- May 26, 2024
- 71
- 48
Thank you! That's very helpful! Only problem with unreal is i dont know hardly anything about coding, that's why i was using rpg maker, i'm a total newb at game development. However, i was already thinking about making a switch based on all the feedback i've been receiving. Perhaps i could do unreal, but i'd be almost starting over, but maybe that's for the best, rebuild the game from the bottom-up. I could probably still reuse much of my assets, but renpy might be more practical. With renpy i could reuse everything and keep it the same as it is now with improvements. I'm not sure, I'll have to do research and think about it.Agree, but not with the options. Renpy is okay, I add Unreal, but not Unity, QSP or HTML.
Renpy is ideal for a VN and integrating Minigames is not that difficult. The Renpy Forum is helpful, friendly and has many code snippets for that. Moving from RPG-Maker should be not that difficult, because you can use your already made pictures.
Unreal has much free assets and many external programs like Photoshop, DAZ, Blender etc. offer options to export to Unreal and there is a bunch of free training videos available on YT. It's not that hard to learn with their visual Blueprint language, but you can still use traditional C++ if you want, but don't need to. For example you can use characters and animations you already have in DAZ3d and move them to Unreal with little work. The only thing is for just a VN + Minigames it's to powerful, but it has the most options for future development if VN is not the only thing somebody want's to do. Ther are templates to make a VN and you could use your RPG pictures, but starting from scratch would make more sense with Unreal, because you have the option of animation and render inside Unreal while playing the game.
QSP needs an additional program (interpreter) to install when you want to play. Many does not want that. Not clue about MiniGames, but QSP is very text based.
HTML - not very flexible and adding Minigames in HTML is difficult. The structure isn't very intuitive.
Unity - is nearly dead. They changed their terms about a year ago and since then developers are dropping unity like a hot potato and move to unreal. You'll find many videos that people will do that and tutorials how to do that. Their head managers believe the same about their own product, because most of them sold most of their stock before announcing the change in terms. I believe - and I'm not alone with that opinion - Unity will not exist like that in the future. Learning to work with unity is a waste of time in my opinion.