Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
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
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Add Review
Subscribe
Nominate
Submit Media
RSS
Craze
Posts 
View playlists
Closeauthor=calunio
Well, I really don't mind your scoring. It's actually high considering what you said. If you want to play the "my opinion is different than everybody else's" game and use strong phrases like "this game is pointless and meaningless", you shouldn't be so surprised that people disagree with you.
Except you took that line from the part of the review that is quickly said to be not true of Wither (although I do say that the game is pointless later, because I believe that, but it certainly isn't meaningless).
I don't see why people are attacking me even though I hold a not-worshiping opinion because, like Sailerius said, it's a pretty fair review. Did I like the game? No, but half of the review is talking about the positive aspects, and the overly negative part of the review is refuted by the fourth paragraph. I even added italics after you first commented, calunio!
Did I like it? Again, no, and obviously this is in the review because it's a review - reviews have opinions. I did try to make it clear that while I didn't like it, you can! I'm not stopping you! It's just not my cup of spiced black tea (preferably from Stash).
calunio
No one is attacking you, we're just discussing. Chill.
calunio
You have every right not to like it, but if your argument is "it's been done to undeath", you better start rethinking your approach.
Classy.
***
Like, I'm sorry that I didn't like a game you liked; it's pretty obvious that we are two almost (if not truly) polar opposite members of this community. It is bound to happen. At least I can still see the positives in a game while you quote my list of games I've made (almost all of which I dislike and think are total shit, despite other people's beliefs) as "evidence" that I have no room to talk about ~art~.
And you wonder why people don't like you, Craze... -_-
Shame on whomever accepted this blog post as a review.
Shame on whomever accepted this blog post as a review.
Cozzer
0
I find this review... kinda strange.
It's like going to a soccer player and telling him "Hey, you're a pretty good soccer player, but soccer sucks so you suck. Real men play football. Still, you're good at playing sucky soccer, so I concede you may be better than people who suck at playing sucky soccer."
I seriously thought it was some kind of joke I didn't understand until I read the comments, where it seems it's serious. Unless they're all part of the joke, I guess.
And I hope you'll believe me if I say I don't look at scores, stars or such until I've actually read the review.
(And as others said, if you voice your opinion this strongly, you should expect others to respond just as strongly, you know)
I liked the title, though.
It's like going to a soccer player and telling him "Hey, you're a pretty good soccer player, but soccer sucks so you suck. Real men play football. Still, you're good at playing sucky soccer, so I concede you may be better than people who suck at playing sucky soccer."
I seriously thought it was some kind of joke I didn't understand until I read the comments, where it seems it's serious. Unless they're all part of the joke, I guess.
And I hope you'll believe me if I say I don't look at scores, stars or such until I've actually read the review.
(And as others said, if you voice your opinion this strongly, you should expect others to respond just as strongly, you know)
I liked the title, though.
author=kentona
It is a valid review.
And as long as this mentality persists, this site will be the shittiest place for RPG Maker feedback.
I don't disagree with the review so much as I do its tone and presentation. Your phrasing is unnecessarily harsh and practically flame-baiting. If you're so mature you can respect a game's good design points while still disliking it, then why are you not mature enough to explain your thoughts and feelings on it without sounding like an asshole?
author=DEAnd what is that mentality? That everyone is entitled to an opinion?author=kentonaAnd as long as this mentality persists, this site will be the shittiest place for RPG Maker feedback.
It is a valid review.
I will stand by that mentality, and will continue to support it, even if I personally disagree with the content. I will not try to rationalize my personal distaste into some quasi-objective rule to use to deny certain submissions.
If you disagree, you are free to either help the situation by contributing positively or by leaving.
If I submitted a review of Hero's Realm that contained the following:
- this game is shit, I hate this type of game. Nothing more than nostalgic DQ idiocy.
- it's completely unoriginal, it's been done to death hundreds of times in the past 25 years.
- people who play this type of games are dumb, they don't know what's good.
Yet I give this game 3 stars, because:
- it can be played for an hour straight without freezing.
- the sprites animate.
- there are even spell animations!
How would you feel? This review of Wither is essentially that. A "fuck this game cause I don't like this genre" type of post with sarcastic "upsides" to justify the rating so that people don't feel hurt; he did give it 3 stars so what's the problem? Really, Craze butts in, takes a dump on a still emerging genre because there's NO NUMBERZ TO CRUNCH and then tries to act surprised when people call him on his bullshit. If he made a blog post of that, be my guest, all he'd do is make an idiot out of himself, but a full-blown review with a numerical rating THAT GOT ACCEPTED BY STAFF???
That many staff members condone this type of treatment of other people's work is unsurprising, it's been this way for years. You wonder why people hate this place and think it's breeding ground for elitist pricks? You got the answer right here. At some point in the past I came to this conclusion and simply stopped caring or contributing to any kind of discussion here, because there's no point. It's the same group of people shitting on new guys, just read the recent topics on the forums. Sad.
And Craze is the worst person of them all. You either agree with his view on what makes a perfect RPG or you get the fuck out. Little feedback? No comments or reviews? Well, you can thank Craze and a few other guys who seem to never have anything positive to say and intimidate others from posting anything contrary to their opinions... Business as usual in the RMN land.
- this game is shit, I hate this type of game. Nothing more than nostalgic DQ idiocy.
- it's completely unoriginal, it's been done to death hundreds of times in the past 25 years.
- people who play this type of games are dumb, they don't know what's good.
Yet I give this game 3 stars, because:
- it can be played for an hour straight without freezing.
- the sprites animate.
- there are even spell animations!
How would you feel? This review of Wither is essentially that. A "fuck this game cause I don't like this genre" type of post with sarcastic "upsides" to justify the rating so that people don't feel hurt; he did give it 3 stars so what's the problem? Really, Craze butts in, takes a dump on a still emerging genre because there's NO NUMBERZ TO CRUNCH and then tries to act surprised when people call him on his bullshit. If he made a blog post of that, be my guest, all he'd do is make an idiot out of himself, but a full-blown review with a numerical rating THAT GOT ACCEPTED BY STAFF???
That many staff members condone this type of treatment of other people's work is unsurprising, it's been this way for years. You wonder why people hate this place and think it's breeding ground for elitist pricks? You got the answer right here. At some point in the past I came to this conclusion and simply stopped caring or contributing to any kind of discussion here, because there's no point. It's the same group of people shitting on new guys, just read the recent topics on the forums. Sad.
And Craze is the worst person of them all. You either agree with his view on what makes a perfect RPG or you get the fuck out. Little feedback? No comments or reviews? Well, you can thank Craze and a few other guys who seem to never have anything positive to say and intimidate others from posting anything contrary to their opinions... Business as usual in the RMN land.
So I am only supposed to accept reviews that are written by people who like the genre of the game?
Let's review what RMN has done for Wither:
-made it the featured game
-wrote 4 buzz spots on it
-featured a review on Wither
-had an interview done for Rastek
-featured the interview
Calunio even managed to use his connections to get the word out on it and it ended up on RPS.
I've done all that is in my power to promote the game, but I didn't realize that my duties included silencing dissenting viewpoints. Noted.
So Craze doesn't like "art" games - is that enough for people to stop posting them? I mean, maybe you're right. Maybe we should only post our games at places where they'd be universally applauded and enjoyed. That's cool.
EDIT:
Also, if a review like that was written (and it's not hard to imagine because the points you brought up are valid), I would post counter-arguments to the author of the review. But I wouldn't assume that the site that hosted it had some grand conspiracy to quash any attempts at retro DQ clones.
Also also, I am not sure if HR can be played for an hour straight without freezing.
Let's review what RMN has done for Wither:
-made it the featured game
-wrote 4 buzz spots on it
-featured a review on Wither
-had an interview done for Rastek
-featured the interview
Calunio even managed to use his connections to get the word out on it and it ended up on RPS.
I've done all that is in my power to promote the game, but I didn't realize that my duties included silencing dissenting viewpoints. Noted.
So Craze doesn't like "art" games - is that enough for people to stop posting them? I mean, maybe you're right. Maybe we should only post our games at places where they'd be universally applauded and enjoyed. That's cool.
EDIT:
Also, if a review like that was written (and it's not hard to imagine because the points you brought up are valid), I would post counter-arguments to the author of the review. But I wouldn't assume that the site that hosted it had some grand conspiracy to quash any attempts at retro DQ clones.
Also also, I am not sure if HR can be played for an hour straight without freezing.
Cozzer
0
author=DE
Craze butts in, takes a dump on a still emerging genre because there's NO NUMBERZ TO CRUNCH and then tries to act surprised when people call him on his bullshit
author=DE
No comments or reviews? Well, you can thank Craze and a few other guys who seem to never have anything positive to say and intimidate others from posting anything contrary to their opinions
I'd just like to point out you're kind of contradicting yourself here... I mean, either the community goes against Craze's "bullshit" or the community supports it. From the reactions to this review, I think it's more of the former.
You'd have to have pretty little confidence in you work to let yourself be "intimidated" by something like this.
I really don't see what's the big deal here. Everyone tries too hard to be edgy and/or witty with their reviews, starting from the tittle. This is just Craze's way to do it; Did anyone really expect any different from him? ...Yeah, I don't quite like it either. I, for once, think reviews should be like super serious and objective, butwhatareyougonnado? *shrug*
That being said, I think this review is fair enough. If it meet with such a big opposition is only because Wither is such a popular game.
What do you mean with this? I think that's kinda the exact point of a review. People want to know what kind of game is this to decide if it's worth their time or not. Why should other people's feelings come into play when you write or read a review?
Oh c'mon, don't be like this. Looking at the big picture, all feedback is good feedback... Can't handle it? Learn to.
Btw, this is the most negative thing anyone could ever say, given this context. That's pretty ironic is you ask me.
That being said, I think this review is fair enough. If it meet with such a big opposition is only because Wither is such a popular game.
author=Calunio
Whether it's art, or indie, or gamey is really not the point. People who played and liked this game were intrigued, fascinated, they felt stuff...
What do you mean with this? I think that's kinda the exact point of a review. People want to know what kind of game is this to decide if it's worth their time or not. Why should other people's feelings come into play when you write or read a review?
author=DE
And as long as this mentality persists, this site will be the shittiest place for RPG Maker feedback.
Oh c'mon, don't be like this. Looking at the big picture, all feedback is good feedback... Can't handle it? Learn to.
author=Kentona
If you disagree, you are free to either help the situation by contributing positively or by leaving.
Btw, this is the most negative thing anyone could ever say, given this context. That's pretty ironic is you ask me.
Darken
3952
I'd have to say DE does have a point, even if he's going overboard about what this means to THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AT LARGE!!!!MORE EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!! This place isn't that bad. Chances are if you really spite this community that much you're part of the problem.
All I can really say to Craze is, dislike the game all you want, just have some tact.
All I can really say to Craze is, dislike the game all you want, just have some tact.
from DarkenThank you.
All I can really say to Craze is, dislike the game all you want, just have some tact.
I don't see the big deal here. Someone has an opinion. Do you only play games that 1UP.com gives a solid review, or do you take what they say with a grain of salt? Do you take personal offense to someone badmouthing your favourite Final Fantasy game? Freedom of speech. If you don't like this review, get off your ass and write your own damn review.
-drops microphone and exits stage left-
-drops microphone and exits stage left-
mellytan
995
heh I agree with DE, though yes his approach was pretty bullish (as much as Craze's review was which I guess was the point). In particular, I agree with him that it's not the score but the GameFaqs-esque quality of the review that is offensive; it implies RMN's standards are pretty low. The third paragraph alone is one of the worst things I've read in any review anywhere, and I've no idea what he was trying to say in the last paragraph about feces and tea.
Craze just doesn't like this "type" of game and wants everyone to know it; but the difference between a blog post and a reviews is that in a "review" the author is expected to be as specific and thorough as possible when talking another what he did/didn't like about the game. Craze alluded to why he didn't like Wither by trying to talk about how he disliked the gameplay, and specifically said "I don't like this game/type of game" repeatedly, yet for all that he did not bother to connect the two together. In other words, he stated but did not tell us why he thinks Wither needs good gameplay mechanics to be fun. It would have been a great review if he had just backed up his opinion--and that's what a review here at RMN is, right? A rating, but one backed by the reviewer's reasoning?
"Wither didn't change my mind about this 'indie' genre, because it's not part of that genre. Don't get me wrong, I didn't like it!"
Moreover, much of the review was hard to follow; I knew he was trying to express his spite for this "type" of game but he didn't seem to be able to form a coherent statement about it. I think a few times he tried talking about Wither in relation to the "indie" "genre", but not only was he hard to follow but also assumed that the reader is as familiar as he seems to be with "Newgrounds" (which is pretty insulting in and of itself).
In short, if Craze had said something more coherent and respectful such as "I really don't like this kind of game because the 'gameplay' is not compelling in and of itself, its attempts to be thought-provoking are laughably pretentious, and its aesthetic is derivative and overdone, I give it a 1/5," and added concrete examples from the game while trying to occasionally qualify the great things people saw in this game (in fact Craze never presents any counterpoints to the RPS article, despite bringing it up and saying that he read it and that it "told him to play" Wither (lmao)), I would have no problem with this review. As it stands, however, it's an example of dead weight for RMN. inb4 reviewing reviews, RMN review system debate etc
Craze just doesn't like this "type" of game and wants everyone to know it; but the difference between a blog post and a reviews is that in a "review" the author is expected to be as specific and thorough as possible when talking another what he did/didn't like about the game. Craze alluded to why he didn't like Wither by trying to talk about how he disliked the gameplay, and specifically said "I don't like this game/type of game" repeatedly, yet for all that he did not bother to connect the two together. In other words, he stated but did not tell us why he thinks Wither needs good gameplay mechanics to be fun. It would have been a great review if he had just backed up his opinion--and that's what a review here at RMN is, right? A rating, but one backed by the reviewer's reasoning?
"Wither didn't change my mind about this 'indie' genre, because it's not part of that genre. Don't get me wrong, I didn't like it!"
Moreover, much of the review was hard to follow; I knew he was trying to express his spite for this "type" of game but he didn't seem to be able to form a coherent statement about it. I think a few times he tried talking about Wither in relation to the "indie" "genre", but not only was he hard to follow but also assumed that the reader is as familiar as he seems to be with "Newgrounds" (which is pretty insulting in and of itself).
In short, if Craze had said something more coherent and respectful such as "I really don't like this kind of game because the 'gameplay' is not compelling in and of itself, its attempts to be thought-provoking are laughably pretentious, and its aesthetic is derivative and overdone, I give it a 1/5," and added concrete examples from the game while trying to occasionally qualify the great things people saw in this game (in fact Craze never presents any counterpoints to the RPS article, despite bringing it up and saying that he read it and that it "told him to play" Wither (lmao)), I would have no problem with this review. As it stands, however, it's an example of dead weight for RMN. inb4 reviewing reviews, RMN review system debate etc
This review is valid, in that I suppose it fulfills the necessary requirements to be accepted. Denying this review because of vitriol or excessive negativity, or even because of the strong reaction to it, would be bogus. The review belongs, and really nothing should be said about the staff that accepted it.
That being said. I'd like to give a 'review' of this review. It's terrible. I've never played Wither. I have no idea what it's about and absolutely no reason to defend it.
I read your review and STILL have no idea what it's about or what I should expect if I try it. You mostly described a 'genre' of indie games that you did NOT think Wither falls into. Doesn't tell me anything about Wither. Only that it's not... whatever it was you just said in your third paragraph.
THEN, when you started to 'discuss' the reason for your rating, you said this:
What the hell does that mean? I'm assuming someone who's played the game might know what the means, but that doesn't help the people who might actually need the review - people who haven't played the game.
or how about this crap?
So does it have a good resolution or not? I don't even know what this shit means. All I learned is that I should expect good consistency and that it isn't whatever that other genre is. Just what I needed to know before I download.
Don't bother saying - play the game and you'd understand, that would completely defeat the purpose of such reviews.
So in the end, I give your review 3 stars. Why 3 stars?
1) Consistency. Your review was consistently bad. That's difficult to accomplish, considering how poorly it was written.
2) That Thanksgiving turkey. Normally I hate reviews like this, but that turkey was excellent, so I'm in a good mood.
3) Buffy. This has nothing to do with anything, and might not make sense to people who don't know me. But this is why I give you 3 Joss Whedons out of 2.
So 3 star review. Don't get me wrong, your review still blows. But I'm worried about you bitching back at me, so I'll fall back on my decent 3 star rating.
That being said. I'd like to give a 'review' of this review. It's terrible. I've never played Wither. I have no idea what it's about and absolutely no reason to defend it.
I read your review and STILL have no idea what it's about or what I should expect if I try it. You mostly described a 'genre' of indie games that you did NOT think Wither falls into. Doesn't tell me anything about Wither. Only that it's not... whatever it was you just said in your third paragraph.
THEN, when you started to 'discuss' the reason for your rating, you said this:
"The car. You have a car. Did it run into a tree? I think it ran into a tree. When you approach it, it crumbles. This was simple, probably done before, but still brilliant. I'd rate it 3 Joss Whedons out of 2. "
What the hell does that mean? I'm assuming someone who's played the game might know what the means, but that doesn't help the people who might actually need the review - people who haven't played the game.
or how about this crap?
2) Resolution. It was dumb in and of itself (and it was really in there), but honestly? You got your twelve flowers that visually appeared as twelve flowers on your menu screen (why didn't the coins show up?), which gives the game a sense of progression. When you finally leave the game, you've definitely completed it. Kudos for that.
So does it have a good resolution or not? I don't even know what this shit means. All I learned is that I should expect good consistency and that it isn't whatever that other genre is. Just what I needed to know before I download.
Don't bother saying - play the game and you'd understand, that would completely defeat the purpose of such reviews.
So in the end, I give your review 3 stars. Why 3 stars?
1) Consistency. Your review was consistently bad. That's difficult to accomplish, considering how poorly it was written.
2) That Thanksgiving turkey. Normally I hate reviews like this, but that turkey was excellent, so I'm in a good mood.
3) Buffy. This has nothing to do with anything, and might not make sense to people who don't know me. But this is why I give you 3 Joss Whedons out of 2.
So 3 star review. Don't get me wrong, your review still blows. But I'm worried about you bitching back at me, so I'll fall back on my decent 3 star rating.
orochii
6740
Unnecesary "Violence".
The review has the reviewer's point of view, in a kind of sincere way to say it. That's it. I even see it right at some way. I've seen too a lot of games like this, with pixelated graphics and low-rate audio, in Flash-games sites. And a lot too about "death".
However, I still like the way this game was made. It's interesting. Gameplay, well, it's not very deep in terms of gameplay by itself. It demands that you get what is happening, and the real "gameplay" starts after you end the game.
So, the game by itself has no meaning. The player is the responsible of doing it.
That last part is the real catch I see on it,
OZ
PD.: And so, some people are actually willing to play a game. One that gives entertainment all by itself (and for itself).
EDIT: By "resolution", he means not about graphical sizes or something like that He means about resolving the game's difficulties, puzzles... Getting the job done.
The review has the reviewer's point of view, in a kind of sincere way to say it. That's it. I even see it right at some way. I've seen too a lot of games like this, with pixelated graphics and low-rate audio, in Flash-games sites. And a lot too about "death".
However, I still like the way this game was made. It's interesting. Gameplay, well, it's not very deep in terms of gameplay by itself. It demands that you get what is happening, and the real "gameplay" starts after you end the game.
So, the game by itself has no meaning. The player is the responsible of doing it.
That last part is the real catch I see on it,
OZ
PD.: And so, some people are actually willing to play a game. One that gives entertainment all by itself (and for itself).
EDIT: By "resolution", he means not about graphical sizes or something like that He means about resolving the game's difficulties, puzzles... Getting the job done.
