Eventing: A legitimate specialty?

[PK8]

This thread is basically inspired from a blog entry I read at another site and is also a repost from the archives.

I think this has been discussed in certain places a few times but not here. And it's the first time I'm bringing it up here. So I thought I'd like to ask you guys this: do you think eventing is a legitimate specialty? Why or why not? Another question, define "Eventer".

As for me, I personally think it is. But then again, that may be my bias talking for me. (I love eventing)

Some argue that eventing is discredited as a specialty by other folks for the fact that you're just toying around with predeveloped code or because events should be something you should learn when you use RPG Maker (RM was always based around eventing, allowing people to make things up without any programming knowledge), and because it's one of the core parts of the RPG Maker program.

Psst... I personally think it's the noobs who want to recruit "eventers" for their projects and another reason being that some claim they're eventers because they could use "Message" command.

I personally think Eventers are the kind of people who work within the limits (in this case, event commands, common events and database-related stuff) to do something extraordinary, making event-based systems. I think that people who make some pretty elaborate systems through the use of events are Eventers.

Surely, it isn't as difficult as say scripting or spriting, but to each his own. Whenever you use events creatively in some attempt to go beyond the box and successfully make a useful system you or anyone puts to use in the near future, you get a thrill. You feel like you've accomplished something with what you were given. Making event-based systems such as an elaborate tactical battle system, a day night system, or whatever the heck you make, should it be elaborate is no ordinary feat.

So now I ask you all, do you think eventing is a legitimate position? And define eventing? I'd love to see some back and forth about this. It makes for a darn good discussion so go ahead.

[DerVVulfman]

As anyone who dealt with or has seen earlier RPGMaker systems (RPGMaker 2000, RPGMaker 95), eventing is clearly a speciality. I have seen event systems such as caterpillar scripts, full-blown sideview battlesystems, alchemy/crafting systems, party changing systems and the like. Anyone who discredits eventing as a speciality clearly does not know how complicated it is to develop such systems.

[aerendyll]

I define Eventing as a specialty for systems, but also for cutscenes. It does take a certain amount of skill before you are an eventer, though.

If you can make a cutscene using battle animations, pictures, screen flashes, moving events, etc. without making it look boring, rushed or whatever, you're also an eventer.

I like to split eventing into two specialties: System Eventer and Cutscene Eventer. We can all make Arshes say "Hi, I'm Arshes.", but making a complete battlesystem or an RMVX cutscene that is astonishing is a whole different story.

[PK8]

Wow, what a necro.

System Eventer and Cutscene Eventer... I like that. Good point, I'd like to consider making some brilliantly made cutscenes a talent also. Guys, if you haven't already, do take a look at MotW by Volrath/Artbane and Quintessence-TBV or any other FreeBirds(Reives) games someday. Brilliance. :P

[EJlol]

As for System Eventers, that's the same thought process as scripting in RGGS. The only difference is that eventers are to lazy to learn a new language :P

[Zeriab]

How can you say that? Eventers still have to learn how to event.
Just because the language is presented in a different form doesn't prevent eventing from being a programming language.
There are surely some eventers who are too lazy to learn a new language and the same holds for some scripters.

I agree that it makes sense to split the eventing field up into two kinds of eventers. I wouldn't use system eventing and cutscene eventing, but rather technical eventing and aesthetic eventing. (I am not sure I like aesthetic, but I couldn't find a better word)
There are technical parts of cutscenes like making sure that characters change correctly or disappear correctly, that no character walks into an obstacle and thus freezes.
The aesthetic is about choosing the right screen tone, about given the characters the right pauses. It's about portraying specific feelings and given the characters personality.

There are naturally overlaps where the aesthetic and technical areas collide, but the focus is different.
The technical eventer is close to scripters and it makes perfectly sense to consider scripting for the technical eventer.
The aesthetic eventer is close to the game designer since s/he deals with portraying the right feelings and given personality.
To compare with buildings I would say that the aesthetic eventer is the architect and the technical eventer is the engineer.

What do you think about this distinction?

*hugs*
- Zeriab

[DerVVulfman]

It may be too early for some of our members to recall RPGMaker 2000.

Back before RPGMaker XP, game makers who wanted complex menu systems, battlesystems or the like with nothing but event systems. They weren't cheap either and ran the gamut of party changing systems, alternate stat building battle systems, actual side view battle systems that looked like Final Fantasy III (SNES)'s.

One could make similar distinctions for scripters as well. But yeah, the distinction regarding Aesthetic and Technical eventers does make sense.

*hugs*