They're generally easier to manage than their VX/Ace counterparts. First of all, to customize the engine you use "plugins" instead of simple scripts, and they're written in JavaScript instead of Ruby (because the engine itself moved away from Ruby into JS).
Many people don't like this kind of graphic, so that's a thing you need to keep in mind. VX and VX Ace default graphics is super-deformed and similar, to an extent, to the first Pokémon games on GB Color. It still doesn't allow you to use multiple-layers mapping, but since you don't have limited tilesets this is a nuisance more than a real problem. Better in every aspect, it removes the (stupid) tileset limit and it comes with a built-in character generator, which is even extendable with external resources. If you want more variety in your graphic you either need to jump through hoops and loops by using external scripts, or you need to use parallax mapping. The big drawback of VX is the mapping: not only it does not allow you to use multiple-layers mapping (unlike XP), but it also forces you to use only a very limited amount of tilesets. Also, XP FPS is 40, which does not provide a smooth experience. But the scripts themselves are messy and difficult to maintain, and after you introduce a handful of external ones, you'll probably end up with some conflict. XP is the first RPGMaker that introduced scripts, so that you could actually customize the engine. I can give you some insights on XP, VX, VX Ace and MV, since I used all of them.Īmong those, XP and VX are the worst, IMO.
0 kommentar(er)
