Page 2 of 2
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:14 amby Blasted_Redoubt
<- new to the forum
I prefer RM2k to the other makers, because I've been using it the longest. RM2k3 is ok, and RMXP is... well, it just doesn't
feel right. I prefer the lower resolution, and as EmperorJeramyu said,
Rm2k's pixelish look really gave it a kind of personality, and brought it closer to a true SNES console-style RPG.
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:33 amby CJ
OMG it's Mr T
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:58 amby Blasted_Redoubt
What can I say? he's one of my idols! Positive values, the A Team... uhh... DC Cab... heh..
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:35 amby KaiBlue11
I like 2003 the best. It takes a butt-load of work to do the battle system but its worth it in my opinion.
Posted:
Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:08 amby Sling
What? Thr battles in Rm2k/3 are easy to do.
It's just a bastard creating your own battle
sprites.
Posted:
Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:54 pmby is
They took out most of the \ message window commands with XP. There's no pauses, I don't think there's any change text speed command. You can't make a game w/o pauses and change speeds!
Battle sprites in 2003 are too high resolution to really allow you to customise them... but I can't find a 2k download, so 2003 is what I'm using for my project.
Posted:
Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:24 pmby Jasonflare
Rm2k3 all the way. I like the interface better then Rm2k, but the system sucks.
What I think is wrong with RMXP is that it's too dependent of scripting, I mean, half the crap you can do with scripting is possible with Rm2k3, after, of
course, extreme coding.
And mods: Isn't putting a link to RPG Makers illegal? So I'd edit Slang's post.