Okay. Never blame Boeing, always blame airline companies! Does that work? hint: FAA says "lolno"
I’m talking about how the logic differs here. A pilot doesn’t control all the decisions and aspects of flying--many of those choices are made by the airline (incuding choosing boeing for their planes). However, in game development, the dev does control everything. If a developer uses RPGM (or any engine) and encounters issues or technical limitations, they can blame the engine. But we’re looking at this from the customer or player’s perspective. When a gamer complains about a grindy or linear game design, or poor combat mechanics, they should blame the developer, not the engine.
Even if players think the engine is the problem, that won’t solve anything. It’s the developer who made those design choices, and the developer who has the power to fix them.
Do they really? That would mean that devs have at least some proficiency with the multiple engines that they choose from, which is not the case.
When I say developers make informed decisions, I mean they thoroughly research game engines before choosing one. No one just wakes up and decides to use RPGM without looking into it first. It doesn’t take any proficiency in game development to do this research--anyone can compare engines and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.
The point is, developers don’t blindly choose RPGM. They understand its limitations, but they also know it can serve their specific needs, whether it's for a grindy or linear gameplay experience. When players criticize aspects like grindy gameplay or limited combat options, the blame lies with the developer's design choices, not the engine itself.
Instead, what they base their decision on are some advertised *claims*, just like with Boeing that promised the airline suits great cost efficiency and reliability.
Do you really think developers are naïve enough to just believe the marketing claims or what they see on a product’s advertisement page? Even regular consumers are more cautious these days, let alone a developer who’s about to invest countless hours into creating a game. No one jumps into an engine without doing their research, especially when their entire project depends on it.
RPGM has undeniable advantages in the ease of developement (again, immediately verifiable claim), but it has a low ceiling and a very narrow scope of what it can achieve without becoming an utter PITA.
I said it before, it does have it's shortcomings. I don't disagree here.
That last part is pretty well hidden, because it can always be blamed on the devs that don't use this great engine to its full potential. Never stops Unity/GM/Godot/Unreal devs somehow.
Regardless of the platform or engine, you don’t need to master the engine’s full potential to create a decent gameplay experience for gamers. What matters is understanding how to use its core features effectively to deliver enjoyable and balanced gameplay
I saw multiple examples of devs that clearly made the wrong choice; the choice became apparent when they tried to steer their RPG in a bit more open-worlded direction. Sometimes it's just as simple as getting performance issues they would never have had with other popular 2D engines.
And to be clear, it's not like the devs are blameless. It's their responsibility, in the end. But I don't think it's solely their responsibility either.
Like I said before, from a game dev’s perspective, they can certainly blame the engine for any limitations or issues they encounter during development. However, from a consumer or player’s perspective, the blame should fall on the developer or the company behind the game. It’s their responsibility to design and deliver a satisfying experience, regardless of the engine they chose.
