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

This is something that has been on my mind a bit lately, and I have discussed it with a couple developers in private so far and I decided I would like a bit more feedback from people I do not directly speak to.

We currently have Pokemon Essential for RMXP, which is a 2D starter kit aimed at allowing players to create a complete generation 3 style game complete with a few mini games and essential features.

The Engine and Language
However, what about a kit that branches into another engine with a more widely used language such as C#, C++ or Java?

Something like Unity offers the ability to port languages as well as work with 2D or 3D, even a mixture of the two more akin to generation 4,5 and even generation 6.

The Style
What kind of style would people like to see a new kit in? The same 2D system we are use to, which allows for easier implementation and customization? Perhaps a 3D style more representative of the Pokemon world as seen in the anime, with a more dynamic battle system and story telling or a classic take such as X and Y. How about a blend of 2D and 3D, allowing flexibility in resource inclusion and customization, reflecting a game style more similar to the gen 4, and 5 games?

The Game Play
What kind of game play would you like to see this kit capture? A classical handheld way to play? Something similar to Pokemon Mystery Dungeon? Pokemon Stadium?

Pokemon seem to be on the horizon of a new era, so what kind of kit would you like to see?

Recently I have been thinking the same thing. What I would love to see is a 3D mapping system; where you create a landscape of textures (tiles) and events (objects) onto a map (saved as a 3D model).
Obviously too much to ask but a good idea, in my opinion.

Rayquaza. said:

Recently I have been thinking the same thing. What I would love to see is a 3D mapping system; where you create a landscape of textures (tiles) and events (objects) onto a map (saved as a 3D model).
Obviously too much to ask but a good idea, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

This entire Post basically goes against each other.
3D is definitely a whole different story than 2D, it not only requires way better Math Skills than 2D when Programming it in, it's much more than just Model + Texture too.
There's a reason you need to use external Apps (Blender, Maya, 3D Studio Max, etc.) for creating 3D stuff, it's just to hard to create a 'simple' 3D Modelling Tool.
Also, Models aren't Tiles, it's possible, but you should get Voxels (3D Pixels) for this (a notable example is Minecraft).

When creating 3D, it requires you to:
1. Create a Model in a 3D making App, and for performance reasons, High-Poly is not allowed.
2. Got decent UV Mapping on it (or else, Textures will look ****ed).
3. Give it Textures, using a 2D making App (Photoshop, or similar).
4. Give it Joints/Bones and Animate it.
5. Test it in an Engine/Framework if it all goes well.

I'm probably missing out some stuff, I'm not an Artist.

yeah, I feel like 3d is probably a little out of the scope of this community. in all the times I've popped in, it's never been much of an "alright guys we all banded together & created something amazing" kind of place. which is a tragedy! because obviously a pokemon framework for unity would be the coolest new starter kit.

talking about gameplay though: I think we could stick the the rpgmaker we all know and love(?) if there were starter kits based around other kinds of gameplay. like, there's that harvest moon kit in the scripts forum, & I can't stop thinking about how awesome a pokemon-themed harvest moon would be. a pmd starter kit would be amazing too, or one based around pokemon conquest (did anyone but me even play that? because it was quality & I never hear people talking about it)

I've always said that RMXP is a good program for making an RPG. I think the best kind of "kit" would be a Pokémon-oriented version of RMXP with improved versions of the existing systems. For example, allow multiple tilesets and unlimited autotiles per map, have many more Pokémon-ish event commands, have templates for certain kinds of events (trainer, door, item ball, etc.) for easy use, and so on.

One feature I'd really like to see is a "sanity checker" function. This would go through the game's data and find inconsistencies/problems and let you know about them. For example, teleports to maps which don't exist, or point out unused autotiles/music which could be removed to save space.

The engine should be completely free, of course, and not rely on anything you need to pay for (i.e. RMXP). The programming language it uses probably doesn't matter that much, so long as it's faster than the old Ruby and RGSS that RMXP uses. Support for multiple programming languages would be ideal, of course, but not a big thing to worry about.

2D or 3D? There's three main styles I can think of: classic full 2D (Gen 1-3), sprites in a 3D world (gen 4-5) and full 3D (gen 6). Again, support for all three would be ideal. I imagine mixing 2D sprites and a 3D world would be harder to do than a pure one-or-the-other, but that would be the best balance between being pretty and being easy to use (sprites are easier to make than models).

One of the main features of the "kit" would be the map-maker, and I'm sure it's possible to make a "3D tile"-based map editor using primitive "tiles" (e.g. a cliff corner or a fence section). The "kit" would of course come with a set of primitive tiles and textures, in the same way that RMXP comes with an RTP, and the user can always make more of them if they want and have the skills.

As far as gameplay goes, I think it'd be best to stick to the official games, at least to begin with. Turn-based battles and all that. Doing so will make the "kit" appeal to the largest audience and make it the most worthwhile thing to make. Variations (e.g. Mystery Dungeon-type combat, etc.) can be left to mods or later additions.

Nah, RPG Maker XP + Essentials is enough for me.

I only wish to do some things that aren't easy only with these two things, generally more global Ctrl+F features(for text, resources, script at events, etc...) and other useful things like ability to create loops at musics only with the engine.

I just wish that Essentials be more complete, with the effect of gen IV/V/VI among others features like Triple/Rotation/Horde Battles.

A 3D engine will make the people spends a bigger time to do the resources, specially the 3D animated models. A tip: Don't try 3D before you mastered 2D.

I would like to see engines with a lot more portability to begin with. The prospect that RMXP is very limited on what you can play the finished product on, is off-putting. Aside from that, it would be nice to see engines with more powerful language bases, depending on what the style is. Of course games that are 3D should be written with a form of C, and preferably C++. It would be nice to see engines with more original concepts also. There's scores of engines in which are trying to re-create pre-3D Pokémon games, but it would be nice to see more attempts at re-creating some of the spin-offs, or even something completely original such as a side-scroller with Pokémon battling elements. Diversity and portability is all we lack, I feel we have good engines, but they're weathering with time and not as relevant as the world pushes towards adaptability to handheld devices.

Unity allows you to port to handheld devices running Android as well as iOS. You can also write a 3D game in Javascript through Unity that is fully functional.

Personally, Javascript as well as C++ seem less efficient than C#. Chances are that if I start working on something in Unity, it will be in Javascript or C# and that really depends on if I go into the project alone or what another programmer knows as far as other languages.

Yeah I used Unity while I was studying Game Devlopment, for my degree. You can do some pretty incredible stuff, even with such a "starter" engine. It's also quite great for 2D platformers, they're bringing in a 2D platforming engine with their next update, which could be a fantastic base for a Pokémon game that side-scrolls. Naturally the language ultimately depends on what you're doing and what engine you're running, C# is going to be the strongest with Unity. But it's great that something as simple as Javascript can be used for it also. Personally, I'd love to see an engine created in Unity, especially after they release their 2D update.

I'm currently using Unity for Wii U, as the Game Engine for my Wii U games.
I really like this Engine, but it does have its limitations, although it can do almost everything.
However, I've recently got challenged by the Nintendo 3DS, which has no Unity, and after months of hopelessly asking a variety of 3DS Developers to build an Engine for us, I decided to experiment totally from scratch (without Engine).
As soon as I've got used to all required components, I started to regret to not think about it before.
Seriously, I enjoy making something from scratch even more than using an Engine!

It's not just because of the freedom it gives me, and the fact it reminds me to PHP (which I also do from scratch, since the very beginning), it also gives me more of a feeling that it's my own Product (same feeling as when I make something in PHP).

As far as portability is concerned, I suppose Java would be the best option. It has some libraries specifically for games, such as lwjgl and Slick2D, as well as OpenGL stuff for 3D if you really want it. I imagine it would be fast enough for purposes, perhaps even before optimisation.

It seems to me that the best kind of engine would be basically a clone of Essentials (i.e. a 2D engine) but with fewer limitations and more options. 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.

I've been thinking a lot about this topic recently, specifically about retiring Essentials and moving on to something better (a truly free engine with fewer limitations, better usability and so forth). Would this be a good move to make, do you think?

Maruno said:

As far as portability is concerned, I suppose Java would be the best option. It has some libraries specifically for games, such as lwjgl and Slick2D, as well as OpenGL stuff for 3D if you really want it. I imagine it would be fast enough for purposes, perhaps even before optimisation.

It seems to me that the best kind of engine would be basically a clone of Essentials (i.e. a 2D engine) but with fewer limitations and more options. 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.

I've been thinking a lot about this topic recently, specifically about retiring Essentials and moving on to something better (a truly free engine with fewer limitations, better usability and so forth). Would this be a good move to make, do you think?

Click to expand...

That would be cool, but Essentials shouldn't be abandoned also. I think they should both be worked on.

Honestly, Java is a language I should definitely NOT use for Game Development.
Java might be cross-platform and easy to use, but it's very slow, compared to C++, and speed is very important to games.
But in the end, Java might still not work as cross-platform is it's advertised, I've seen Java Programmers making Apps that work for Windows, but they can't get those to work on Linux or OS X, and vice versa.

But Java still remains a good language for beginners.

Maruno said:

It seems to me that the best kind of engine would be basically a clone of Essentials (i.e. a 2D engine) but with fewer limitations and more options. 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...

I know you and I have personally touched on this topic together a bit, and it came up again, fairly recently in fact.

I think we both agreed (or at least that was my takeaway) that the engine should be capable of supporting both 2D and 3D should a developer want to move into 3D space with it.

Personally, 3D modeling is a fun and interactive hobby to pick up and work with. I feel as if there was something like a kit supporting the use of 3D in the Pokemon FG community, you would get a lot of people open to exploring it.

I have actually grown pretty fond of the 3D/2D idea the more I have thought about it, and a basic mapping tileset is easy to create or gather, there are tons of free model resources out there.

I've been thinking a lot about this topic recently, specifically about retiring Essentials and moving on to something better (a truly free engine with fewer limitations, better usability and so forth). Would this be a good move to make, do you think?

Click to expand...

I think this is really going to boil down to what the starter kit offers. If it is simply a clone of Essentials in a different engine, I feel as if most people would ask why you would even bother if Essentials is working fine for the average user. Is there something else setting this apart from the Classic Essentials for the average user, other than the engine and language?

That Azure project that was going on is a good example of what I feel a new kit should offer... something new.

joeyhugg said:

That would be cool, but Essentials shouldn't be abandoned also. I think they should both be worked on.

Click to expand...

Other than the Project 6 (Gen 6 add-on) and The All Animations Project, isn't Maruno the only one actually actively working on Essentials? Retiring Essentials does not mean there would not be add-ons for it, just that the core itself would not really be updated any further. At least that is what I feel Maruno is saying when he talks about retiring it.

I stated this before in another thread, but Essentials to me is a not just an RMXP add on, it is an entire project regardless of the engine or language.

MKGirlism said:

Honestly, Java is a language I should definitely NOT use for Game Development.
Java might be cross-platform and easy to use, but it's very slow, compared to C++, and speed is very important to games.
But in the end, Java might still not work as cross-platform is it's advertised, I've seen Java Programmers making Apps that work for Windows, but they can't get those to work on Linux or OS X, and vice versa.

But Java still remains a good language for beginners.

Click to expand...

Speed is important, you're right. However, how resource-intensive would a Pokémon game be, really? Minecraft is in Java, and that's made up of many thousands of blocks in a 3D world plus many other objects and AI, and it's been extensively added to by mods while still being playable. Okay, it'll have better optimisation than a hypothetical Pokémon game engine will due to the calibre of programmers, but I don't think speed would be a problem here.

ЩѻƦḽᶑʂḽдƴƹƦ™ said:

I think this is really going to boil down to what the starter kit offers. If it is simply a clone of Essentials in a different engine, I feel as if most people would ask why you would even bother if Essentials is working fine for the average user. Is there something else setting this apart from the Classic Essentials for the average user, other than the engine and language?

That Azure project that was going on is a good example of what I feel a new kit should offer... something new.

Click to expand...

Unlimited autotiles/map layers, faster, more compatibility with other OSes, better support of gifs and audio files, etc. Being designed specifically to make Pokémon games rather than generic RPGs (e.g. almost all of RMXP's Database is unused in Essentials because it doesn't work how it needs to, thus PBS files). Free.

And if that's somehow not enough, then we can look at new features. Potential support for 3D. A more computer-based game design, including better screen resizing and mouse input (if you want). These are all possible much more easily in, say, Java than they are in a decade-old Ruby-based program.

ЩѻƦḽᶑʂḽдƴƹƦ™ said:

Other than the Project 6 (Gen 6 add-on) and The All Animations Project, isn't Maruno the only one actually actively working on Essentials? Retiring Essentials does not mean there would not be add-ons for it, just that the core itself would not really be updated any further. At least that is what I feel Maruno is saying when he talks about retiring it.

I stated this before in another thread, but Essentials to me is a not just an RMXP add on, it is an entire project regardless of the engine or language.

Click to expand...

Retiring Essentials wouldn't prevent anyone from using it. I also said in the same sentence: "moving on to something better". A spiritual successor to Essentials. It wouldn't be the end of making Pokémon games; it'd just mean that a new engine came out which I personally would support. I wouldn't want to work on that and Essentials at the same time, and given I am indeed the only person working on Essentials, that would effectively mean Essentials would be discontinued in favour of the new engine.

Of course, if someone else wanted to take over Essentials once I've moved on, they'd be welcome to do so.

My question was: would it be worth making a new engine to succeed Essentials?

Maruno said:

Speed is important, you're right. However, how resource-intensive would a Pokémon game be, really? Minecraft is in Java, and that's made up of many thousands of blocks in a 3D world plus many other objects and AI, and it's been extensively added to by mods while still being playable. Okay, it'll have better optimisation than a hypothetical Pokémon game engine will due to the calibre of programmers, but I don't think speed would be a problem here.


Unlimited autotiles/map layers, faster, more compatibility with other OSes, better support of gifs and audio files, etc. Being designed specifically to make Pokémon games rather than generic RPGs (e.g. almost all of RMXP's Database is unused in Essentials because it doesn't work how it needs to, thus PBS files). Free.

And if that's somehow not enough, then we can look at new features. Potential support for 3D. A more computer-based game design, including better screen resizing and mouse input (if you want). These are all possible much more easily in, say, Java than they are in a decade-old Ruby-based program.


Retiring Essentials wouldn't prevent anyone from using it. I also said in the same sentence: "moving on to something better". A spiritual successor to Essentials. It wouldn't be the end of making Pokémon games; it'd just mean that a new engine came out which I personally would support. I wouldn't want to work on that and Essentials at the same time, and given I am indeed the only person working on Essentials, that would effectively mean Essentials would be discontinued in favour of the new engine.

Of course, if someone else wanted to take over Essentials once I've moved on, they'd be welcome to do so.

My question was: would it be worth making a new engine to succeed Essentials?

Click to expand...

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.

The Mono that comes with Unity3D is a modification of the original Mono, but what's different, I don't know.
You can even replace it by Visual Studio, if you like, and it'll still work with Unity, Plugin-less.

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.

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.

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.