Am I the only one who thinks that the original RGSS is confusing ?

Hello Everybody,

Today I checked the Original RGSS.I saw a script and I was totally confused.Now,to the point of this thread,Scripters,Do you think that RGSS1 was more confusing than RGSS3 ?

Not confusing. But troublesome in my opinion.

In RGSS3 you could aliased everything to make better compatibility. While RGSS1 you need to overwrite methods to get things done

:o RGSS1 had no way to alias methods? That sounds hellish for compatibility :/

@dekita:

There is alias method. However ...

If you look at RMXP RGSS structure, you will understand. And that's why I will never touch RMXP once again :/

There's no Scene_Base. And if I remember correctly, Scene_Menu only contains 4 methods with long and messy codes

...

Never bothered with XP but that sounds rather irritating.

As I was looking for examples to compare RGSS1 to RGSS3,I found this :

Galv's Menu Engine(VXA) and Prussian Interface Engine(XP).And this is how I explain RGSS1's "troublesomeness"(is that even a word?)

-Galv's Menu Engine : RGSS3 = Over 600/1000 Lines.

-Prussian Interface Engine : RGSS1 = Over 4000/4600 Lines.

(Please note that they're both menu engines)

rofl, guess not many full scripts where getting written back then...

I guess it has 4000 lines is because it overwrites everything.

I found my image which compares different series of RGSS

Take a look https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41797508/Galeries/SS/rgss_difference.jpg

The conclusion is yours :p

Hmm..  'easiest' depends on personal preference really...

I find stat modification type scripts fairly easy just cause I am so used to them - because I enjoy writing them the most :p

Edit:

So it would seem that over the years the only way they improved the default scripts is by making more methods to so similar things (obviously the ruby code will be more efficient each time as well)..

@TheoAllen : I'll take a look at that.

@Dekita : I agree.It's only a matter of personal preference.But,Menu Scripts in RGSS3 are really fun to write.

Again, personal preference..

I hate writing any script with a graphical interface. This includes, but not limited to, menu scripts and new scenes :p

Ended up making a few modifications to the default scene layout and just sticking with that to save time making the scenes :p

It's about to raise compatibility in my opinion
I don't really hate menu scripting. The only problem is I can't make menu resources. So I would like to stick on windowed style menu or I often collaborate with my friend(s) ~ :3

@Dekita : Oh...It's MY personal preference...I like creates windows.

I got a hidden secret.I made a Rock-Paper-Scissors System.Complete with random computer choices and stuff.But my brother didn't leave me share it.Because he said that the community "Will make fun of you and say that they made this when they was 5 years old".Again,I like to see my windows and stuff work.Seeing your creation come to life makes me forget all that 100-line rush stress.

I remember trying to read the game interpreter in xp and didn't try to pick up scripting again till ace

Kind of want to go and investigate this RGSS1 just to see its inadequacies for myself :p

I don't know, but I've been playing with making games in BASIC myself using SmileBASIC on DS. Making a Zelda-like top-down collision system with smooth transitions (of which I sadly don't have footage of), all in one file, with GOTO "LABEL" statements and LOOPS... You can do pretty much anything in anything if you structure your code well enough. Btw, BASIC doesn't have functions, or parameters, or definable methods, or overwrites. All you do is make "LABELS" and you can tell the interpreter to jump to them using GOTO, then return to where it was before the last GOTO. You can still do pretty amazing stuff with it though :3

Not so much RGSS1. RGSS3 has some nifty tools that weren't available in the earlier versions.


However, it's the way the scripts are organized in XP that make changes cumbersome. The methods are soooooo long and do soooooo much! If you want to change one little thing in the middle of a big method, you've got to overwrite it and copy/paste the entire thing for the sake of a single line change. It makes it VERY difficult to have more scripts and avoid compatibility issues. Ace's classes are much more structured, and the methods do a single, small thing. Easier to keep your changes isolated, which makes for easier addition of scripts.

Yea I've been trying to get into the habbit of making all my methods do as little as possible ;p