Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8992978" data-attributes="member: 7039850">I am so happy you brought this up just now, as reading over the posts since last I logged in I realise that this is indeed what appear to be the key. I would say D&amp;D is and positions itself as a game engine, but not Unity. They position themselves as RPGMaker. RPGMaker is a hugely popular computer game creation software that comes with a ton of assets, basic setup for easily creating various standard battle styles, control schemes etc. Someone without any programming skill can quite easily make a decent old school jrpg with it, and there are hundreds of enthusiasts that have.Noone would claim that RPGMaker is a game, but the effort that is needed to make a game out of it is magnitudes easier than to do it using Unity. Unity would be more like PoTA as a concept - it requires more effort to make a game out of it, and hence it typically are done by more serious designers and developers. However the completed games that come out of it can tend to be a bit more professional than those made by the average entusiast. However due to the shere volume of entusiasts that can and will make games based on D&amp;D instead, you might be more likely to find someone creating something that touches you personally. Especially as making a game on top of D&amp;D is so easy that it can be done on the fly with you as a player giving direct input to the &quot;designer&quot;.So you might have a point that it might be a bit misleading marketing to advertise D&amp;D as a &quot;complete game&quot;. However might it be that the majority that buy into it doesn't really care, because it is indeed a ultra simple game maker with tons of assets they want, rather than a complete game? And given the extreme ease it is to make a decent game from it - how would you have described it in a way that wouldn't be misleading in the other direction? &quot;Game maker kit&quot; for instance would give associations that likely would make people think it to be more work involved than what it actually is.&nbsp;Indeed what they are labeling themselves is a system for running adventures. If you read &quot;system&quot; as &quot;engine&quot;, and &quot;adventures&quot; as &quot;game&quot;, isn't this exactly describing what you claim they are?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8992978, member: 7039850"] I am so happy you brought this up just now, as reading over the posts since last I logged in I realise that this is indeed what appear to be the key. I would say D&D is and positions itself as a game engine, but not Unity. They position themselves as RPGMaker. RPGMaker is a hugely popular computer game creation software that comes with a ton of assets, basic setup for easily creating various standard battle styles, control schemes etc. Someone without any programming skill can quite easily make a decent old school jrpg with it, and there are hundreds of enthusiasts that have. Noone would claim that RPGMaker is a game, but the effort that is needed to make a game out of it is magnitudes easier than to do it using Unity. Unity would be more like PoTA as a concept - it requires more effort to make a game out of it, and hence it typically are done by more serious designers and developers. However the completed games that come out of it can tend to be a bit more professional than those made by the average entusiast. However due to the shere volume of entusiasts that can and will make games based on D&D instead, you might be more likely to find someone creating something that touches you personally. Especially as making a game on top of D&D is so easy that it can be done on the fly with you as a player giving direct input to the "designer". So you might have a point that it might be a bit misleading marketing to advertise D&D as a "complete game". However might it be that the majority that buy into it doesn't really care, because it is indeed a ultra simple game maker with tons of assets they want, rather than a complete game? And given the extreme ease it is to make a decent game from it - how would you have described it in a way that wouldn't be misleading in the other direction? "Game maker kit" for instance would give associations that likely would make people think it to be more work involved than what it actually is. Indeed what they are labeling themselves is a [I]system[/I] for running [I]adventures[/I]. If you read "system" as "engine", and "adventures" as "game", isn't this exactly describing what you claim they are? [/QUOTE]

Verification