Page 1 of 2
RPG Maker XP

Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:37 am
by Sling
For some reason, everywhere I go
I can never find games made using rmxp.
Why? Are people afraid of it or something.
The graphics are lot better. The battle sequence
may be shit but you can actually rewrite the
script/code in the script editor. Which is
good. However, you can only have a maximum
of 100 events per map.
I've made a game using rmxp, you can dowload it
here:
http://www.freewebs.com/ventress/dan.htm
It's pretty short and is not very good but you can play it if you
want. rmxp is available from
http://www.phanxgames.com.

Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:29 am
by Flibbo
2k for me, i just like it more.

Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:52 pm
by Gizmo
The reason i dont use XP is because of the layers and the battle sequence (which is what killed RPGM2K3 for me too) so i will go with 2K.

Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:12 pm
by Belthazar
change isn't always bad but i think i like 2k best

Posted:
Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:08 pm
by Lord_Ehrgeiz
My PC is too crappy for XP, so 2k rulezzz.

Posted:
Fri Nov 25, 2005 4:19 am
by Ultimate Halo Sticker

Posted:
Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:30 am
by Forerunner
The Way runs off 2k doesn't it?
That means it wins by principle.

Posted:
Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:31 pm
by Aegis
I don't use any of them anymore, but back when I did, it was 2K all the way. Basically, what killed XP for me was the fact that they took out the layers.

Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:33 am
by Silvercrow
rm2k/3. Rm 2000 and rm 2003 are equal, IMO.
And the reason nobody uses XP is because it sucks.

Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:33 pm
by Lun
What's wrong with RMXP? And the title is "RMXP", when that's not even what the topic is about.
Lun.

Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:01 pm
by EmperorJeramyu
XP seems to me to be one step forward, and two steps back from 2k3. It seems like they recycled lots of stuff RM95 of all things. Like, just walking your character walk around on scree. It looks stale and dim. Yes, the sprites can be a higher resolution, but Rm2k's pixelish look really gave it a kind of personality, and brought it closer to a true SNES console-style RPG. Not to mention MIDIs are forced to have this strange reverb effect that sounds really crappy. I also noticed there isn't a built in face-pic option of any sort. Making everything a higher resolution doesn't necessarily make it better.

Posted:
Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:55 pm
by Escreon
I definately like rm2k the best. Rm2k3 is good if you're going to use completely RTP, but otherwise messing around with battle sprites, face sprites, weapon sprites, magic sprites etc. etc. is just too irritating. RMXP may have scripts, but they're annoying to work with.

Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:15 am
by Poenaensis
Has to be 2k3 for me, more options. The battle system can be converted with some clever coding. 95 is a bit too bad on the graphics front for me, and I'm not that picky. XP just changed too much.

Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:37 am
by Fitz Tayo
Personnaly, I think all are good and bad in there own ways.
Generally I'd use Rm2k as it involves the least effort and involvement on my part.
Rm2k3 is good if you overcome the battle system with some good graphics and nifty additions etc. Naufrager did this.
RMXP is for those who want to go all out, with all the custom systems worked in rather than made with images and huge events. And lets face it, you need to learn some basic code, if you just steal other codes offered up to you, you probably won't get quite what you want or you'll misunderstand and screw it up. Also, what the hell is up with the screen moving, it seems... just... too smooth for some reason. Stale as Jera put it.

Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:30 pm
by AznChipmunk
I prefer 2003, and I make my own battle system, but the default one is okay.