First of all, it is clear that VX is higher than the XP version. Developer EB calls VX an innovative version of XP.

1. In terms of ease of use: VX is very easy to use. Some small functions, such as the settings of doors and treasure chests, can be directly used using the templates in the event; in this aspect, XP requires Manually set up step-by-step door and treasure chest events. VX's ease of use can be rated 9 points, while XP can only be rated 5 points.

2. In terms of materials: VX’s default materials are highly integrated, and the materials are fixed in the system, making them difficult to replace. Currently, very few of the popular materials on the Internet are highly compatible with VX. If you cannot completely abandon the tiles, then VX is not a good choice. XP's tile settings are several times stronger than VX's. If you don't like them, you can replace them in sets. In this regard, VX scores 1 point (0 points if there is no E page), and XP scores 8 points.

3. Scripting: After careful comparison, there is no essential difference between XP's RGSS and VX's RGSS2, except that the default script is different. Secondly, RGSS2 has added some new syntax, which improves execution efficiency. Hardly. In addition, using RGSS scripts in RGSS2 requires some modifications. To a certain extent, RGSS2 original scripts are easier to write than RGSS. In terms of scoring, XP is given 6 points and VX is given 7 points.

4. The biggest highlight:

XP:

1) It is easy to replace materials, and you can easily create any picture with whatever materials you can get.

2) The script lineup is strong, and various script plug-ins can be found on all major RM sites

VX:

1) New small functions Extremely sharp, automatic combat and animation overlay are very practical functions

2) The default material quality is one level higher than XP, and it is also very generous to draw scenes regardless of layers

5. The biggest disadvantage:

XP: It is difficult to get started with event editing, and the script execution efficiency is low.

VX: The resolution is lower than that of XP, and the default materials are younger. Any scripts from the XP era need to undergo certain modifications before they can be transplanted to VX.

6. Comprehensive evaluation:

It is a big step from the earlier 2003 to XP, but from XP to VX, it is a step forward with the left foot and retraction of the right foot, with limited progress. VX is recommended for novices who are new to production, and XP is recommended for those who want to make something decent.

VX is very good at the details. You may have some habits that you can’t change when you use it to get started. If you are determined to make a decent game, it is recommended to go directly to XP.

As for the future, there is no doubt about it. No matter how exquisite the games made by RM are, they are still 2D, which is seriously out of touch with the current era. That doesn't mean no one plays 2D games, but it's certainly a lot more niche than mainstream games. It seems that EB will not release new tools in the short term, because it seems to be content with moving up from DS to VX...

PS: If the poster has C# programming experience, then you can consider giving up the RM series directly Something, the graphics card rendering cannot be called, and the programming language execution efficiency is low...change to XNA.