UNITY'S PROFILE
I don't want to wake up because I'm happy here.
Izrand Allure
A JRPG-style WLW romance adventure. Monsters have invaded Izrand! Heroes Vivica and Lynette find love and despair as they seek to save a continent.
A JRPG-style WLW romance adventure. Monsters have invaded Izrand! Heroes Vivica and Lynette find love and despair as they seek to save a continent.
Search
Filter
World map or not?
I personally like making a game without a world map and everything is connected directly. Reminds me of Earthbound and how much fun it was to explore that world.
That said, even though it may be overused, the world map is a tool, and a useful one for making your world seem bigger than it is. If a game is meant to be world-spanning, I'm not sure I'd accuse the designer of being lazy for including a world map, more that its a necessary evil.
While you want your game to feel polished and well designed, I think you can still do that with a world map. You mentioned Chrono Trigger: Now here's a game that actually has you navigate some towns on the world map rather than going into a big city map all the time. You go directly to stores and buildings from the world map in some cases. Yet I wouldn't accuse Chrono Trigger of being lazy, instead they're merely making their world map work for them and putting the time and resources in other areas.
That said, even though it may be overused, the world map is a tool, and a useful one for making your world seem bigger than it is. If a game is meant to be world-spanning, I'm not sure I'd accuse the designer of being lazy for including a world map, more that its a necessary evil.
While you want your game to feel polished and well designed, I think you can still do that with a world map. You mentioned Chrono Trigger: Now here's a game that actually has you navigate some towns on the world map rather than going into a big city map all the time. You go directly to stores and buildings from the world map in some cases. Yet I wouldn't accuse Chrono Trigger of being lazy, instead they're merely making their world map work for them and putting the time and resources in other areas.
So, Another Brand New Mana Game Is Slowly Upon Us
After trying out a couple of them, I generally stay away from microtransaction games, as I'd rather just pay once for a well made game than play a free game where they're going to go all "death of a thousand cuts" trying to make me pay for tons of little things. It can be done well, but it usually isn't. ;_; Oh Mana series, I agree with Ratty, it would have been so much more glorious on the 3DS.
Yes, please, do not make Suikoden: Pay To Win.
author=Liberty
I swear to God, I swear! If Konami does this with Suikoden I might just have a break down. First Breath of Fire, now Secret of Mana.
Don't test me on this Konami. I will go postal.
Yes, please, do not make Suikoden: Pay To Win.
Not even sure if it's all worth it anymore. Might just give up on all of this...
Now that the graphics are not even close to done, it's time to work on the actual game!
Game Chill 2013 winner and runner-up to be announced on Friday, March 7th
An RM Venture
I dropped the ball on this, between real life problems (got sick) and working on my own stuff and Wyrm Warriors. I'm happy to see that so many people have stepped up and provided feedback, though! Is there anyone who has gotten no feedback yet for their game? If so, I'll review it.
All talk, no play
author=thatbennyguy
Good answers, unity. Very down-to-earth.
Thanks. :D
author=thatbennyguy
This brings up another question in my mind, and it's something that is more practical and less theoretical than the other questions: to what point should you say that a piece of art is done? Whether it be an entire game, or a tiny sprite, or a game mechanic. To what degree of near-perfection should you stop and say that it is good enough? Is it relative to the amount of time that a person would spend on it, or the value that the developer/player places in that element?
It's more a feeling in my case. It's trying to look at the element objectively and say "does this work for my game?" It's very gut-based, and thus I have to rely on feedback for when I fail to measure it. I'll think a sprite looks good, and then players will say "the colors look flat" or "the hair doesn't move right." Then I have to gauge if the players' perspective is correct, and then go back and polish the element that was lacking. I have a lot of flaws, so I'm grateful to be in a community where people can pick up on them.
What part of creating a game, or anything else, makes you happy? Is it the process of creating, or the enjoyment of the finished product? If it is a combination of the two, where on the sliding scale are you? And is there a place on the sliding scale where a person would find ultimate happiness from developing? Can you, as a person, choose your place on that scale via your mind?
A lot of the process isn't purely fun, but its all about goalposts. Trying to make a sprite look right is painstaking and annoying. Seeing the sprite move around correctly is the goalpost, and seeing it pulled off makes me happy and recharges my urge to keep going. Making the boss battle is fun but tedious. When the challenge feels just right and the boss and his minions are unleashing attacks the way you want, that's another goalpost that grants happiness for me.
On the bigger scale, there's the big goalposts. I felt extremely accomplished and happy to release a demo, even though there was a lot that was lacking in it (most of which I needed pointed out to me ^^;;) but it felt good because all the little things I did over and over added up to something.
And I guess that "doing what you want to do" is both admirable and sane. Good reply.
Thanks very much! I like these sorts of discussions, even though they are difficult.
All talk, no play
author=thatbennyguy
Do members of the RPG maker community spend too much time discussing development of games, and not enough time developing them?
I at least spend as much time working on games than I do talking about them, personally.
author=thatbennyguy
Do you think that discussing game mechanics with others dilutes the artistic integrity of your game, or do you like the open method of suggestion? If we created graphics and maps just to be like others, wouldn't we all end up with roughly the same game? Where does innovation come in?
I suppose the subject of the echo chamber comes in: if people are constantly making maps and games to fit with what they believe the online community wants, they may in fact end up with similar content. But I still see plenty of innovation and cool ideas made real here, so I'm not sure that's a huge problem right now.
author=thatbennyguy
I am of the understanding that collaboration is good, but if a developer becomes frustrated with their lack of progress in their game, or lack of innovation or general dissatisfaction of the game, what is at fault? Is it simply lack of ability? Will a person who has struggled to achieve an artistic goal, whether it be game making or not, ever achieve their goal? What is the optimal combination of components to spur on growth in this area? Or is it simply beyond one's reach?
I don't think I can answer this. My personal goal is a simple (and probably common) one: Make games that I'd like to play. Aside from that, everything else is trivial. I may never make something that's truly a wondrous piece of art, but I'm content to keep trying.
author=thatbennyguy
An even more frightening question: if we realize that creating the thing that we want to create is beyond our reach - should we even try in the first place? Is the process fun enough to continue? Will "settling for less" be good enough? And is this notion particular to personal preference, or is there an objective statement to be made about the fruits of creativity not appeasing the ambitions of your own mind?
Travio had a good response here. I'm of a similar opinion. If what you want is beyond your reach, create what you can. Some day, if your skills improve, perhaps you can achieve a more perfect version of that vision.
I can't be a perfectionist. The games I make will never be 100% what I want them to be. But I can't keep refining every little detail indefinitely. I have to settle because part of the fuel for my creativity is actually seeing progress. Everyone's got their own limits. And I feel like if I can get the game done, if one or more of those imperfect parts still pokes at me afterwards, I can try to fix them then. If they're too ingrained into the game, I can try to do better in a future game. Everything's a learning experience.
Ultimately, I feel that you have to get joy from the Gam Mak itself. If you're making it for any other reason than making it is either fun or fulfilling in some way, then you can't guarantee your own happiness in regard to making games. And the reason I can keep going on a project is that making it continues to make me happy. If that makes sense.
EDIT: I wrote my post before I saw your latest response.
author=thatbennyguy
So my question is - if the person will theoretically never be able to find the full joy that they are searching for in the creation of anything they pursue - is it worth the journey? Or would their efforts best be spent elsewhere? Can a person ever know if they will never reach their goal? Is the pursuit of an impossible goal admirable or even sane? I know these are tough questions, and for some of them I am being the Devil's Advocate, but I would like to hear people's answers.
I break it up like this: I could either be creating "stuff" or consuming "stuff" that others have made. Either way, time will pass. I will age. My life is limited. I'd rather spend much of my time creating because I feel driven to do so. So the question isn't if its admirable or sane. It's just what I want to do, in my case.














