Animated battler for SOME enemies - a cop out?

Basically I have some pre-built animation for a few of my enemies, (I'm using Galv's animated battlers) but most of them are just static images. Does this make give the feel that I'm cheeping out on the game? I'm NOT good at making these myself (my battlers look either crappy or tend to accidentally move around too much without lots and lots of work --- and I can't begin to make complicated ones with my low-level of talent)

Right now there are about ten enemies made, of those 1 boss and 2 minor enemies have animations, the rest are just static images. I'm worried that my game will feel "lower quality" when there's an almost random mix of animated and non-animated (considered just animating bosses, but not sure if that solves the problem or not)

And on that note, how bad does it look to have battler animation based on the map sprites vs more detailed animations for battlers? (in some I know it works - specifically very small enemies where detail isn't possible, but others...)

Whatever you do with the battlers, be consistent with it. It absolutely will look bad if you just have random ones animated, it'll look like you just stopped in the middle or ran out of money or something. Just the bosses could work I suppose, but it's hard to say, I'm having a hard time imagining how jarring it would or wouldn't be. I don't know what you mean by your second question.

This is the animated battler style that I use for my protagonist:

http://dark-holder.deviantart.com/art/Paul6-WoodenBow-436480867

This is the sprite-edit battler I made myself:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8499597/Ruxpin.png

That is literally the map-sprite that I edited using paint.net to make "poseable" - the same sprite that appears following the chracters around. it's much smaller and lower quality (though in this case I feel it works since a possessed teddy bear *should* be smaller and simpler) If I did that, would it feel, again, like I'm cheeping out on the game?

Ah. Well, I think as long as they match each other, that's what matters. If your player's battlers look out of scale with the monsters then I think it would look bad but the evil teddy looks just fine. Lower quality animation on the run of the mill monsters compared to your main players isn't uncommon and won't look bad I think, but the bosses should probably be similar in quality to your main characters.

I'll agree that it would look weird if some enemies were animated and others weren't, especially if you get a combination of both within the same troop. For me personally it won't break the game completely. If the rest of the game is nice, I would still play it, but it would look like a flaw nevertheless. As Sharm said, consistency is the key. Either have all of them animated or none of them animated. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if the characters are animated and enemies aren't (I've seen some games do that).

As for the possessed teddy bear, it looks fine to me. I think it matches the art style that the main character is done in. Some suggestions if you don't mind: 1) the walking back sprites are normally done facing the same direction as every other. Probably depends on the battle system you're using, but the more well-known ones that I am aware of automatically mirror the sprite when it's walking back or simply make it fade out and appear back on its normal spot. 2) in the victory pose where it's throwing the spikes into the air, it looks to me as if the spikes stay on the same height for 3 frames, which could look strange in-game. I think the 1st and 3rd frames should have the spikes positioned a bit lower in height, so it would look like they've been thrown into the air and then come back down.

Hope this helps.

heh, that would be a bit of a spoiler if I did that, since only animating actors would mean all the enemies would be static --- except Ruxpin... bit of a dead give-away that he's recruitable :D (and if I wasn't so dead-set on it, I would have never made him optional - I'm learning that optional party members make every single dialogue (well every dialogue of any importance) twice as long... or in my case 4x as long since right now you can have 1, 2, or 3 members in the party depending on what the player decided...)

The sad part is that, as I said, I suck at animation. it took me a whole evening to animate Ruxpin. But, I guess it can be the small details that really make or break the experience...

Actually that's not one of my sprite-sheets, that was just showing the relative size. (I'm actually using this set --- I just wasn't linking it since it's not in the right format, though tbh I think that only makes Ruxpin look _better_ in comparison) I'm using Galv's battlers and it does make you mirror the retreating sprite yourself (well unless you *want* them to float backwards, which would work fine for certain types of characters I suppose) The reason they stay int eh air is he's tossing them in the air and making them spin (Though I kinda wonder where the heck he found battle-claws sized for a teddybear...) Though if it's hard to tell, I'll change it so he just tosses it into the air and catches it. (I really need to redo all my victory poses so they can loop - that's what was supposed to happen with Ruxpin's pose...)

Thanks for the feedback! :)

Well, I don't mind animated or not, but I surely won't like it if your game has both (with some exceptions, depends on how you did it)...

Yeah, that's what I figured (most people seem to be saying that) I guess despite it going to really increase production time, I'm going to have to take the time to animate all my battlers... *wonders how the heck to make an animated battler for a book*

Maybe flipping pages or some kind of aura eminating from it?

Yeah, that could take some time, especially if you have a lot of enemies in your game. But I think if you took some small shortcuts, the players won't hate you for it, like if you maybe used recoloured variations of a few enemies or maybe use one enemy's sprite as a base to make another one (e.g. one enemy soldier without a helmet but another one has exactly the same animations but maybe with a helmet on, etc). 

I ran into this issue as well. I wanted all the battlers to be animated. Actor and enemy. I am using Holder's Animated Battlers, and there are not very many monster battlers in his style and I am not comfortable enough to try to make my own in his style. I came up with a simple solution. Monsters aren't that prevalent in Gaia (the world the game takes place in). I did some simple color edits, some complex color edits. The majority of the enemies that will be encountered are human (as there is a war going on) the the occasional spat of wasps, slimes, bats, and whatnot.

Here is an example of a semi-complex recolor.



What WAS an actor sprite I decided not to use has now become a Ghost Knight enemy battler. You can't tell here, but it is semi-transparent.

I don't recommend having SOME animated enemies and some that are not. It looks tacky in my humble opinion. One way or the other.

That said, some enemies (like my Cursed Door) are not really animated because they are static. The door wobbles a little bit, but no other animation on the sprite itself.

I personally would recommend staying with non-animated enemy battlers (ala early Final Fantasy styled enemies) to keep it from seeming like animations of the static enemies are just "broken" and not animating.

Yes, a different colored arura for each 'action' is a great idea! (like green for defense, red for attack, etc) I'm also thinking that the ready/Idle animation has the book floating level, but the 'low HP' will have it at an angle... Will have to experiment when I get closer to that fight... (won't be till at the earliest map 5, probably later since the book is a 'boss' where Ruxpin makes his Heroic Sacrifice... need to give myself plenty of time for the player to become attached to him to milk the drama of his permanent-death...)

It's funny how when your playing a game, it annoys you to see recolored "Pallet swap" sprites to make "new" enemies, but when your a dev you see it as a godsend. (and I love how you can easily change tint without leaving RPGM favorite example was from a tutorial where the tinted a slime orange and made it into "living lava")


That's a good point to take into account... even though my world is turning evil and crazy with even previously inanimate objects attacking (always loved that quirk from EARTHBOUND - no other game afaik has EVER had you fighting streetlights and painings! :D :D :D ) actual monsters are fairly rare, so I could cut down my enemies by using that fact... and while most player battlers are too unique, some could probably be repurposed with some quick and dirty edits... (I'm using Galv's battlers but I think they use the holder animation sheets too - I feel your pain)

Arguably, you could make things like doors animate, like an attack would be it sliding over to a player and opening quickly, but yes, it would at best seem odd... (and honestly, non-animated monsters would fit well since this is stylistically inspired by FF3/VI (dep on if you use USA/japan numbering) and iirc the only 'animation' they had was changing after X amount of damage...

Right. There are some very simple things that can be done to enhance the experience. A lot of RM games (and other SNES Era RPG's) used static battlers and were very well received. This was done due to limitations of the engine and time constraints, but as long as the battlers are more or less styled close to the Actors it should be fine. Just don't be the person who uses SNES styled enemies with rips from say Ragnarok Online as the actor battlers.. That is a a peeve of a lot of people from my understanding.

Oh you have no idea how disappointed I was when I did a search for "Tree Monster" and found two PERFECT images --- and both were from Raganarok online... T_T (hilariously I ended up using a open-lisence GIF and taking a single frame from it) --- which is another example of a battler that's animations are, at best, strange and awkward unless it's at least vaguely people-shaped, what am I going to do? shake the branches for attacks? *eyeroll*) But, yes, I try not to use well-known sources (even if they *are* freely licensed) because it feels cheep and kinda ripoff-ish (durp I are gud at inglish!)

At the moment I only have 2 animated battlers (discounting Ruxpin) a Slime and a Bat (hilariously the slime wasn't meant to be there, it was added in a battle test and forgot to take it out but the play testers liked it x_x)  I'm still considering animating the bosses though, to give that extra "This is Serious" feel (and also to make it less obvious Ruxpin was recruitable in case players decide to kill him instead)

Animating bosses is very common. I'd do it if you can manage. The "Treant" I am using actually shakes it's branches to cast Nature Magic. So it's kinda funny you should say that. Don't be afraid to use common resources, simple edits in a photo editing program will shed some of the "I've been used in 3000 RM games" feel of the sprite and people will appreciate it. There are always haters though who think every sprite needs to be original because the sprites they paid someone to make are original. :)

You know, you could just give him a static battler, too, until he's recruited. ;)

I often see many people dislike that too, but I personally never found that to be an issue. In fact I love seeing recoloured versions of the same monsters in games, because it means they're likely to use a similar strategy or special attacks to the ones I've encountered before but perhaps with a small twist or an added ability, and that is always intriguing for me.

I think overall making your own battler sheets for enemies in the game must be a fun thing to do (even if it is a bit time-consuming), because you can really get creative for the poses, especially for the attack/magic/skill ones that you can use for some cool-looking special attacks and so on (and Galv's animated battlers script in fact makes this very easy to do by allowing you to assign a pose to each special attack via notetags). I personally am using the animated battlers from the Monster Legacy pack for my current project, but even then at times I find myself making edits to them in order to fit my game better. For example they only have 1 ghost battler in that pack, so I ended using that as a template to edit together 4 new ones to fit my game better. What I mean to say is that you can always make edits to the existing ones to get a large variety to fit your game and to really get creative with what you make. :)

I gotta ask, what does it do for physical attacks? (or does it only cast magic?)

I'll keep that in mind. So far all my monsters have been semi-unique purely due to the game being in a non-standard setting (well except the slimes).

Oh don't get me wrong, if I had the $$$ I'd get everything custom-made too, but I'm more concerned with telling a powerful story than I am with perfect-quality sprites :p

His static image looks really, and I mean REALLY bad in battle... (of course I may be being too hard on myself since I also think his animated battler looks craptacular....

If I had a master-sheet that had positions marked, it would be more fun, but as such it's a pain in the tail because my monsters float up and down as I animate them or even get part of one animation and part of the next one due to spacing errors and such... I really wish Galv/Holder/etc would post a plain-and-simple grid sheet (possibly with the shadow already drawn in for reference)

I actually, for Ruxpin, made a puppet by creating about 10 laters in Paint.net and moving them around. That part was kinda fun (would have been better if I could have used skeletons and IK chains, but I'm not picky when it's this simple of an image) --- and that's what I'll end up doing for most of my enemies I animate (bosses or otherwise) since the world is so unique that most monsters just do not fit with the world....

Only magical attacks. The "physical attack" is a vine smack, so no need to animate the battler itself. 

I agree. Powerful story trumps incredible graphics. If all a player cares about is eye candy, they can go play the multitude of nigh-plotless vomit the mainstream industry is hurling at gamers.

To my knowledge, the sprites for Holder's Battlers don't really have a size limit. Just each battler needs to be the same "size" on the sheet. Example being all actions contrained to a 96x96 block for each frame of the animation. The Treant is much larger than the actor sprites but still animates correctly. 

Here is the template I use:

Interesting. Mine actually has "arms" so if Iw ere to animate it I'd just have it swing it's arms.

So good to hear someone who actually agrees with me that plot > graphics! (it's real sad how many people I see who say things like "I won't play a game who's polycount is below X" or such drivel...

I tried that, I used perfect square blocks, arranged them in exactly 4x13 pattern, and I got a huge mess... so apparently there is some form of requirement (possibly that they have to be at least X tall --- for my ruxpin sprite I opened up the downloaded "archer" sheet, added a later and lined Ruxpin up with the archer's graphic, then deleted the background layer with the original archer in it and saved it under the new name. For my bat I just made a new sheet with 4x13 blocks the same size and put my bat in there and it failed spectacularly...