[Discussion] What Kind of Starter Kit Would You Like to See?

ЩѻƦḽᶑʂḽдƴƹƦ™ said:

I am going to say that Unity is a bit more complex than most users would be able to handle. I am sure many members can just pick up unity and figure it out, but the majority most likely will not.

It is not the most basic of game making engines.

Click to expand...

Unity alone isn't easy. But there some plugins that make some things like 2D tile mapping very easier and mask/simplifier other things, you can easily create a menu bar command than generates a new trainer with default values. I aren't sure, but with the certains plugins is possible to create an entire game (with object that works like "Events") only using these commands, without creating/modifying prefabs. Of corse, is easier that a new user mess with something if this user didn't read the instructions.

Gamer2020 said:

I'd really think 3D would be an awesome new way to go put I don't have much experience with 3D objects. I do however know that it is possible to rip the 3D Pokemon from the GC/Wii games so resources wouldn't be too much of a problem.

I also think C would be a good way to go as far as the programing language.

Click to expand...

In my opinion 3D should be only an add-on, basically this:

Maruno said:

3D is nice and all, but models are on a whole other level to sprites, and we all know how long it takes for anyone to make a 2D game around here, let alone also needing to gather/make models and animations and all that.

Click to expand...

MKGirlism said:

It's indeed not basic, but it doesn't automatically mean it's hard.
In fact, there are so many Unity3D users, you can easily find support from any corner.

Click to expand...

Unity is a pretty open-ended engine out of the box. You will not find support on the Unity forums fir your fan-game project. While unity has amazing support, you generally need to provide focused context when asking for support.

I think you severely overestimate the competence of the kind of people that want to make a pokemon fan game. We has an issue recently, where a member did not even understand file structures, in fact Maruno has even had to contemplate putting the Pokemin Pack back into the actual main download for essentials. I don't mean to bash here, but the engine should probably take that into account and I am not entirely sure Unity is that engine if you are wanting something simple for simple people.

Gamer2020 said:

I'd really think 3D would be an awesome new way to go put I don't have much experience with 3D objects. I do however know that it is possible to rip the 3D Pokemon from the GC/Wii games so resources wouldn't be too much of a problem.

I also think C would be a good way to go as far as the programing language.

Click to expand...

The Pokemin models themselves are out there on the internet, it is mainly world building models you would need. And even those can just be pretty simplistic.

I think unless the engine is promoting a new kind of pokemon game base, 3D should cap at a more Black abd White like base. Something like the Azure project had going on.

Even 2D can just be revamped though, such as the sprites in my signature, would be nice to see in a new kit. Just to breathe new life into it.

ЩѻƦḽᶑʂḽдƴƹƦ™ said:

Unity is a pretty open-ended engine out of the box. You will not find support on the Unity forums fir your fan-game project. While unity has amazing support, you generally need to provide focused context when asking for support.

I think you severely overestimate the competence of the kind of people that want to make a pokemon fan game. We has an issue recently, where a member did not even understand file structures, in fact Maruno has even had to contemplate putting the Pokemin Pack back into the actual main download for essentials. I don't mean to bash here, but the engine should probably take that into account and I am not entirely sure Unity is that engine if you are wanting something simple for simple people.

Click to expand...

Wut?
Unity Scripting really gets on the same principles, like any other form of Game Programming.
Actually, only people new to Programming think you need to be as specific as possible, if it was, then everyone should be dependent on one single person, which knows every single thing on this Planet.......and that person doesn't even exist.

Also, is "Pokemin" a combination of Pokémon and Pikmin?

I have been in Unity working on an indie title and just getting used to the interface, and I assure you, the majority of users here would be giving up as soon as they open Unity. It is more than just the programming side of things that make it daunting for the kind of people that want to make a pokemon fan game.

A spelling error, I am on my phone in between meetings and appointments, bear with me for now.

Then in this case, okay, I get your point now.
The Editor indeed isn't something you should understand at initial boot, but I really can't figure out how Game Maker works.
I know Unity3D isn't pure Programming, but it does take care of 3D Collisions for you, which is great, because it takes away so much worries from you.

I don't think 3D is going to be where the next kit is at, unless I somehow miraculously convince Maruno to undertake that with me, and he has previously expressed interest in 2D. Unity, at least for me, is even more complex when trying to do 2D. I think it is the best engine to use in the end, but I question how reasonable it is to not only switch to something less user friendly compared to RMXP, for minimal limitation relief and few if any, unique key features that Essentials does not have.

FL said:

I am totally against this.

We have advantages like the ones that you cited, but the biggest element is: The time that this engine will spend to have even half of thing that Essentials have. You need years and years for this engine have HALF of things that Essentials already have. We have to wait a huge time, and, even after this time maybe you get bored and give up too, ended with a engine that haven't even half of the features than Essentials have.

I always prefer to unite ours efforts than try separate engines. In my opinion the benefits really not worth it.

If you do this, I suggest the Mono platform. You code in C# (very similar language than Java) and can run at Windows, Linux, OS X, Android and IOS. Players will love to play the games in all of these OSs.

The Unity 3D engine uses Mono too, maybe you can make a plugin for it, the engine is very flexible and you can make plugin than really change the engine. The lastest Unity have 2D support good enough to work as a 2D engine.

Click to expand...

The key difference between Essentials and a new engine is that Essentials was made from scratch. A new engine would be able to look at Essentials' code and see how it does things and (potentially) base its systems off that.

Back in July/August I had a look at C# in Visual Studio for making a Pokémon game engine. That included learning C# from scratch, mind you. After about a month I had a map renderer which supported connected maps, events with multiple definable charsets (e.g. walking/running, with a definable frame rate/number per charset), autotile support (with individual frame rates), support for diagonal movement and 8-way charsets, unlimited tilesets/autotiles per map, directional tile passabilities and jumping. It also supports tiles of sizes 16x16, 32x32 and 48x48, and could auto-detect which were which.

In addition to that, I also made a map editor which was modelled on RMXP. Tile and autotile drawing works about as well as it does in RMXP, it can load and save projects, has a map tree, and so on. I've attached a screenshot of it.

If I can learn C# and Visual Studio from scratch, and come up with what I've made, as well as research deep enough into how Essentials handles maps and such in order to replicate it, then that's something. Okay, maybe I'm more talented than others, but I don't think "years and years to achieve half of what Essentials has" is accurate. Already I have a number of improvements on how RMXP and Essentials works, and it's not even at a proof of concept stage yet.

ЩѻƦḽᶑʂḽдƴƹƦ™ said:

I am going to say that Unity is a bit more complex than most users would be able to handle. I am sure many members can just pick up unity and figure it out, but the majority most likely will not.

It is not the most basic of game making engines.

Click to expand...

There's no reason why the user would have to work in Unity, or whatever other IDE is used for the scripting. We could easily have a separate program for mapping/database (like RMXP) which the majority of people would stick to, and then the IDE for scripting and game compressing (unless game compressing can be put into the RMXP-type program somehow). I don't think this usage of multiple programs to make a game would be a huge problem.

I am really not a fan of having multiple programs to handle tasks that the IDE should handle anyways. I already use a number of programs as it is for RMXP. But this is more than likely a personal issue.

I don't think the use of an external mapping program, is going to patch up the abrasiveness that the Unity UI has on people how really just want to make their own pokemon game without having ever made a game or even extended their basic PC knowledge (or if they even have that in some cases).

I found it amusing that we had another member just yesterday who was having an issue adding the Pokemon Pack for Essentials correctly.

This topic is hard to discuss because the people taking part in it are people who have an understanding of file structures, advanced interfaces, and a bit of game design. Those partaking are an incredibly small fraction of the people in this section.

I am all for using Unity if I am thinking about what I would like to use, but when I think about all of the other people who are not taking part in this discussion, it is frightening to think how many issue posts would pop up on basic issues from new users.

It's entirely possible to make a complete game with Essentials without once looking at the scripts. That would be the goal for any other engine too. Unity having an overwhelming UI wouldn't be a problem, since such a user would never need to use it. Those who do can learn - it's unreasonable to expect to make a computer game with unique features without having to learn any programming skills.

Maybe there's a way to include a script editor and compressor into the mapping program - I wouldn't know because I don't know that much yet. That way it'll be just like RMXP, except geared towards Pokémon games.

I know very little about 2D gaming and Unity, if I recall, you were looking into it a little bit right?

A custom engine is a lot of work, and I don't really see you getting much support in building it to be honest. It seems ideal, but a bit out of reach to me. I am curious as to which other engines anyone has looked into that has similar flexibility to Unity.

Aside from Unlimited autotiles/map layers, faster, more compatibility with other OSes, better support of gifs and audio files, etc. I know I would like to ensure that multi-player support is added to the list of objectives. To me, that is one of the biggest selling points of a new kit.

Something that is compatible with the MonoGame Framework would be nice. Although, as I posted in another thread today, I am going to try using the Pokemon Azure Engine at some point, although it would be nice to have more options.

2D, preferably.

Maruno said:

The key difference between Essentials and a new engine is that Essentials was made from scratch. A new engine would be able to look at Essentials' code and see how it does things and (potentially) base its systems off that.

Back in July/August I had a look at C# in Visual Studio for making a Pokémon game engine. That included learning C# from scratch, mind you. After about a month I had a map renderer which supported connected maps, events with multiple definable charsets (e.g. walking/running, with a definable frame rate/number per charset), autotile support (with individual frame rates), support for diagonal movement and 8-way charsets, unlimited tilesets/autotiles per map, directional tile passabilities and jumping. It also supports tiles of sizes 16x16, 32x32 and 48x48, and could auto-detect which were which.

In addition to that, I also made a map editor which was modelled on RMXP. Tile and autotile drawing works about as well as it does in RMXP, it can load and save projects, has a map tree, and so on. I've attached a screenshot of it.

If I can learn C# and Visual Studio from scratch, and come up with what I've made, as well as research deep enough into how Essentials handles maps and such in order to replicate it, then that's something. Okay, maybe I'm more talented than others, but I don't think "years and years to achieve half of what Essentials has" is accurate. Already I have a number of improvements on how RMXP and Essentials works, and it's not even at a proof of concept stage yet.

Click to expand...

Even with this knowledge, and that you are porting and not making from scratch I bet that you need around 1.5-3 years to port everything from Essentials. A huge time, time than you can use for implement A LOT of things at Essentials, you can redo all the screens for another resolution (that you said that took 3 months) around 8 times and several others stuffs, and is possible for you give up resulting in spending a huge time at, practically, nothing usable. Even if you finish this, some people will continue with Essentials (specially the ones with older projects), this will divide the developers and the community.

Again, I always prefer to unite ours efforts than try separate engines.

And C# isn't too different for Ruby (maybe a little, but isn't something like COBOL). Changing from a language to another isn't hard for a good programmer.

Marino is not the only one who would be working on the kit, should we move forward with it. And it may not even be a kit, but an engine. Who knows. But the idea is that we can bring a kit/engine that is more flexible as well as up to date within reason.

You are of course implying that the development time for making a new engine would otherwise be spent improving Essentials, and that the new engine would end up identical to Essentials (which somehow makes it pointless even if it were to be a literal port).

I don't think the existence of another game engine would necessarily split the community. I think it'd give them something more to talk about. More options gives more opportunity to expand.

Putting the community aside, it's at least an interesting programming project to do, for the sake of learning and portfolios and the like. But perhaps that's not relevant to this discussion.

Another thing to add, is that there are a number of other individuals in this section that are more than capable of banding together and updating essentials as add-ons. Why does Marino have to be the one updating Essentials? The community can continue to update it regardless of this kit or engine and it's development.

ЩѻƦḽᶑʂḽдƴƹƦ™ said:

Marino is not the only one who would be working on the kit, should we move forward with it.

Click to expand...

High probably, at least 95% will be done by Maruno (excluding new ideas, feedback and bug reports), like Pokémon Essentials these last years.

ЩѻƦḽᶑʂḽдƴƹƦ™ said:

And it may not even be a kit, but an engine. Who knows. But the idea is that we can bring a kit/engine that is more flexible as well as up to date within reason.

Click to expand...

Yes but, in my opinion, this idea doesn't worth it price (including the time spend and the risk).

Maruno said:

You are of course implying that the development time for making a new engine would otherwise be spent improving Essentials, and that the new engine would end up identical to Essentials (which somehow makes it pointless even if it were to be a literal port).

Click to expand...

"Would end up identical to Essentials" I mean more of "reaching to the point that Essentials reached, with all Essentials features" will take a huge time. It doesn't means that you can't put things in parallel or stop advancing if you reached at this point (or even abandon some features).

Maruno said:

I don't think the existence of another game engine would necessarily split the community. I think it'd give them something more to talk about. More options gives more opportunity to expand.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the others devs can't easily port features from an engine for another. You can only use one engine per game, this also will divide the people, the add-ons, the questions, the support, etc. This coin has two sides.

Maruno said:

Putting the community aside, it's at least an interesting programming project to do, for the sake of learning and portfolios and the like. But perhaps that's not relevant to this discussion.

Click to expand...

You are right, but the same can also be said for doing other things with Essentials, like implementing a multiplayer battle system or triple battles.


You are free to do what you want, but you asked for opinions, your know. I wish you good luck whatever will be your final decision.

EDIT:

ЩѻƦḽᶑʂḽдƴƹƦ™ said:

Another thing to add, is that there are a number of other individuals in this section that are more than capable of banding together and updating essentials as add-ons. Why does Marino have to be the one updating Essentials? The community can continue to update it regardless of this kit or engine and it's development.

Click to expand...

Technically Essentials is a Wiki project, but few ones done some relevant thing about the project. Almost all ends up to Maruno.

Maruno and I have been discussing this in private off and on, in regard to the community, purpose and execution. This is not necessarily an open project for everyone to chip in, like essentials is now. At least not go my knowledge. If we do this, we are going ahead as dedicated development crew. You are baselessly assuming that the work will fall on Maruno when you are talking about individuals that actually hold themselves accountable as much as possible.

This kit, in my eyes, is exactly what this section needs. I have watched this section die out more and more each month, updating Essentials is not enough to continue driving the section forward and growing.

MARUNO! My auto correct on my phone keeps saying Marino.

As far as a kit I'd like to see a homebrew ROM kit complete with a Pokemon based tool for mapping and scripting. It'd be neat, don't know what console it'd be for though, mainly just something that combines a lot of the good aspects from both ROM hacking and Game Dev.

Gexeys said:

As far as a kit I'd like to see a homebrew ROM kit complete with a Pokemon based tool for mapping and scripting. It'd be neat, don't know what console it'd be for though, mainly just something that combines a lot of the good aspects from both ROM hacking and Game Dev.

Click to expand...

Game Dev scripting is scripting that is FAR less restricted than ROM racking scripting as are the graphics. Any aspect of actually ROM hacking restrict the engine and thus you will not see anything like a ROM hacking tool with the engine. The idea is to lift existing limitation that RMXP presents, not create even more limitations.

I don't think Gexeys was talking about Rom-HACKING per se.
He was pointing to the opportunity to make the kit able to MAKE a custom rom able to be played on a GBA. AKA Homebrew.

While this is really improbable, I for one would love the idea, since being able to play your games on an actual handheld system has alway been the Pro for Rom Hacking and Con of Gam Dev.
The constricts and limitations on the GBA's system makes this, as I said, very improbable though.

I'm really up for helping out with an engine like this, or trying to maintain Pokémon Essentials while Maruno is working on a new enginge. Only problem is that I am like a 5 year old who wants to drive a forklift. Sure, I might make it go forward, but I might as well crash or even kill someone in the process. lol
I am way too inexperienced with scripting to make it happen, but my point is that there are people here in the community who wants help.