Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT - PERCEPTION OF DESIGNER & PLAYER "RESPONSIBILITIES" IN AMATEUR & COMMERCIAL VIDEO GAMES
Posts
Max McGee
View playlists
CloseOr you could just set dash the default speed. Or when the player gains control have an unobtrusive HUD element come up that details the inputs. You can even put under the bit that says "SHIFT: DASH" in a nice pixel font "Change Dash Settings in Options".
Yeah that's what I'm probably going to do actually. : )
Either that or nothing.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Max McGee
Am I to ask the player questions to determine what level of preamble to assail them with? That's just heaping Preamble onto Preamble.
(Title Screen)
> New Game
> Load Game
> Quit
> New Game
"Have you seen a computer before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of what a computer is, goto next.)
"Have you played a videogame before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of how video games work, goto next.)
"Have you ever played an RPG before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of how RPGs work, goto next.)
"Have you ever played an RPG Maker VX game before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of VX's controls and features, goto next.)
"Welcome to Journeyman"
> Short Game
> Normal Game
> Epic Game
> Return To Main Menu
> Short Game
"Have you ever played this game before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Explanation of auto-dash in case they get angry, goto next.)
"Would you like auto dash off?"
> Yes
> No
"Introductory Cutscene"
"Explanation of some of the features unique to this game the player needs to know about to begin."
*Player Gains Control*
In my own game development experience--which to be OPENLY ARROGANT is not entirely insubstantial--the less BULLSHIT you have between *title screen* and *Player Gains Control*, the better.
Well I can think of ways to do this better, and in general I've always appreciated when it's done. Usually it goes like this:
> New Game
How familiar are you with this type of game? This will affect the tutorials you see while playing. Note you can change this setting later at any time from the options menu while playing.
> I've played this game before. (All ingame tutorials are turned off)
> I've played some other RPGs before. (Game-specific systems receive tutorials as they become relevant during the game)
> I've played some other video games, but not RPGs. (Basic RPG systems and game-specific systems receive tutorials as they become relevant during the game)
> I'm not really very familiar with video games. (Basic controls, concept of a player character, etc. are explained before the game starts, plus the above tutorials all are shown)
Any seperate instructions for computer-novices would probably be on the website explaining how to install and run the game; once they're playing the game, that lack of knowledge is irrelevant.
I agree that not showing a bunch of endless crap before the game starts is good. If a person has never played a video game, though, and you want them to be able to play, some of it is unavoidable. For the other categories of people, is one choice box really going to make them that frustrated? I really don't think so, especially if the choice box is giving them the option to not have to sit through other stuff later. I see stuff like this when I play games and it actually excites me. I'm always like, "YES, thank God, I can turn off the endless tutorials about what a damn health meter is!" But I also know that a lot of people need that info, especially if there's no instruction manual for the game. The key difference between my example and your example is that it doesn't give you a wall of text, it just enables/disables the tutorials that would normally appear during the game.
Unobtrusive HUD explanations are basically almost always a good solution, though. They just aren't always an option.
Cozzer
0
author=LockeZ
Well I can think of ways to do this better, and in general I've always appreciated when it's done. Usually it goes like this:
> New Game
How familiar are you with this type of game? This will affect the tutorials you see while playing. Note you can change this setting later at any time from the options menu while playing.
> I've played this game before. (All ingame tutorials are turned off)
> I've played some other RPGs before. (Game-specific systems receive tutorials as they become relevant during the game)
> I've played some other video games, but not RPGs. (Basic RPG systems and game-specific systems receive tutorials as they become relevant during the game)
> I'm not really very familiar with video games. (Basic controls, concept of a player character, etc. are explained before the game starts, plus the above tutorials all are shown)
Yeah, that was what I was advising too.
That choice will optimize the player's playing time and, actually important, will make him feel that you, the developer, CARE about him and WANT him to have fun.
I didn't suggest putting all the tutorials at the beginning. The player tells you which kind of player he is, and you adjust his experience.
For example, let's say the player is approaching is first battle.
- If he already played this game, you don't tell him anything.
- If he's already familiar with RPGs, you just explain where your game differs from the "standard RPG".
- If he's not familiar with RPGs, you probably need to explain the concept of "turn based combat".
author=Max
You perceive an awful lot of arrogance where there isn't any
Probably "arrogance" isn't the correct term. I blame my not being a native English speaker for my small vocabulary.
Still, it's something I see a lot in both Computer Science and gamemaking; the idea that the user has some kind of "duty" towards the developer. The idea that if the users doesn't have the "skills" or "patience" needed to use your program, then it's his fault (stupid words like "noob" or "luser" fly around).
author=Max
I think no matter how broad the audience you're trying to reach is, it's probably a safe bet that you can skip the computer and videogame steps at the very least
Then you exclude from your target audience people who don't know these things.
It's not a bad thing to do, but you keep repeating you want everybody to be able to play your game...
Anyway, the HUD thing is a very good idea, since it lets the player "learn by doing", but it's not appropriate for the complex mechanics of a RPG...
Still, I support it to explain at least the basic controls.
Realistically speaking, it is unimaginable even if I were to achieve the greatest possible success for an indie developer that anyone who has not seen a computer or played a videogame before could even FIND my game.
Cozzer
0
author=Max
Realistically speaking, it is unimaginable even if I were to achieve the greatest possible success for an indie developer that anyone who has not seen a computer or played a videogame before could even FIND my game.
That's true.
Still, I think including an option for people who haven't played many (or any) jRPGs would be a good addition.
Killer Wolf
1235
Bumping as a kind of cross talk between something that came up in my Data Gaterhing, Yes or No topic:
I still don't buy that I should give something I'm NOT enjoying more of a chance, just because it was free. I understand the reasoning behind it, I guess. Since they are not asking anything of me (money wise), I should lavish my time and energy on their product as if I were lapping up mana from heaven.
Maybe that is how it should work, but that has never been the case with me. I don't feel any sense of responsibility to a game that I am playing, unless I am testing for someone or planning a review.
There have been times when I was bored, or even just curious about other games here, that I've gone on binges and downloaded anywhere from five to twelve RMN games in a sitting. I pick whichever one looks like the most fun, or the strangest duck in the pond, and I open it first.
Maybe I have a great time with it, maybe I don't. If it is fun, I keep playing, if not I move onto the next game in the queue. There was one night where I downloaded seven games, tried them all in series, and had them all deleted inside of two and a half hours. I'm not going to mention any names.
If I had bought any of those games, I would probably have given them more of a chance. When I work, I trade my time for money. When I buy a game, I'm trading my money for time again, the time I will spend with the product. I usually won't even BUY a game (at least not for full price) unless I'm pretty sure I'll get a certain number of hours/number of replays out of it. There are exceptions, such as something really innovative that I want to support, or something that just looks too good to pass up.
Every time I play the game, the "cost" decreases. 60 dollars for a four and a half hour game is insane. 60 dollars for a 32 hour game that I've played six times? Dirt cheap, and damn well worth every penny.
In a free game, there is no cost, except my time. If I'm not enjoying the experience, I'm not going to keep investing my time into it. I still think the audience owes nothing to the creator, except perhaps honesty. If I download a game and have either a good or bad experience, I think it is incumbent on me to provide feedback to the creator.
Now, a lot of times I've been about to review a game or post something here, but I check what has already gone up first. If my points have already been made, I'm not going to waste the bandwith to reiterate them just for some Maker Score. Also, I have held my tongue (or rather tied up my typing fingers) to keep from beating something into the ground that the rest of the wrecking crew has already taken a turn at.
Part of my whole approach with the Data Gathering is to be able to just let people PLAY the game whatever way they want, and let the information about their experience help shape the end result. In some ways, I'm trying to lessen the perceived "burden/responsibility" on the audience's behalf. Now they don't even need to think critically about the game in order to provide me with feedback, they can just PLAY it. Or not. It's up to them.
I still don't buy that I should give something I'm NOT enjoying more of a chance, just because it was free. I understand the reasoning behind it, I guess. Since they are not asking anything of me (money wise), I should lavish my time and energy on their product as if I were lapping up mana from heaven.
Maybe that is how it should work, but that has never been the case with me. I don't feel any sense of responsibility to a game that I am playing, unless I am testing for someone or planning a review.
There have been times when I was bored, or even just curious about other games here, that I've gone on binges and downloaded anywhere from five to twelve RMN games in a sitting. I pick whichever one looks like the most fun, or the strangest duck in the pond, and I open it first.
Maybe I have a great time with it, maybe I don't. If it is fun, I keep playing, if not I move onto the next game in the queue. There was one night where I downloaded seven games, tried them all in series, and had them all deleted inside of two and a half hours. I'm not going to mention any names.
If I had bought any of those games, I would probably have given them more of a chance. When I work, I trade my time for money. When I buy a game, I'm trading my money for time again, the time I will spend with the product. I usually won't even BUY a game (at least not for full price) unless I'm pretty sure I'll get a certain number of hours/number of replays out of it. There are exceptions, such as something really innovative that I want to support, or something that just looks too good to pass up.
Every time I play the game, the "cost" decreases. 60 dollars for a four and a half hour game is insane. 60 dollars for a 32 hour game that I've played six times? Dirt cheap, and damn well worth every penny.
In a free game, there is no cost, except my time. If I'm not enjoying the experience, I'm not going to keep investing my time into it. I still think the audience owes nothing to the creator, except perhaps honesty. If I download a game and have either a good or bad experience, I think it is incumbent on me to provide feedback to the creator.
Now, a lot of times I've been about to review a game or post something here, but I check what has already gone up first. If my points have already been made, I'm not going to waste the bandwith to reiterate them just for some Maker Score. Also, I have held my tongue (or rather tied up my typing fingers) to keep from beating something into the ground that the rest of the wrecking crew has already taken a turn at.
Part of my whole approach with the Data Gathering is to be able to just let people PLAY the game whatever way they want, and let the information about their experience help shape the end result. In some ways, I'm trying to lessen the perceived "burden/responsibility" on the audience's behalf. Now they don't even need to think critically about the game in order to provide me with feedback, they can just PLAY it. Or not. It's up to them.
It is true that if people think your time and energy is free, they won't respect it.
Hmm, maybe I should charge a fee to download my games, just to get more people to play them, lol!
Hmm, maybe I should charge a fee to download my games, just to get more people to play them, lol!
I don't think respect has anything to do with this, it's just : "if I spend so much money on that game, and don't try to make the most out of it, I will have wasted my money", regardless of any consideration regarding the creator. It's not that people are going to make more of an effort because the game has a price, it's strictly selfish, or greedy-ish, it's so they will not feel they totally wasted their money. As, if the game is free, they have nothing to loose, if they don't like it, they sleave it, which I find a natural and healthy thing to do, I would consider really healthy and natural, in fact, to behave the same sway towards games they paid.
Killer Wolf
1235
A good example would be a couple of products I got from Wadjet Eye games. I've bought two games from them, one of which was on sale at the time. I tried the free demos and enjoyed both products enough that I felt comfortable putting my money on the table.
The two games were Gemini Rue and The Shivah, by the way.
Based on some of the dev commentary in The Shivah (that I turned on for a third play), I looked up the work of an artist the author mentioned. I downloaded the guy's game, for free, and started to play it.
The art was pretty amazing. It was a point and click game, all the icons were nicely animated. But, there were a couple of sections in the gameplay where it really fell apart for me. I stopped playing it and went back for a second run at Gemini Rue instead.
Was the game that inferior that I cast it aside just for boring me? If I had put down good money, would I have been driven to gut it out and "give it some time" until I started having fun again? I don't know, really.
I think I've mentioned this next example before at some point. When Batman: Rise of Sin Tzu came out, a friend of mine and I bought it day one and dove into the co-op. We got to the final boss late that night, and had a blast through most of the rest of the game, except for a couple sections where the beers from dinner weren't doing our hand/eye coordination any favors.
The last boss sucked. We couldn't figure out how to even damage him. Finally, I thought "They can't be this f_cking stupid, can they?" and built up my combo meter (whatever it was called) so I could unleash my ultimate attack. I used it on Sin Tzu...and took off one tiny sliver of damage. My friend and I looked at each other and said, "F_ck this." Long story short, we traded it in for store credit and got something else.
Even if I pay for something, bad game design is bad game design.
Of course, we were pretty harsh on games back then. We tried renting Legend of A'lon Dar (or something like that) because it was a co-op RPG a friend recommended to us, and I had just pulled him into rpg games via months of loaning him stuff like Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy X, Breath of Fire 3, and Xenogears. We tried playing it for a little bit. Neither of us were enjoying it at all. I called the friend who suggested it to us, and his answer was, of course, "Stick with it, it gets better."
We stuck it out for another half hour or so, and then promptly drove it right back to blockbuster. Of course, I do kind of shoot my credibility down a bit here, because I believe our back up rental was Red Faction 2, and I spent the rest of the night murdering my friend with a variety of sci-fi weapons before passing out, drunk, on his couch.
Ah, youth.
The two games were Gemini Rue and The Shivah, by the way.
Based on some of the dev commentary in The Shivah (that I turned on for a third play), I looked up the work of an artist the author mentioned. I downloaded the guy's game, for free, and started to play it.
The art was pretty amazing. It was a point and click game, all the icons were nicely animated. But, there were a couple of sections in the gameplay where it really fell apart for me. I stopped playing it and went back for a second run at Gemini Rue instead.
Was the game that inferior that I cast it aside just for boring me? If I had put down good money, would I have been driven to gut it out and "give it some time" until I started having fun again? I don't know, really.
I think I've mentioned this next example before at some point. When Batman: Rise of Sin Tzu came out, a friend of mine and I bought it day one and dove into the co-op. We got to the final boss late that night, and had a blast through most of the rest of the game, except for a couple sections where the beers from dinner weren't doing our hand/eye coordination any favors.
The last boss sucked. We couldn't figure out how to even damage him. Finally, I thought "They can't be this f_cking stupid, can they?" and built up my combo meter (whatever it was called) so I could unleash my ultimate attack. I used it on Sin Tzu...and took off one tiny sliver of damage. My friend and I looked at each other and said, "F_ck this." Long story short, we traded it in for store credit and got something else.
Even if I pay for something, bad game design is bad game design.
Of course, we were pretty harsh on games back then. We tried renting Legend of A'lon Dar (or something like that) because it was a co-op RPG a friend recommended to us, and I had just pulled him into rpg games via months of loaning him stuff like Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy X, Breath of Fire 3, and Xenogears. We tried playing it for a little bit. Neither of us were enjoying it at all. I called the friend who suggested it to us, and his answer was, of course, "Stick with it, it gets better."
We stuck it out for another half hour or so, and then promptly drove it right back to blockbuster. Of course, I do kind of shoot my credibility down a bit here, because I believe our back up rental was Red Faction 2, and I spent the rest of the night murdering my friend with a variety of sci-fi weapons before passing out, drunk, on his couch.
Ah, youth.
Cozzer
0
I don't understand why are we even using the word "respect".
I mean, is playing/watching/reading something I don't like "showing respect" to the creator?
Would the creator be happy knowing that people are playing his game while hating it just out of some distorted sense of "duty"?
Wouldn't it be more respectful to just be honest and say "Sorry, I didn't like it."?
And the thing about games you paid for... that isn't respect at all. It's just denial. It's "I paid money for this, I can't ACCEPT that I don't like it!".
(Also: in a commercial game, if you get stuck in a boring part you can just make a quick trip to gameFAQs and go back to the fun parts in the shortest possible time)
The "it gets better" argument is a different thing, though.
Even this is not about respect, though: it's about trust, and about how much time you are willing to invest.
Seriously, what does respect have to do with this?
I mean, is playing/watching/reading something I don't like "showing respect" to the creator?
Would the creator be happy knowing that people are playing his game while hating it just out of some distorted sense of "duty"?
Wouldn't it be more respectful to just be honest and say "Sorry, I didn't like it."?
And the thing about games you paid for... that isn't respect at all. It's just denial. It's "I paid money for this, I can't ACCEPT that I don't like it!".
(Also: in a commercial game, if you get stuck in a boring part you can just make a quick trip to gameFAQs and go back to the fun parts in the shortest possible time)
The "it gets better" argument is a different thing, though.
Even this is not about respect, though: it's about trust, and about how much time you are willing to invest.
Seriously, what does respect have to do with this?
You guys make good points; good or bad design will ultimately shine through, regardless of the commercial or 'indy' nature of a game. Having said that, people do tend to have a definite difference in attitude towards the work of people they respect and people they don't. For example, I went to see the movie Lovely Bones (which I ended up hating) just because Peter Jackson directed it; I definitely wouldn't have bothered with it otherwise.
In terms of free vs commercial games, there is also the stigma of, 'well if it's free, it must not be as good." In our culture, we trade money for something of equal value, so if there is no money being traded there is no quantifiable value to the work. Now if you're an open-minded individual who knows that the creator just wanted to share his work, you may well overlook this, especially if you know the creator produces high quality work already. But someone just coming into the game blind isn't going to have that perspective, and is most likely going to have low expectations of the game which will colour his perspective and make a game's faults stand out more than similar faults would in a commercial game. Said gamer hasn't paid money for the game, so he has no reason to respect it or give it the benefit of the doubt.
In terms of free vs commercial games, there is also the stigma of, 'well if it's free, it must not be as good." In our culture, we trade money for something of equal value, so if there is no money being traded there is no quantifiable value to the work. Now if you're an open-minded individual who knows that the creator just wanted to share his work, you may well overlook this, especially if you know the creator produces high quality work already. But someone just coming into the game blind isn't going to have that perspective, and is most likely going to have low expectations of the game which will colour his perspective and make a game's faults stand out more than similar faults would in a commercial game. Said gamer hasn't paid money for the game, so he has no reason to respect it or give it the benefit of the doubt.
Cozzer
0
Wouldn't low expectations make the game seem better rather than worse? °°
The problem is when people's high expectations aren't met, I'd say...
(I mean: if I download a bad free game I think "Oh well, can't complain, it was free". If I pay for a game and it sucks, it's way more annoying.)
The problem is when people's high expectations aren't met, I'd say...
(I mean: if I download a bad free game I think "Oh well, can't complain, it was free". If I pay for a game and it sucks, it's way more annoying.)
Well, as with so many things, yes and no. Yes, low expectations can lead to a person being pleasantly surprised with a game and ending up loving it, but low expectations can also lead a person to quit at the first hurdle. After all, which game are people going to be more likely to stick with during difficult spots; the latest Final Fantasy game, or an RPG Maker game?
Of course, I do agree with you about high expectations not being met; even the most rose-tinted of glasses are eventually discarded when the flaws mount up, as evidenced by the SquareEnix letter I posted a few pages back apologizing for Final Fantasy XIV.
Of course, I do agree with you about high expectations not being met; even the most rose-tinted of glasses are eventually discarded when the flaws mount up, as evidenced by the SquareEnix letter I posted a few pages back apologizing for Final Fantasy XIV.
Cozzer
0
It's true, but more than expectations I'd say it's about "trust".
Even without bringing commercial games in the discussion, between indie RM games there are ones I'd stick to (maybe becausa I liked previous games from the same developer, or because the game has a "professional" aura to it, or because the beginning of the story was really interesting, or because people I know assured me that it really would "get better later") and ones I'd discard at the first hurdle.
With commercial games, our "natural trust" is higher because we know the guys who made them are professional and they had way more resources than indies.
Maybe another problem is that with commercial games, you play only the ones you have some trust in (unless you like throwing away your money).
With indie games, it's easy to try a game with medium/high expectations (because you did play other indie games that were really good) but little trust, which leads to early disappointment.
Even without bringing commercial games in the discussion, between indie RM games there are ones I'd stick to (maybe becausa I liked previous games from the same developer, or because the game has a "professional" aura to it, or because the beginning of the story was really interesting, or because people I know assured me that it really would "get better later") and ones I'd discard at the first hurdle.
With commercial games, our "natural trust" is higher because we know the guys who made them are professional and they had way more resources than indies.
Maybe another problem is that with commercial games, you play only the ones you have some trust in (unless you like throwing away your money).
With indie games, it's easy to try a game with medium/high expectations (because you did play other indie games that were really good) but little trust, which leads to early disappointment.
I still don't buy that I should give something I'm NOT enjoying more of a chance, just because it was free.
I need to stop you there before reading anything else: I'm not saying necessarily MORE of a chance. I'm just saying you should definitely give it as MUCH of a chance.
Hmm, maybe I should charge a fee to download my games, just to get more people to play them, lol!
I have been thinking about this phenomenon for years. To me one of the most fascinating quirks of human psychology is the tendency to associate value with cost.
The last boss sucked. We couldn't figure out how to even damage him. Finally, I thought "They can't be this f_cking stupid, can they?" and built up my combo meter (whatever it was called) so I could unleash my ultimate attack. I used it on Sin Tzu...and took off one tiny sliver of damage. My friend and I looked at each other and said, "F_ck this." Long story short, we traded it in for store credit and got something else.
Even if I pay for something, bad game design is bad game design.
Hey, I'm fine with this as long as it's equitable.
I just hate that people aren't willing to give RM games the chance they would commerical games because they're free.
The truth is, the people who worked on a commerical game have no reason to give a shit if you play it or not, because they have ALREADY BEEN PAID. If I'm Jon Q. Progamedesigner and you bought my game, you could play the game for five minutes, encounter a minor typo, and then fly into a blind rage, take the disc out of your console and shoot it seven times with a .45 before throwing the pieces in a furnace, and I wouldn't give a shit because I've ALREADY GOT MY MONAY.
The people who worked on something they released for free, their only compensation is you playing it and seeing the result of all of their hard work. They deserve additional consideration.
Am I saying it's not hard? Of course not. Sometimes the act of consciously giving a free game you're not enjoying a chance to turn things around is REALLY hard. But it is the right thing to do. And the right thing to do is always hard.
One small reward, beyond the ultimate reward of knowing you've done the right thing, is the reward of knowing that when you're done, if you still dislike the game, you are EMINENTLY JUSTIFIED in doing so, and well-poised to explain why.
Killer Wolf
1235
To me, if I'm not enjoying a game, I immediately feel justified in not liking it, since it pretty much met the criteria for that right off.
I've actually made a similar argument about music before, how even though I didn't like a band's style/music, I could appreciate them for doing something different, and so on. That is all well and good, but at the end of the day, I'm not going to load up my mp3 player with music I can't stand, just because it might have artistic merit, or because the guy put it up for free on his website.
I have a hard time with the whole "deserved" concept.
Someone makes a choice to create something. I make a choice to either partake of it or not. Every step along the way, I make another choice. Do I keep playing or don't I?
As I said before, unless I have agreed to test or review something, if I'm not enjoying it, I feel no obligation whatsoever to keep playing it.
Case in point:
I think a distinction needs to be made. Players do not owe any greater responsibility to an indie game than they do to a commercial one. Anyone who has been asked to test a game, or who chooses to review one, on the other hand, SHOULD be obligated to give the game more of a chance, irrespective of its pedigree.
And no, I don't feel this contradicts my statement about "You're doing it wrong" and "Stick with it, it gets better" being stricken from the Big Book of Development Excuses, since I already had provisions in place exempting testing purposes.
They deserve additional consideration
I've actually made a similar argument about music before, how even though I didn't like a band's style/music, I could appreciate them for doing something different, and so on. That is all well and good, but at the end of the day, I'm not going to load up my mp3 player with music I can't stand, just because it might have artistic merit, or because the guy put it up for free on his website.
I have a hard time with the whole "deserved" concept.
Someone makes a choice to create something. I make a choice to either partake of it or not. Every step along the way, I make another choice. Do I keep playing or don't I?
As I said before, unless I have agreed to test or review something, if I'm not enjoying it, I feel no obligation whatsoever to keep playing it.
Case in point:
I ended up enjoying the game I reviewed for the Secret Santa event, but that was not my first impression of it at all. I was stuck at a boss that could basically one-shot me (not quite, but close) and to get to the boss from my last save I had to walk through a narrow passage that always triggered a "random" battle. Before the boss, there was an scene I couldn't skip. I tried for almost forty five minutes before I had to close the game down, attempting different approaches and gear load outs. It was getting to where I wasn't even making it past the "random" battle without getting poisoned to death because I just didn't care at that point.
I actually drafted a letter apologizing to both the game's creator and to Deckiller, asking if I (and by extension, my game) could be removed from the event because I just couldn't get into the game I'd been assigned. I was very close to hitting send, but I didn't. I'd made an agreement to review the game, and if I just gave up at the first sticking point I came to... what would that review be about, fifteen minutes of the game maybe? That would be complete and utter bullshit. I couldn't put my name down next to, "Nope, can't be bothered even though I said I would."
So, I went back into the game. I still refused to grind/train up for the fight, and eventually managed to stubbornly triumph, only to lose my progress to a game crash thanks to me alt-tab-ing over to add a few more lines to my review notes. By then, it was personal though, so I went back in and slaughtered the boss again and went on with the review. My notes were very dark up to that point, but the further I got into the game, the better things got. I let go of the rage that had been building up and just hit an almost zen like stride where I saw everything objectively.
From a player's point of view, I still think the early balance was WAY off (to the point that I legitimately thought I'd missed picking up a party member somehow), but as a reviewer, it was my job to bull my way through and experience as much of the content as I could so that I could write about it intelligently (somewhat, at least).
I actually drafted a letter apologizing to both the game's creator and to Deckiller, asking if I (and by extension, my game) could be removed from the event because I just couldn't get into the game I'd been assigned. I was very close to hitting send, but I didn't. I'd made an agreement to review the game, and if I just gave up at the first sticking point I came to... what would that review be about, fifteen minutes of the game maybe? That would be complete and utter bullshit. I couldn't put my name down next to, "Nope, can't be bothered even though I said I would."
So, I went back into the game. I still refused to grind/train up for the fight, and eventually managed to stubbornly triumph, only to lose my progress to a game crash thanks to me alt-tab-ing over to add a few more lines to my review notes. By then, it was personal though, so I went back in and slaughtered the boss again and went on with the review. My notes were very dark up to that point, but the further I got into the game, the better things got. I let go of the rage that had been building up and just hit an almost zen like stride where I saw everything objectively.
From a player's point of view, I still think the early balance was WAY off (to the point that I legitimately thought I'd missed picking up a party member somehow), but as a reviewer, it was my job to bull my way through and experience as much of the content as I could so that I could write about it intelligently (somewhat, at least).
I think a distinction needs to be made. Players do not owe any greater responsibility to an indie game than they do to a commercial one. Anyone who has been asked to test a game, or who chooses to review one, on the other hand, SHOULD be obligated to give the game more of a chance, irrespective of its pedigree.
And no, I don't feel this contradicts my statement about "You're doing it wrong" and "Stick with it, it gets better" being stricken from the Big Book of Development Excuses, since I already had provisions in place exempting testing purposes.
This to me is not about what obligations or rules do or do not exist or what debts are owed--nothing is true, everything is permitted has a lot of day to day, real life truth, especially that second clause. There are very, very few real rules in the world when you get right down to it.
I just personally feel that it is morally right to give a free video game the same exact chance you would one you just laid down $60 smackaroos for.
I think in the case of the review in question you absolutely did the right thing.
As for music...every single musical group/artist I like now I utterly hated on first listen. On further listening that hatred morphed into indifference, and then into curiosity, and then into enjoyment, and then into most fervent love. So...I guess we don't agree there, either. Which is fine.
Edit: Um, where is your review?
I just personally feel that it is morally right to give a free video game the same exact chance you would one you just laid down $60 smackaroos for.
I think in the case of the review in question you absolutely did the right thing.
As for music...every single musical group/artist I like now I utterly hated on first listen. On further listening that hatred morphed into indifference, and then into curiosity, and then into enjoyment, and then into most fervent love. So...I guess we don't agree there, either. Which is fine.
Edit: Um, where is your review?
Killer Wolf
1235
author=Max McGee
nothing is true, everything is permitted has a lot of day to day, real life truth, especially that second clause.
I always liked that quote, ever since my first exposure to Hassan I Sabbah, via William S. Burroughs. For a brief period a couple of years back, it almost made me cringe. I remember when I rented Assassin's Creed and heard it, my first thought was "F-ck, there's another topic I spent library time on getting wide banded."
Holding to my primary source, I'd say it all depends on what city you currently happen to be working your way through, with my favorite variations emphasized below.
Everything is as true as you think it is and everything you can get away with is permitted.
Everything is true and everything is permitted.
Everything is true and nothing is permitted except to the permitters.
Complete permission derives from complete understanding.
This pilgrimage may take many lifetimes.
Tl;dr (though I read all of the first post) What I'm most worried about is how the extreme pressure can discourage people from sharing their works.. I mean from what I can tell, Celes has basically removed the FF ESSENCE page from the site because of all the negative feedback she's gotten. I seriously doubt that wrecking people's dreams is what we want to do in any instance.
