VX versus XP. Your view upon the two engines.

[Kylock]

Although the number of tiles is limited... there are still a LOT of tiles. With the edits that I've made to the RTP sets, I'm pretty confident I can make a very long game without yet having to use a tileset swapper.

[aerendyll]

Although the number of tiles is limited... there are still a LOT of tiles. With the edits that I've made to the RTP sets, I'm pretty confident I can make a very long game without yet having to use a tileset swapper.

I'm with Kylock on this. Do remember that the RTP of RPG Maker VX has a lot of objects that are thrown into multiple tilesets (like pots, barrels, etc.). VX doesn't have duplicates, so it takes less space.

I might try my hands at parallax maps someday, if I ever get experienced enough with background drawing. It would be awesome if I could make a game that looks more or less like Baten Kaitos! ^_^

[Ronove]

I gotta say, because I am a mapper and am very anal about that sort of thing, I prefer XP. However, that is really the only thing I prefer XP on. If VX had the same mapping as XP, I'd instantly be switching over.

Something I've heard around (not sure if it's here, but I was thinking of it anyway) that it's harder to make nice looking maps with VX. I don't agree with this at all. Sure, you have less layers to work with (which is a real pain at times). But, if you take time and all that, making a appealing map isn't that hard. All it does it take time. Like, remember how bad maps looked when we all first started to use XP (unless of course you were just that good... most of us weren't)? That's how I feel with VX. Gotta learn to make good maps again, and you can't expect a miracle as soon as you give it your first try.

So, in conclusion, if not for the mapping and the very limited layers I have to work with, I'd be happy with VX. But, while I know that it just takes time and all that to make a good map and if you're diligent enough, you definitely can make a good map, I do believe they dropped the ball on the mapping.

[SP27]

I personally don't like VX.
The RTP graphics are just... meh. (Character sprites just kill it, though the animations look nice.)
The battle system is... yuk. No background, no battles (the player's party that is) and rather dull looking flooring.
The map editor is aggravating. I can't work with it, so it's plain old annoying.
The database editor is better, I have to admit.

I have about 3 years of experience with RMXP, and many years may follow if I'm the one who can effect that. :D

[DerVVulfman]

IF... IF....

RPGMaker VX used the mapping system of RMXP (the drawing tools, terrain tags, et al.) and included battler graphics for actors in the database (w/ applicably set battle animations), I wouldn't have a problem. But the problem is purely built into the editor. So while there are scripts to help overcome the limitations, it is cumbersome to re-install the lost features.

The RTP Graphics and Audio can be replaced. Scripts to replace the menu and battle system can be implemented. And it is nice that they returned the vehicles and facesets from earlier RM systems. And while it is referred to as RGSS(2) instead of RGSS, it is still a variation of the Ruby scripting language. So that's no problem. I still think the RMXP SDK team should get royalties from EnterBrain since they used the SDK's Scene_Base system.

While I do have the license for both, I'll stick with RPGMaker XP as most of the features in VX are already available in script format.

[Yin]

I've tried VX and while I am impressed with what others can do with it, I have yet to make a decent map with it. I just think the squarish look is ugly. I mean, the tiles LOOK better, in my opinion. I think it's the mapping that's keeping me from switching, because everything ELSE is perfectly fine. There's always going to be battle, menu, and anything you can think of scripts and you can always change the graphics. The main problem is built in.

[SP27]

I don't have the VX license, but for as far as I know you have all the features in the 30-day trail right?
If so then I'll surly stick to XP.
Not only because of my previously stated statements, but for experience as well.
XP is my first RPG Maker, and I loved it since trail day one, until.... whatever the day count is since I got my RMXP license. :D
500+ for sure. :)

[computerwizoo7]

I agree with you Zeriab, the limited amount of tile sets that VX allows can't do much, on the other hand XP allows a wide range of maps.
in my opinion XP is better than VX in many ways and it is more of a game engine than VX.

[EvenAngels]

To be honest, I don't really see a problem with either. Some people find XP far better to map with, but I find it nearly impossible to come up with a map in XP that looks half as decent as my maps in VX (or indeed 2k3). To be honest, I find the layers confusing. ^_^;;

That being said, I prefer the amount of resources available for XP.

For me, personally, the "limited" tileset thing doesn't really bother me. I've been able to make maps that people have loved using a mix of Mack and RTP tiles, and to me, if I can do that then its all that matters. :D

I, personally, prefer using VX simply because of m lack of ability to use XP, but I know a lot fo people can do really amazing things with XP... Therefore, I'm on the fence, saying that both are good. :P

[XP Kobold]

For me however VX mapping does make it easier to make a map without getting rediculus like the detail in many XP maps. Though i've gotten used to XP maps though i'd have to admit many can be detailed but should not be too detailed.

Though XP has several advantages in mapping. VX makes up forthat for adding the Parallax Background to be shown in the editor. Which you can't in XP as well as a looping feature. Which really helps for more belevable dungeons.