>>723145389
Anything works really. Unity, Godot, Gamemaker all get the job done.
RPG Maker is great for simple stuff, but the problems begin when you try to do stuff that's beyond the default scope of it. And it's not even a coding thing, it's interface thing.
For example, RPGM has 8 predefined stats for characters/enemies. It has very good UI that lets you change the names, set up nice curves, easily modify how much a piece of equipment boosts them by, etc. But if you wanted to have 9, you're shit out of luck. You will have to get into the trenches and set this shit up manually from within the custom settings window, and have to remember to define them on every character/item manually.
This all is manageable if you have few instances of such things, but as you get more and more crazy with things you do, the maintenance cost grows exponentially until you're in a mess of spaghetti. This is why a bunch of these "cool, out of the box" RPG Maker projects are often very short, they're simply impossible to develop on a larger scale in it.
And just so we're clear this can also happen to you in other engines, but in other engines you do actually have the means to maintain it properly, set up error messages and reminders, mass-edit it easily, etc.
The main downside of leaving RPG Maker is that you'll have to do quite a bit of the initial work yourself. RPGM has a lot of easy stuff that you suddenly will have to make yourself, like movement, combat and damage formulas, menus and settings. But at the same time you are leaving behind things that you don't care about, and can get more creative.
>>723145637
In a way this Anon is right in that 2003 is better because of the box being bigger. But you're still asking for trouble when trying to do stuff outside of the box.
I'd steer clear from RPG Maker, unless you want something small, and/or actually do like its aesthetic or restrictions (which are not always a bad thing).
