PLAYERS X EXPERTS - OUR ATTITUDE ON PLAYING GAMES

ooʇ sʞɹoʍ bɹo˙ʇxǝʇdıןɟ

t̹̦͇̂͐̐̓̿h̟̍͂̆̃̓ị̱̖͕̟͚ͦ̓ͦ͗͌sÌ…Ì"̪̤ ̨̹̲̐͆̐́̃̊ͯt̤̼̠͛̊̉ͯ̄̌ô̴͈͕̺̼ͅp̐̇͂Í'Ì„Ì'̝͕̗̤̞͕̲͢i̱ͣͅc̀͂Í'̲͖͉͎̖͍͆ͣ̽̂ ̳̫̻ͦ̂ͭͬ̎i̬͎s ͯÌ'͆̆Ì"Ì"ͤa̻ͪ̋̿ͅm̛̩̜ͥͯ̀a̱̯̹̖̖̯͌ẓͯ͛͗Í"iͣ͋҉n̗̱͆ͧͭ͊͆͜Í"Í"g̨ͣ́ͯͪͫ̍Í"̙͎̤̹

post=153744
@Illustrious: I'd wager less than 10% of people who visit this site are gamers who have no intention to design their own game.

Completely false and WIP has the site stats to prove it.

post=153799

post=153744
@Illustrious: I'd wager less than 10% of people who visit this site are gamers who have no intention to design their own game.

Completely false and WIP has the site stats to prove it.

Web stats can't track people's intentions.

I'm sure you could make a reasonable estimate based on number of downloads and site visitors, vs number of members (since you can't submit a game without being a member).

Hell, I remember that Chrono Trigger fangame had tons and tons of downloads (and players, I even remember the topic where half the site (not this site) was discussing about the game and what they thought of it) back when that guy from ChronoCompendium used the site to host his game, and shared the link with CC.

Seriously I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this. Exit Fate and Last Scenario, for example are critically acclaimed RPG Maker games, even WAYYYYYYY outside the community. Kentona can tell you himself that shitloads of people from old men to schoolkids have played Hero's Realm.

If you think that our games aren't in the market to attract true players, you're dead wrong.

I think putting forth that there are no players (people who are below the knowledge of being able use a game program well) that visit this site is really futile. Specially when it seems unreasonably pessimistic in such a topic as this.

"Like" button? What is this, Facebo-

/megoestocreatefacebookpagesformygames*

*Sarcasm

guilty of overanalyzing games in detriment of fun

You're forgetting that for some of us, picking out every single little flaw in a game is fun too. Not just indie games, any game. I see myself doing this for games I really love and have played many times, I tend to start finding every little problem with the game.

I always review a game relative to it's flaws, instead of giving games low scores because they have flaws. You're not going to care about the flaws if the game is fun enough. You also need a good spread to be a good reviewer, if you have too many low scores or high scores, people can't really tell if the game was actually good or bad.

This is different from the angry video game type reviewer where the purpose is to point out things not to do when making things. These are helpful because it's easier to make a good game based on not making a bad one, versus trying to do the things good games do.

However, it is better to be a reviewer to keeps giving things low critical scores than to be one who thinks everything is awesome since you will still learn more things from the low reviewer. It's still better to keep your given scores near the middle with low variance so that a game has to be a blight on humanity to get a 1/5 and to be so amazingly good for a 5/5.

post=153811
Also MOG is right. A handful of random developers and boobles talk here; players come here in droves.

Phrase you're looking for is "silent majority".

post=154464
I definitely disagree with the like vs. dislike, as it simplifies things too much and isn't well defined. One person might think anything that's not perfect is worth a "dislike" while another person might think that only a game which is totally unsalvagably ruined is worth a "dislike", or anything in between. It's better for reviewers to describe what they do and don't like, and award a standardized score; this gives much more information and isn't nearly as misleading.

If you guys are looking for the happy medium between both, just do what Gamespot does and have two ratings: an average score of the players' opinion and the average score of the reviewers' opinion. Tada! Problem solved, although I would still be one to say that a reviewer should score like a player.

post=154464
I do wish our scores were standardized. So that four stars from one person meant the same as four stars from another person. But that's probably a pain in the ass, since doing that now would require deleting or editing all existing reviews.

Even if there was a guideline of sorts that says "2.5 = this criteria, 3 = this other criteria," there will always be the rogue reviewers who decide that the standard scale is whack. While it's an awesome idea on paper, I doubt it would ever translate.