RPG Maker Games and RPG Maker Software - Amazing indie hits or shoddy shitstains?

[DripDrop]

I noticed that the old RPG Maker thread hasn't been active in about a year, so rather than whip out my grimoire and necro-post I decided to create this thread to carry the torch.

I'm curious to see what everyone here thinks of the RPG Maker series of software as well as their favorite (or most hated) games created using that software, as I've seen EXTREMELY varying opinions on it's credibility and capability as a piece of game development software.

For instance, I for one love OFF, Yume Nikki, Ao Oni, Witch's House, Ib, To The Moon, Mad Father, Hello Hell...o?, Crooked Man, and the original LISA.

Your thoughts?

 

[LulzKiller]

Wasn't the Columbine RPG made with this?

 

[Hodor]

I hope SRPG Studio gets localized.

Until then, I'm stuck trying decipher moonrunes with SRC so I can make my very own shitty SRPG.

 

[DripDrop]

Wasn't the Columbine RPG made with this?

Yup, RPG Maker 2000.

Never actually played the game. I'm both mortified that it exists yet disturbingly interested in playing it just to see was twisted little fucks could come up with it.

 

[John Titor]

Touhou Mother was a Touhou-themed parody of Earthbound and managed to copy the system perfectly. There's also Touhou-A-Live that managed to replicate the game Live-A-Live. It's amazing what can be done with RPG Maker.

Also, this theme is annoying. It's like people don't realize there are other tracks to choose from.

 

[c-no]

Yup, RPG Maker 2000.

Never actually played the game. I'm both mortified that it exists yet disturbingly interested in playing it just to see was twisted little fucks could come up with it.

I played it long ago. More or less, the game does use actually imagery of the shooters. While it does have turn-based combat, there was a sort of stealth segment before beginning the RPG rampage against students such as jocks and openly gays.

 

[cmcki]

I played it long ago as well. I remember that I kept expecting it to end but didn't. I also remember an issue where if you didn't find a seemingly useless item, you had issues hours later when you couldn't get back to it. Otherwise it seemed like a pretty stock RPG, barring the subject material.

 

[DripDrop]

Yea, I mean I'm making my first real, complete game in RPG Maker VX Ace (not for money, more like just a practice for the future), and I think it's a fairly versatile piece of software. A little limiting in the premade functions, but custom RGSS2 and Ruby scripting can more than make up for that. I just hear people shit on it without really listing any reasons why.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

Yea, I mean I'm making my first real, complete game in RPG Maker VX Ace (not for money, more like just a practice for the future), and I think it's a fairly versatile piece of software. A little limiting in the premade functions, but custom RGSS2 and Ruby scripting can more than make up for that. I just hear people shit on it without really listing any reasons why.

Mostly the ignorant or needlessly pretentious who feel like if you didn't CODE THE WHOLE THING FROM SCRATCH AND MAKE EVERY LAST PIECE OF PIXEL ART YOURSELF you aren't a real game designer and your GAME IS SHIT.

They'll never say it openly, but I promise, that's where the hatred and tone comes from.

 

[DripDrop]

Mostly the ignorant or needlessly pretentious who feel like if you didn't CODE THE WHOLE THING FROM SCRATCH AND MAKE EVERY LAST PIECE OF PIXEL ART YOURSELF you aren't a real game designer and your GAME IS SHIT.

They'll never say it openly, but I promise, that's where the hatred and tone comes from.

That just sounds unbelievably exceptional. I mean do they seriously expect to code a whole new fucking game engine?

 

[Positron]

For some reason I love those games.

My all-round favorite are the freeware Laxius Power series by Indinera Falls. It is incredibly big and complex, but unfortunately the author took it down presumably because there are lots of stolen assets. The author however, went on to create marvelous games series like Millennium series (with a strong, well-rounded but not in-your-face pandering female protagonist in an absorbing story)

 

[ZehnBoat]

I really recommend OFF
I'm not into RPGs myself, but it was fun, and not too hard
the bosses are tanks though so prepare to sit and thwack them for a while
(the hidden boss took 20 minutes for me)
also have a pad of paper and a pen, you will be taking a ton of notes

 

[DripDrop]

I really recommend OFF
I'm not into RPGs myself, but it was fun, and not too hard
the bosses are tanks though so prepare to sit and thwack them for a while
(the hidden boss took 20 minutes for me)
also have a pad of paper and a pen, you will be taking a ton of notes

Yea, I've played OFF I think 3 times already, but I'm always up to play it again!

I really love OFF, it's just about as weird as a game can get while still somewhat making sense. To be honest though I think a lot of the symbolism goes over my head. I personally believe it's an allegory for taking someone off of life support.

And yea, Sugar was a pain in the ass to both find and take down.

 

[A Random]

So, OFF.

What can I say about OFF? Well, not THAT much. Because I know someone who does it better. So I'll quote 'em.

Spoiler

One thing that must be emphasized first, right now: OFF was originally written in French. Unfortunately, it was also not translated perfectly by whoever did it, meaning that enough of the details of the game that are only brought forth through dialogue were missed.

Spoiler: A Deconstruction of Player Agency

"OFF is the polar opposite of games like The Stanley's Parable and Undertale. While those games mock the concept of a narrative in video game due to player control, this one do the opposite, deconstructing the concept of player agency.

The player is fed false information at the start of the game and is embarked on a "righteous quest" to purge a damaged world from corruption. Noble-sounding stuff. But hints start to rise through the game that something is amiss, especially if the player goes off the rails. The game offer no choice regarding the path to choose... a very deliberate choice, as the player gets closer to the end.

The player is not controlling a heroic player character but rather, controlling the antagonist of the tale. While the player solve puzzles and win battles, the player has absolutely no impact on the narrative. NPCs will address the player and as the player character's true nature and intent surface, plead with the player, become angry, try to reason with the player... to no avail.

This come to a head in the finale, where the player character is revealed for the nihilistic, manipulative, smug monster he truly is and address the player directly. "Everyone has their role", paraphrased.

Stanley's Parable deconstructed the concept of the writer controlling the player. OFF, via its main character and villain The Batter, demonstrates to the player that a player merely moves the player character(s) forward in a narrative. Ultimately, the player is nothing but a pawn of the Batter ; as the player, your role is to win the game. And since the Batter is the main character, it means that you have no choice but to destroy this world. He, not you, is in control of the narrative.

Instead of a master who control a world's life like in Undertale, you are a reader, turning the pages of a book. No matter how hard you argue at the book, the words written in them will not change. And no matter if you don't turn the pages or not, the end of the tale remain the same.

OFF is the antithesis of those games. As the villain sums it up nicely, "everyone has their role" and thus the NPCs' calls for help to the player are in vain for ultimately, it is the Batter who truly call the shots in this story."

This is one of THE most crucial points to the game, and without it trying to analyze the symbolism of the game is not exactly 'complete'. You are not the hero. You aren't even in control of the 'protagonist', as it were.

The real choice you get, in a way, is at the end. But...

Spoiler: Catharsis and the Player's Final Choices

"The final choice, as the Batter points out, is meaningless. It is there largely for catharsis ; after being lied to the entire game and having the Batter use his player character status to commit atrocities, the player is given the choice to spite him and rebel, revoking his player character status so that he may be defeated.

The choice is ultimately meaningless, for the world is already nigh-destroyed as the lone remaining NPC point out. It is thus a matter of symbolism ; do you choose to finish the job, since resisting the Batter at this point will do no good anyway? Or will you symbolically defeat him despite the fact that he has already won, if only to spite him?

That this choice is only given at the end is also part of the theme ; ultimately, the player's agency only has meaning if given one by the narrative. Trapped by the Batter as it is, the player thus cannot change the narrative, even with this final choice."

Of course, then we get to the symbolism you figured out. One that possibly skipped over the actual details regarding the final bosses, as it were.

Spoiler: Why Life Support?

""Turning off life support" is a popular theme in the English community. Largely because a lot of the Batter's arrogance and cold cruelty is lost in the translation. His choice of words in French convey a supreme arrogance and self-righteousness meant to show him as utterly unlikeable. The Batter is blind to suffering and care only for his self-righteous quest. This is a major hint that clue toward the final dungeon and finale as a whole, which reveal that the Batter is the villain of the tale, not the hero.

It is, thus, not the actual theme of the game. But in a way, it is still relevant in a way that most English players don't use: the various NPCs of the game are trying to rebuild a world that has died. Their rebuilt world is flawed and many of the NPCs are cynical due to corruption. It is a world that indeed require help. But the Batter, instead of coming to heal, is a destroyer. He sees the world with disgust, as something beyond redemption, and destroy it out of this arrogance and hatred.

To the Batter, he is turning off the life support of a world that shouldn't have been revived. To the NPCs, he is turning off the lights after the last survivors of the world have been slaughtered and their dream at getting existence back on its feet, crushed."

The plot of OFF isn't just about turning off the entire world, though. It makes a lot more sense if you focus on the final bosses and, in a way, skip the name entirely.

Spoiler: Displays of Abuse

"Likewise, a theme that is lost among English players is that the Batter is a representation of an abusive father. The tale told in the final dungeon speaks of abandonment. The Batter is revealed to be directly based off the villain of a comic book by the creator of the reborn world. And likewise, when the Batter fights the Queen, the representation of the creator's mother, her attacks consist entirely of disapproving words that are largely of the mild type (like "I will not make dinner for you") while the Batter physically beat her.

The Queen blames him for destroying the world, for destroying all that their child and creator care for, and having never been there for him. The Batter, instead of denying it, gloat insanely about how righteous he is. His choice of words in French convey a level of arrogance that is lost in the translation ; the translation is accurate for the most part but those small nuances change the Batter's extremely cold and damning speech in the original to something that sounds informal and non-commital."

And well, to explain the very last bit of the game [as to why the final bosses are like they are]...

Spoiler: Important Note

"To add to the abusive father theme are the Secretaries. Their symbolism don't make sense in the "turning off life support" interpretation of the game but suddenly become logical when you consider the meaning of an abusive father. The Secretaries are malformed babies, representations of the Batter's hatred of his own son and creator. As the game progresses and more and more of his true colors are revealed, the Secretaries take on a more and more decayed form, showing his perspective of his son and creator.

A large part of the enemies' appearance, as said by the original author, is based off the perspective of the player character at the time, which is why the Batter appear handsome before the revelation and why he suddenly become a horrifying monster once the player revoke his player status and confront him. The Secretaries thus show the Batter's contempt for his son."

It's not a full 'ruining your headcanon' thing, but one of the big points of OFF, to me, was that it isn't about a metaphor like that, but one of a very depressing point.

The game was about the Batter...

...in French, the Beater.

 

[DripDrop]

So, OFF.

What can I say about OFF? Well, not THAT much. Because I know someone who does it better. So I'll quote 'em.

Spoiler

One thing that must be emphasized first, right now: OFF was originally written in French. Unfortunately, it was also not translated perfectly by whoever did it, meaning that enough of the details of the game that are only brought forth through dialogue were missed.

Spoiler: A Deconstruction of Player Agency

"OFF is the polar opposite of games like The Stanley's Parable and Undertale. While those games mock the concept of a narrative in video game due to player control, this one do the opposite, deconstructing the concept of player agency.

The player is fed false information at the start of the game and is embarked on a "righteous quest" to purge a damaged world from corruption. Noble-sounding stuff. But hints start to rise through the game that something is amiss, especially if the player goes off the rails. The game offer no choice regarding the path to choose... a very deliberate choice, as the player gets closer to the end.

The player is not controlling a heroic player character but rather, controlling the antagonist of the tale. While the player solve puzzles and win battles, the player has absolutely no impact on the narrative. NPCs will address the player and as the player character's true nature and intent surface, plead with the player, become angry, try to reason with the player... to no avail.

This come to a head in the finale, where the player character is revealed for the nihilistic, manipulative, smug monster he truly is and address the player directly. "Everyone has their role", paraphrased.

Stanley's Parable deconstructed the concept of the writer controlling the player. OFF, via its main character and villain The Batter, demonstrates to the player that a player merely moves the player character(s) forward in a narrative. Ultimately, the player is nothing but a pawn of the Batter ; as the player, your role is to win the game. And since the Batter is the main character, it means that you have no choice but to destroy this world. He, not you, is in control of the narrative.

Instead of a master who control a world's life like in Undertale, you are a reader, turning the pages of a book. No matter how hard you argue at the book, the words written in them will not change. And no matter if you don't turn the pages or not, the end of the tale remain the same.

OFF is the antithesis of those games. As the villain sums it up nicely, "everyone has their role" and thus the NPCs' calls for help to the player are in vain for ultimately, it is the Batter who truly call the shots in this story."

This is one of THE most crucial points to the game, and without it trying to analyze the symbolism of the game is not exactly 'complete'. You are not the hero. You aren't even in control of the 'protagonist', as it were.

The real choice you get, in a way, is at the end. But...

Spoiler: Catharsis and the Player's Final Choices

"The final choice, as the Batter points out, is meaningless. It is there largely for catharsis ; after being lied to the entire game and having the Batter use his player character status to commit atrocities, the player is given the choice to spite him and rebel, revoking his player character status so that he may be defeated.

The choice is ultimately meaningless, for the world is already nigh-destroyed as the lone remaining NPC point out. It is thus a matter of symbolism ; do you choose to finish the job, since resisting the Batter at this point will do no good anyway? Or will you symbolically defeat him despite the fact that he has already won, if only to spite him?

That this choice is only given at the end is also part of the theme ; ultimately, the player's agency only has meaning if given one by the narrative. Trapped by the Batter as it is, the player thus cannot change the narrative, even with this final choice."

Of course, then we get to the symbolism you figured out. One that possibly skipped over the actual details regarding the final bosses, as it were.

Spoiler: Why Life Support?

""Turning off life support" is a popular theme in the English community. Largely because a lot of the Batter's arrogance and cold cruelty is lost in the translation. His choice of words in French convey a supreme arrogance and self-righteousness meant to show him as utterly unlikeable. The Batter is blind to suffering and care only for his self-righteous quest. This is a major hint that clue toward the final dungeon and finale as a whole, which reveal that the Batter is the villain of the tale, not the hero.

It is, thus, not the actual theme of the game. But in a way, it is still relevant in a way that most English players don't use: the various NPCs of the game are trying to rebuild a world that has died. Their rebuilt world is flawed and many of the NPCs are cynical due to corruption. It is a world that indeed require help. But the Batter, instead of coming to heal, is a destroyer. He sees the world with disgust, as something beyond redemption, and destroy it out of this arrogance and hatred.

To the Batter, he is turning off the life support of a world that shouldn't have been revived. To the NPCs, he is turning off the lights after the last survivors of the world have been slaughtered and their dream at getting existence back on its feet, crushed."

The plot of OFF isn't just about turning off the entire world, though. It makes a lot more sense if you focus on the final bosses and, in a way, skip the name entirely.

Spoiler: Displays of Abuse

"Likewise, a theme that is lost among English players is that the Batter is a representation of an abusive father. The tale told in the final dungeon speaks of abandonment. The Batter is revealed to be directly based off the villain of a comic book by the creator of the reborn world. And likewise, when the Batter fights the Queen, the representation of the creator's mother, her attacks consist entirely of disapproving words that are largely of the mild type (like "I will not make dinner for you") while the Batter physically beat her.

The Queen blames him for destroying the world, for destroying all that their child and creator care for, and having never been there for him. The Batter, instead of denying it, gloat insanely about how righteous he is. His choice of words in French convey a level of arrogance that is lost in the translation ; the translation is accurate for the most part but those small nuances change the Batter's extremely cold and damning speech in the original to something that sounds informal and non-commital."

And well, to explain the very last bit of the game [as to why the final bosses are like they are]...

Spoiler: Important Note

"To add to the abusive father theme are the Secretaries. Their symbolism don't make sense in the "turning off life support" interpretation of the game but suddenly become logical when you consider the meaning of an abusive father. The Secretaries are malformed babies, representations of the Batter's hatred of his own son and creator. As the game progresses and more and more of his true colors are revealed, the Secretaries take on a more and more decayed form, showing his perspective of his son and creator.

A large part of the enemies' appearance, as said by the original author, is based off the perspective of the player character at the time, which is why the Batter appear handsome before the revelation and why he suddenly become a horrifying monster once the player revoke his player status and confront him. The Secretaries thus show the Batter's contempt for his son."

It's not a full 'ruining your headcanon' thing, but one of the big points of OFF, to me, was that it isn't about a metaphor like that, but one of a very depressing point.

The game was about the Batter...

...in French, the Beater.

Ah, so I wasn't far off in my assumptions about life support. I did find it to be a fairly poetic game, and for some reason I teared up a bit at hearing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" at the end. I think it handled the meta aspects better than Undertale did, though Undertale's story and messages are a bit easier to comprehend for the average person due to being less steeped in symbolism and being originally produced by an English-native creator.

It's a shame more of the game's vital writing and symbols were lost in translation. I really wish I understood French more intensively than what I do.

 

[IceGray]

Some time last year I played this game about the last girl on earth.

A thought came to me about Ib and the artworks used in it. Was the game creator formally trained in art? Most Japanese creators are very reticent about personal details.

I'm also using VXAce for a practice project. For personal reasons, I'm making all the character sprites and portraits myself.

 

[A Random]

Do any of you guys use Battle Symphonic? As in, know how to actually use it?

 

[Bugaboo]

Well it's like you give a monkey and Picasso a set of paints and a canvas each and leave them to work.
People who aren't monkies can work with what they're given and they can make amazing things while monkies just smear shit and anime demon angel sonic ocs on the canvas and expect a banana

 

[FreeCandyVan]

That just sounds unbelievably exceptional. I mean do they seriously expect to code a whole new fucking game engine?

To be fair, lots of people write their own engine because it's fun. Especially for a 2D RPG, it's not all that hard to roll your own from scratch.

That said, if you have no interest in it, there's absolutely nothing at all wrong with using a premade one. I feel like RPG Maker is in kind of a weird place right now though. With Unity and Godot Engine both being free, I don't think there's any good reason to use RPG Maker over one of those if you're planning on putting in enough time to finish a whole game

 

[A Random]

To be fair, lots of people write their own engine because it's fun. Especially for a 2D RPG, it's not all that hard to roll your own from scratch.

That said, if you have no interest in it, there's absolutely nothing at all wrong with using a premade one. I feel like RPG Maker is in kind of a weird place right now though. With Unity and Godot Engine both being free, I don't think there's any good reason to use RPG Maker over one of those if you're planning on putting in enough time to finish a whole game

You do need at least some advanced level of programming to make your own engine from scratch that either isn't a copy of something or isn't bugridden anyway and requiring effort to clean it up.

It also has the advantage of being, you know, an RPG engine. Unity and Godot aren't designed specifically for it, they're more open but several of its features are not automatically integrated. They're certainly good for creative output but on the other hand, are a lot more coding-dependent than RPG Maker. Sure, it has limitations, but for the people who want to make the next Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy 4, it enables what they want, and it allows for a surprising amount of depth that wouldn't be found otherwise.

[Also, RPG Maker is free if you know where to look for.]