PLAYERS X EXPERTS - OUR ATTITUDE ON PLAYING GAMES

Posts

and most people are easily entertained.

also ding ding ding

You'll find that many RPG Maker games that are released to an audience of PLAYERS tend to enjoy them immensely more than much more than developers. Most of the shit we break down and cry about, the average player doesn't give a shit.

Key point; design your game like a developer. Help other people make their games like a developer. Play other games like a player. Review other games like a player. For the most part it's really that simple. Stop approaching this shit like a job or an obligation and maybe you'll have some fun with it.
A lot of the "fun" I receive from playing RM games is analyzing it. The very reason I play RM games is for another level of fun, otherwise if both commercial games and indie games like RM games provided people with the same concept of "fun", RM games would be very popular, probably more so, because it is free. This of course, is false.

But I agree with the notion that a few bugs and inconsistencies should not overshadow the core factors of what makes a game great, which is of course, been mentioned countless times: Gameplay, story/characters, experience and other things that can't be put into words.
Couldn't say I really care for the details as to why I find a game fun and what inspires me to keep playing, etc.

A game is either fun or it's not. With that said I could care less for overdone reviews of games :P
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
I actually feel pretty bad when I post negative reviews, to be honest.
Lies! Solitayre feeds on the tears of little children and unicorn's blood.
The two secret ingredients in my award-winning chili.

I review like developer and score like player. My overall e-star rating is not about how I reviewed each facet of a game. That score is only about how much I liked the game, not a level of technical achievement (often making that rating much higher than what one would think with how I picked apart a game). I have two reasons for this. One is an awareness of our limitations of being on solo or small teams and using things like rpgmaker/gamemaker. Second is, I genuinely do like a lot of games on this site.

I think most peoples' issue with a Solitayre review is that he calls out all the same problems we all see in a game and still manage to enjoy, while he finishes off a game review by giving it two stars. His trend of giving a game 2.5 stars or less started about 16 reviews ago (in May) and look what his average score was before that. Beautiful Escape must have scarred him something fierce and his only redemption came in the form of "Pretty Princess: RM Edition" Nowdays, the average game is below average? Or shall we say the above average games are below average? Is this a paradox?

I have two problems with the average Solitayre review as of late.

1. As he is scoring lower, he is doing this with increasingly more popular games. Now I would not want his reviews to lie to conform to what other people on the site are feeling, but as an official reviewer for the site can we not expect his scoring to represent a more mainstream assessment of a game? (Admittedly, it is hard to prove his reviews are not of the mainstream sentiment when all we have to go by are reviews and comments on game pages. Using what we have to go on, Solitayre judges much more harshly than most other game players)

If I have not played a game, the most useful review to me is the one that is most likely going to tell me how much I will like the game. When Solitayre tells us to look beyond his e-stars and read it for its content he is missing a point. The rating matters because it puts what he wrote in kind of a context that we DO care about- Is this game fun and enjoyable or not? It's totally fine to have opinions that do not represent that of a larger part of the community, but for the purpose of being an official reviewer for the site it would surely help.

2. It's hard to be a reviewer on this site who is not Solitayre and generate discussion. He is recognized by the site, prolific, and contentious. I am one who wants to know if people agree or not when I write a review and then discuss those points of the game. It's also rewarding simply as social involvement in the community. Most of the time review submissions amount to the game author giving thanks and then going back on forth on one point, amounting to about 4-5 responses exclusively between reviewer and creator. I kinda wonder, are other people's reviews other than Soli's being read? Do people think his opinions matter most or is he just more controversial? My five star rating of the Drunken Paladin had been referred to a lot, but no one is talking to ME about it on the page of my review. Only by looking at Solitayre's review and forum threads do I know that particular review has been read a lot.
Craze
why would i heal when i could equip a morningstar
15150
Being a game a tiny group of people finds fun and being a good game that I wouldn't be embarrassed seeing talked about at NeoGAF or wherever is totally different.
Decky
I'm a dog pirate
19645
Despite the shortcomings people are mentioning here, Solitayre gave me inspiration to make Carlsev Saga better, and I think people need to realize that he only wants these games to be improved. I don't really appreciate his score and some of the review content, because it felt like a 3 star review as opposed to a 2-star review. It was a review that was (at times) embarrassing to me (such as the giant screenshot and "high school play" reference), and it may have cast away potential players, but oh well -- he reviews as a developer.

My only major beef is something that is seemingly unrelated to the review. Every time I go to the main page I get to see the lovely two stars in the live feed. People are going to think I'm some self-centered developer who needed a "public reprimand" to cool off or something. Sol said it wasn't his fault, but it had to be someone's. I mean, I don't have an urge to post my own negative reviews to the live feed...

We've had several very lengthy conversations about the game, and he's helped me unlock some ideas that I've kind of shied away from due to a "conservative first game" approach. I know a lot of people love the game, but he is right in that there are a lot of potential opportunities and that the characters can be better, given the type of story.

Illustrious, his reviews are read mainly because they tend to be on the controversial and strictly constructive side. A few people then will come out of the woodwork agreeing with him, which usually leads to discussion. He also has by far the most reviews on the site.

Sol, I think your reviews would sting a little less and generate less controversy if you don't bother with the star rating, considering you review games in a different manner. In most peoples' eyes, a 3-star game is average for the site. 2-stars strikes me as a "My RTP Adventure" game that it at least somewhat playable.
halibabica
RMN's Official Reviewmonger
16873
Well, it's not like he stuck the review to the live feed on purpose. As an official site reviewer, any review he writes will appear there. The same would be true if I wrote one, because I have the same status (even though I do frickin' NOTHING anymore).

I do get what you're saying about the stars thing, though. Reviews can contain all kinds of info about a game, but not everyone is going to delve into that to find out if they should play it or not. The stars given in a review are the first thing people are most likely to look at, and very often the only thing they will.

Back when I was actually reviewing things, karsuman pointed this out to me, and it dawned on me just how big of an impact that number can have. On a scale of just 1 to 5, people will stigmatize anything below a 3. The rating is only helpful if those viewing it can understand what it's gauging. I know Soli has his own method of determining what score to give, but I think he might be due to revise it. The public's perception of the score is more important than the reviewer's intentions behind giving it.

I don't know if any of that made any sense.
Decky
I'm a dog pirate
19645
post=153608
Well, it's not like he stuck the review to the live feed on purpose. As an official site reviewer, any review he writes will appear there. The same would be true if I wrote one, because I have the same status (even though I do frickin' NOTHING anymore).

I do get what you're saying about the stars thing, though. Reviews can contain all kinds of info about a game, but not everyone is going to delve into that to find out if they should play it or not. The stars given in a review are the first thing people are most likely to look at, and very often the only thing they will.

Back when I was actually reviewing things, karsuman pointed this out to me, and it dawned on me just how big of an impact that number can have. On a scale of just 1 to 5, people will stigmatize anything below a 3. The rating is only helpful if those viewing it can understand what it's gauging. I know Soli has his own method of determining what score to give, but I think he might be due to revise it. The public's perception of the score is more important than the reviewer's intentions behind giving it.

I don't know if any of that made any sense.

Yeah, I figured as much with the live feed, but who knows what people are thinking about me based on that review and the giant screenshot. It's kind of embarrassing, but I know that wasn't Sol's intent.

What you say does make sense, and that's probably why I'm still a little concerned. I would never play a 2-star RPG Maker game unless I knew better.

I was really hoping for a 3 based on the content, because it would acknowledge that it was an ok effort that fell short on being great in the eyes of its reviewer -- and that's pretty much what he said. A 2 makes it seem like near-garbage.

Then again, that's the main reason I'm going back and revising things. But it's not going to be a ground-up revision -- just a polish. I might release it as a separate game file so it can break free of any preconceived notions, both positive and negative.
Decky
I'm a dog pirate
19645
post=153610
I think you're putting too much stock into a single review. The only reason it is on the front page is because Solitayre is the official reviewer for the website and, once people get onto your games page, they're going to see that the average review score is much higher than 2/5.

Well, I had been planning on quite a few of the changes anyway. The only major changes influenced solely by that review is the inclusion of more equipment, as well as a more conclusive final scene for a certain character.

Edit: Good point. I took down the download and replaced it with a readme. I'll have the new version up in a matter of weeks, and I think it's shaping up to be a more polished game overall.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
post=153562
I review like developer and score like player. My overall e-star rating is not about how I reviewed each facet of a game. That score is only about how much I liked the game, not a level of technical achievement (often making that rating much higher than what one would think with how I picked apart a game). I have two reasons for this. One is an awareness of our limitations of being on solo or small teams and using things like rpgmaker/gamemaker. Second is, I genuinely do like a lot of games on this site.

I think most peoples' issue with a Solitayre review is that he calls out all the same problems we all see in a game and still manage to enjoy, while he finishes off a game review by giving it two stars. His trend of giving a game 2.5 stars or less started about 16 reviews ago (in May) and look what his average score was before that. Beautiful Escape must have scarred him something fierce and his only redemption came in the form of "Pretty Princess: RM Edition" Nowdays, the average game is below average? Or shall we say the above average games are below average? Is this a paradox?

I have two problems with the average Solitayre review as of late.

1. As he is scoring lower, he is doing this with increasingly more popular games. Now I would not want his reviews to lie to conform to what other people on the site are feeling, but as an official reviewer for the site can we not expect his scoring to represent a more mainstream assessment of a game? (Admittedly, it is hard to prove his reviews are not of the mainstream sentiment when all we have to go by are reviews and comments on game pages. Using what we have to go on, Solitayre judges much more harshly than most other game players)

If I have not played a game, the most useful review to me is the one that is most likely going to tell me how much I will like the game. When Solitayre tells us to look beyond his e-stars and read it for its content he is missing a point. The rating matters because it puts what he wrote in kind of a context that we DO care about- Is this game fun and enjoyable or not? It's totally fine to have opinions that do not represent that of a larger part of the community, but for the purpose of being an official reviewer for the site it would surely help.

2. It's hard to be a reviewer on this site who is not Solitayre and generate discussion. He is recognized by the site, prolific, and contentious. I am one who wants to know if people agree or not when I write a review and then discuss those points of the game. It's also rewarding simply as social involvement in the community. Most of the time review submissions amount to the game author giving thanks and then going back on forth on one point, amounting to about 4-5 responses exclusively between reviewer and creator. I kinda wonder, are other people's reviews other than Soli's being read? Do people think his opinions matter most or is he just more controversial? My five star rating of the Drunken Paladin had been referred to a lot, but no one is talking to ME about it on the page of my review. Only by looking at Solitayre's review and forum threads do I know that particular review has been read a lot.

From what I've seen I much prefer your style of reviewing, Illustrious.

Also unlike Solitayre you gots the mad old school cred...word up, dog. Or something.

In all seriousness...I agree with what Deckiller is saying. I would go far as saying that it doesn't matter if Solitayre's reviews help developers improve their games, because they prevent players from playing that game, so what's the point in improving it? I've had my download count on several projects SHUT DOWN by low star reviews. The decrease in download rate was REAL AND PALPABLE after a review of 2 Stars or less was posted. I mean, maybe the review itself is full of great pointers that make me want to take my game TO THE NEXT LEVEL but that is kind of canceled out when my downloads per day drop from 12 to 0.5. At BEST, it's a wash.

I think if developers can respect the fact that reviews are there to help regardless of their rating, reviewers really need to respect the fact that people won't PLAY low-rated games.
Decky
I'm a dog pirate
19645
Exactly. I was so embarrassed that I just shut down the download so I can finish version 1.5. And there's no way it's going to meet its maximum potential, especially given my lack of free time and the fact that it's part one of a trilogy. Darth Vader wasn't exactly the most three-dimensional character in A New Hope.

But it was still a very constructive review and had a lot of good points, so I'm not going to attack the reviewer for that. I just felt that it was a little embarrassing...that, and the whole stars = downloads theory above.
Part of the problem, at least how I see it, is that the site rely solely on reviews as the "rating" for a game. I don't want get in a debate whether a vote system, where everyone can slap a 1-5 star rating as they tread through game pages, similar to a lot of other sites or the review only rating system is better; they both have major downfalls. But reviews are very hard to come by, and it makes them so few and far between that it makes me think the latter would be a better idea in terms of representing the "rating" of a game.
I would rather see reviews represented as positive or negative. Instead of DIGITAL STARS there could be a "5 people like this game, 2 people didn't like it" Idk, just a thought. Because a lot of people don't like the avg rating thing.
I think a better and more streamlined way of doing a voting system would be to have how youtube has its like/dislike system, and the rating stem from that?
Such as a like:dislike ratio being:
1:4=1 star
1:2=2 stars
1:1=3 stars
2:1=4 stars
4:1=5 stars

That way you don't really get caught up in a system of "how much you like it", but rather "how many people like it". You usually either like or dislike a game anyway, so having a 1 to 5 rating is kinda over zealous.
Decky
I'm a dog pirate
19645
post=153702
I would rather see reviews represented as positive or negative. Instead of DIGITAL STARS there could be a "5 people like this game, 2 people didn't like it" Idk, just a thought. Because a lot of people don't like the avg rating thing.


Yeah. I don't want to seem shallow making myself seem anti-criticism because of Sol's review style. Most of what he said was decent feedback; it's just this topic reminded me of some of the downsides to said review.