The RPG Maker Resource Kit

Other Game Creation => Game Creation General Chat => Topic started by: SIlverblaize on April 03, 2006, 02:44:15 PM

Title: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: SIlverblaize on April 03, 2006, 02:44:15 PM

Hi everyone, although I have very very little experience with RPG Maker XP, I do have somewhat more experience with RPG Maker 2003. I dont know if theres much of a difference between them though.

My friend and I have worked toghether on making short games on RPG Maker 2003 when we were new to it. Later on I started to try on making a little more advanced game, but I eventually gave up on it. Now I am thinking on starting over with a brand new idea and want to actually finish it this time. However, Im not sure wether to use RPG Maker 2003 again, or maybe try it on RPG Maker XP. I never used a script before, I dont even know exactly what it even is, are scripts only for RPG Maker XP?

I used RPG Maker XP a little bit at a friend's house once and I noticed that in RPG Maker XP I couldnt use battle char sprites. It only showed a picture of the character at the bottom of the screen. I actually prefer to use battle sprites like it allowed me to do so in RPG Maker 2003.
Does RPG Maker XP let you do that or not?

I also found that the tilesets i used in RPG Maker 2003 were much larger than those pre made ones in RPG Maker XP. The pre made ones in RPG Maker XP seemed much smaller and had less stuff to put on.

So yeah, those are my only 2 problems with RPG Maker XP that I know of so far. Thats why I prefer RPG Maker 2003.
But if there are ways to get around it that I never realized, can anyone tell me?

I also read that in RPG Maker XP you need more "scripting" whatever that means, and something having to do with RUBY??? What in the world is this? Can anyone tell me where I can look and find some kind of tutorial that teaches me a little more about scripting and coding? Because Im not entirely sure what this is.

I heard RPG Maker 2003 was good for beginners and RPG Maker XP was for the more advanced. And I heard others say the complete opposite vice versa. Well, Im not a complete noob, but im not a pro either. I do have quite a good amount of experience with rm2k3, but not with rmxp.

If I end up finding that RPG Maker XP is actually better than RPG Maker 2003 and you change my opinion, then i might want to get it, but i dont know where.

~Thanks  :^^:

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Blizzard on April 03, 2006, 02:58:06 PM

Quote from: SIlverblaize

are scripts only for RPG Maker XP?

Yes.

Quote from: SIlverblaize

Does RPG Maker XP let you do that or not?

It can be made with scripts. It is called side-view battle system. Check the script section, when you learned how to add a new script to your game.

Quote from: SIlverblaize

The pre made ones in RPG Maker XP seemed much smaller and had less stuff to put on.

I didn

Title: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Snailer on April 03, 2006, 04:10:59 PM

I think RM 2k3 is better to use but XP has got more options

And i dont like XP's battle system..

Title: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: haloOfTheSun on April 03, 2006, 07:43:02 PM

As far as one being for beginners, and the other for more advanced, this is not true. You can make great games on either one. If you learn events well, you can do a lot of things on 2k3 that at first glance you wouldn't think possible. I personally prefer 2k3; graphics aren't that important to me.

I would say go with the one you're more comfortable with.

Title: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Blizzard on April 03, 2006, 08:08:44 PM

Halo

Title: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Dalton on April 03, 2006, 09:59:03 PM

On ease of use... I think it depends on which one you got used to first.  They're set up differently.  Scripting with XP definately allows more options, but I think 2k3 might just have better eventing.

Title: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Kairo on April 03, 2006, 10:03:50 PM

Quote from: DeathTrooper

On ease of use... I think it depends on which one you got used to first.  They're set up differently.  Scripting with XP definately allows more options, but I think 2k3 might just have better eventing.

Anything that can be scripted, can be done with events. Nearly everything.

Title: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Dalton on April 03, 2006, 10:10:32 PM

Not a 5 choice menu =P

and scripting can do it better most of the time.  What I was saying though is 2k3 probably has beter event options and can do more stuff with them, whereas XP gives you the freedom of RGSS which can do a lot actually.

Title: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: SIlverblaize on April 03, 2006, 11:42:25 PM

Well, since I already have experience with RPG Maker 2003 and with the events, Im gonna stick with that one.

I dont even know much about the rmxp scripting, so I'll leave it at that.

But thanks for your responses, they really helped. =)

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: dragonmagna on April 06, 2006, 12:14:18 AM

Quote from: SIlverblaize on April 03, 2006, 11:42:25 PM

Well, since I already have experience with RPG Maker 2003 and with the events, Im gonna stick with that one.

I dont even know much about the rmxp scripting, so I'll leave it at that.

But thanks for your responses, they really helped. =)

Good choice. I personally prefer 2k3 because RMXP is A LOT BIG HUGE LOT worse than rm2k3.
Now, in rmxp, the graphics are definately better.(noobs use rtp and all people who use rmxp use rtp. noobs suck!)
The charset and tileset length is better.
That is it. The rest of it is just degraded compared to 2k3. I think they expect you to learn tons of scriptong which is why there are so many less options.
2k3 is better in my opinion. RMXP is good, too, just not as good as 2k3.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Bloodybird2k6 on April 06, 2006, 12:23:04 PM

Xp or 2k3...

2k3:
+Final fantasy style Battle mode
+INN

XP:
++ Better graphics
+More menu
-Battling kinda sucks
-Taken out INN menu

 :? both tie!
i just dont know...
Ill go with XP... its (Kinda) an updated version.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Blizzard on April 06, 2006, 12:58:30 PM

XP
- make an inn menu as event
- get a sideview battle system as script

lol
 :mrgreen: Shaft: "Yeah, listen to Blizz!"

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: haloOfTheSun on April 06, 2006, 05:36:08 PM

There are a few other useful features 2k3 had that XP removed as well. Hopefully on Enterbrain's next maker (which is supposedly a 3D one with graphics equal to FF7) they'll be more sensible about it.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Blizzard on April 06, 2006, 08:10:44 PM

Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on April 06, 2006, 05:36:08 PM

3D one with graphics equal to FF7

Lol, no the graphics will be a lot better than FF7. Maybe FF8 or higher.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: loonygamer on April 09, 2006, 06:11:58 PM

if you ask me, id go with rmxp. if you hate the BS for rmxp and you love RM2k3's Sideview system, there are scripts for sideview BS in many websites, including Dubealex's site (http://www.dubealex.com).

*EDIT*
I can't wait to see this "3D RPG Maker." Im pretty decent with 3D Modelling so i can use that skill for 3D RM.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: dwarra on April 09, 2006, 07:41:48 PM

I doubt itd be anything like either ff7,8 or 9 as the maps are pre-rendered images.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: SexualBubblegumX on April 11, 2006, 07:56:02 PM

Go with whats more comfortable.

Also I think I'm the only one here who's like, 'ewwwwwwwwwwww' when it comes to RM3D. Video Games lost something when 3d graphics became standard for them. I'm worried that would happen to the RPGs made on RM.

I have a nagging feeling that the 3d maker is going to ruin everything.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Blizzard on April 11, 2006, 09:42:47 PM

Ever played awful homemade RPGs? Well, now they will have even 3D graphic.. Nothing

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Tsunokiette on April 12, 2006, 08:21:07 PM

http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/

is a much beter source for info on ruby.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: SexualBubblegumX on April 12, 2006, 08:27:31 PM

Well Blizzard. I was talking about the ones that don't suck... Wait I just remebered that's only one in fifty games made on RM.

Yeah it most likely won't change anything.

I'm starting to wonder what those ten 'games' Mental made are like. He mentioned that the comp the games were on died. So he could have made them up.

But if he didn't. I think they would be "The fantastic adventers of Emo Man".

And remember if any one wonders if the games I've done suck, you can always hit ADP...

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Blizzard on April 12, 2006, 08:53:02 PM

If your game sucks, when you release a demo, so what? Just make it better! Don

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: SexualBubblegumX on April 12, 2006, 09:00:44 PM

The SR games are 3-4 hours long. About the length of the demo for your game Blizzard.

So with the SR games, I think demos would of been mildy redundant because the games are so short.

Although at this rate I have no idea how DarkWurld will be. I have maybe 5% of it done. Just enough to give screen shots. And a Plot summary soon.

 :mrgreen: Just a reminder, Darkwurld is Shaft approved!

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Blizzard on April 12, 2006, 09:06:11 PM

Quote from: FuMannChu on April 12, 2006, 09:00:44 PM

:mrgreen: Just a reminder, Darkwurld is Shaft approved!

Yeah! W00t, W00t! =D

S.H.A.F.T.R.O.X.!
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: SexualBubblegumX on April 12, 2006, 09:30:45 PM

^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen: ^:mrgreen: _:mrgreen:

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Taylor on April 13, 2006, 07:13:59 AM

I prefer RPG Maker 2003 because of the better range of functions than 2k and the 16x16 graphics "base" as opposed to 32x32 in XP.
There are many people who arn't good at spriting y'know. The smaller the easier.
Many XP chipsets are either blurry resized rips or custom. And the rtp looks better than most of the customs.
That World Map however is a BIG exception.
...

:mrgreen:

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Anaryu on April 13, 2006, 04:43:48 PM

As have may become apparent, personal opinion has a huge effect toward which one you use. Personally I don't like being limited, so RPMXP is my choice, you can do infinitely more with the scripting than events.

Why? Because the entire system in XP is PURE script. You don't have access to just common functions, you can rewrite ANYTHING. You could write the code to handle 16x16 sprites instead of 32x32 if you wanted, you could WRITE new functions for the event code, you can modify how the system handles damage, healing, you can write in new scenes (like different custom battles like Suikodens party and duel and large scale battles), you could, if you wanted, write the entire game system from scratch.

Of course, if you don't like programming RMXP is more limited unless you have access to pre-made resources by other people, which is what RMXP currently lacks. If more programmers wrote battle systems, or custom Scripts for it, and shared those, you would find that it's much easier to do what you want.

Also, there is efficiency, in 2003 to change the "battle formulas" you had to custom event ALL attacks. In XP you can go in and tweak the code, as an example: During one of my testing systems I changed the combat system to be % based, your weapon would have an attack value of, say, 200, meaning it would do 200 damage. To decide how much of that 200 damage a person could cause, you would take their STR and turn that into a %, ie. 50 STR = 50% of 200 = 100 damage. Same for magic and skills, a Fire spell would cause 120 damage, and with 82 INT you would do 82% of 120 damage. Then I changed it to be based on an exponent equation, so that 30 INT was like 50% and 120 INT was 105% and 200 INT was like 130%, meaning it paid well to keep your stats fairly even, and even maxing stats didn't provide a huge imbalance to the game.

Using that system I made enemies at the start of each battle recieve a "status" effect based on the average level of the party; these statuses reduced their stats by a %. So at level 5, an enemy would have 20% of their stats. In this way you  just create all your enemies to be "end game" and you never have an uneven battle, since their stats will scale as your party scales. Keeps you from having to do all those horrible checks to make sure halfway through your team doesn't get overpowered or doesn't find encounters to be waaay too easy. You can easily mathematically reproduce ANY fight with a cheap calculator and 5 minutes.

I also added "shields" and "barriers" that could be "strengthened" by recasting them on your party members. These shields would wear down as enemies hit them, for example a spell would add 2 layers to your shield, cast it 5 times and you're at a cap of 10 layers to your shield, that would cause a reduction of 100%, and the enemy would "wear" the shield down when they hit it to 9 layers, which would cause the next attack to be 90% or some-such. Certain attacks could reduce shields much faster than others.

This was all done without slowing down combat, and without only 30 lines of changes and 20 lines of addition to the combat script. I didn't have to create dozens of events and long conditional nests, it also didn't cause a huge inefficiency because it was running a very poorly programmed combat system through lots and lots of events, which also required you custom script EACH attack.

Things such as that can be done easily through scripting, and barely at all through eventing. And that's just a low level, basic addition, there are many (many) thinks that eventing can NOT do that scripting can.

Another example? I'm currently working on making a battle system that's Active Time just like Chrono Trigger or FF7, etc, no, this feature wasn't included in RMXP by default, and to make it work I'll have to make threads to watch time and allow input seperate from the actual combat events, but I can program it however I want, OR I could program the whole system to work differently, this is something you basically will find impossible to do with just events, you cannot make 2003 emulate XP perfectly, but you COULD make XP emulate 2003 if you wanted to program it.

You couldn't really custom build a screen of menus like a buy/sell menu for upping the level of skills, like pouring special points earned in combat into making your Fire magic spells more powerful, or your Sword techniques harder to dodge, in 2003. You COULD simulate it, but it would be messy, not on it's own custom interface, and would again depend on an insanely huge custom designed combat system requiring your to Event script EVERY attack.

Steeper learning curve, but once you learn Ruby and how to change even the small things, it's about 500x more powerful than 2003.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: SexualBubblegumX on April 13, 2006, 09:12:30 PM

I concur with Anaryu.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: monster-doog on April 15, 2006, 01:24:54 PM

I like 2k3 better.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: beware on April 16, 2006, 02:21:35 AM

Xp all the way! better graphics, and what would you do without scripting??????
ill admit 2k3 has better battles...whatever...

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: SexualBubblegumX on April 16, 2006, 02:40:12 AM

I use RM XP, but personally I think scripting is mildy over rated. Because if you add a faulty script is messes with your game.

Title: Re: RPG Maker 2003 vs. RPG Maker XP
Post by: Anaryu on April 16, 2006, 05:51:27 AM

If you screw up one conditional in a nest of 50 it screws it up too.  :mrgreen:

2K3 was just like the earlier ones, I hated being limited to either eventing every attack or sticking with their very poor damage scaling forumulas.