increased AI or at least extra spells that switch up the fights a little bit and makes the player think more.
Inuyasha ~TAMASHI~
This looks extremely well put-together for Inuyasha. 10 years ago it was my favorite show on TV... maybe I'll give it a shot.
Whatchu Workin' On? Tell us!
@Narc - nice menus. The text is a little choppy but you seem to be doing the best with the space you have.
I'm laying down the script and groundwork of the battle system for Reversal (codename-but-really-I-can't-think-of-a-better-one-yet), which is a mini-RPG with a twist that should be the length of one of the LotR movies when it's done.
I've been trying out Yanfly's Battle Melody too - it's surprisingly simple to implement. in VX. I've still got a couple things to tweak though.
I was going to ask about the cruelness of removing a character from the story if he dies in battle, but even while typing the post I think I've decided that's just a little too evil. I may just make him sit out battles for a while but have him come back for the final boss. It's a short game where most party members are optional anyway, but still...
I'm laying down the script and groundwork of the battle system for Reversal (codename-but-really-I-can't-think-of-a-better-one-yet), which is a mini-RPG with a twist that should be the length of one of the LotR movies when it's done.
I've been trying out Yanfly's Battle Melody too - it's surprisingly simple to implement. in VX. I've still got a couple things to tweak though.
I was going to ask about the cruelness of removing a character from the story if he dies in battle, but even while typing the post I think I've decided that's just a little too evil. I may just make him sit out battles for a while but have him come back for the final boss. It's a short game where most party members are optional anyway, but still...
Visions & Voices
Games - Tester
Games - Other
