• Add Review
  • Subscribe
  • Nominate
  • Submit Media
  • RSS

Hate to be the one to say it, but...

  • Ayanin
  • 09/09/2013 06:28 AM
  • 35107 views
Pretty graphics are wonderful things. Original storylines are admirable, too, but when it comes down to it, a game has got to actually be playable. Even a non-gamer should be able to play it, and not be dying frequently. After all, this is not a first person shooter! (A game type where frequent death is anticipated.)

Well, that's what happened here.

Now, it would be one thing if you could traditionally "level grind" ... gain a few extra levels here and there, move on, and be fine... but you can't do that here. The monsters in each new area are pretty overkill, so that you can die more or less at any area you advance to. If you gained a few levels in the last area, you'll hardly even notice it in the next, if at all. Used up the only items that made winning against the last boss possible? Too bad. You'll die frequently in boss fights without serious help from something that isn't you (which you won't get but maybe once or twice, and maybe only then if you checked nearly every tile that you've laid eyes on), but evidently, you're otherwise just plain out of luck. Not what I would call a good gaming experience.

How bad was it?

Well, my experience was (without spending hours level grinding) the average boss fight goes like this:

1) You have approximately one round to use up whatever help you have on you... which you will probably die instantly, without. If you're lucky, you may actually get a WHOLE ROUND to attack! But it won't accomplish anything, even if you do.

2) Then, the boss promptly reduces you to near-death (as in one-hit) state. If not your whole party.

3) Now what?

Yeah... "now what?" is right. Because in the time it takes you to heal everybody (if you have enough MPs or whatever to do that), you've just wasted your next round. At which point, the boss promptly reduces you (all?) to one-hit life status, once again. So for every round that you heal yourself beyond having only one hit left, the boss simply undoes whatever you just did, pretty much the next turn he gets. Okay, you MIGHT get a single round between, sometimes, in which to attempt pathetically to attack... but often not. I say pathetically, because you are basically fleas as far as the bosses are concerned. You do fairly negligable damage to the boss, no matter what you use, while the boss, on the other hand, mops the floor with you every single round.

Basically, it's a viciouis cycle of getting knocked down, healing and then getting knocked down again.

So get ready to waste countless hours level grinding!

Or, you can just do what I did, and uninstall, and hope for another game to come along where you can actually survive long enough without truly ridiculous emounts of effort, in order to see the entire game. Or even the first half of it.

So if you actually like level grinding for hours on end, go for it. Or if you just like looking at the pretty game over screen. Or if you've got a program that allows you to hack save files, maybe. (For the first time, I really, really wished I had that, and normally, I hate even using walkthroughs, because I dislike any kind of "cheating".) But if none of that describes you... I'm afraid you might not have much more fun playing this game than I did, even if it was pretty.

Finally, I felt that in all honesty, I had to give it a pretty bad rating, and not just to be a jerk, or because I personally didn't care for it, but for a pretty striaghtforward and valid reason: like I said... a game should be playable.

Any way you look at it, no matter how beautiful, haunting or grand the music and graphics were, or how original and deep the plot, not much of that is really going to matter if the player faces what feels like literally "mission impossible," from the moment they start. If you're dying almost the moment you set foot outside of the first town, at monsters that are not even bosses, and when fighting bosses boils down to a never ending circle of "die now or die later" choices (see above), chances are, at least some people are never going to stick around long enough to see those beautiful graphics, hear your best music, or enjoy your story. Think about it: how many times does the average person... the AVERAGE person... have to end up dead in an RPG (again, not a first person shooter, or some other game-type where you'd EXPECT to die often, but in an RPG of all things), before they simply go away and find something that actually amuses them, instead of just frusterating them continually?

The cold hard truth is this: no matter how great your game is, if the player quits in frustration before they ever get to see %90 of it, then for that person, none of that remaining %90 really counts for anything. It's the same for that player as if the game ended where they quit. Or you might say, it's almost the same as if the play was somehow "broken" and you simply could not continue (even if it is actually technically possible, by some means involving epic patience, to do so).

Now, a person might object and say that's not fair, because the player COULD have played it, and it's not the game maker's fault that they quit. Oh sure. They could have continued to play... with a ridiculous amount of effort. But in this case, we're not talking about people quitting because they're lazy. We're talking about people quitting because an absurd level of effort is required by the game. In this case, it's the game, not the user, that's unreasonable. The fault, in this case, lies with the game.

For this reason, in trying to give an honest rating, I rated it subpar.

In my book, a game is "not playable," if it's not playable for common people without an insane/ridiculous amount of effort, and if a game is "not playable," then it fails to meet the most fundamental criteria of all games: that to begin with, you can actually play it! It should not just be TECHNICALLY playable, if, for instance, you're willing to frisk every tile on every screen of the game you can physically access, and press up against every inch of wall in every map, and waste days of your life level grinding like you were playing Maple Story (where at least the players would have the option of talking to their friends rather than just dying of boredom or quitting in frustration). It should be playable for anyone willing to put forth a reasonable effort. But a REASONABLE effort, not just for those who are willing to sit up all night with a pot of coffee frisking tiles and level grinding for hours on end. (Definitely not reasonable.)

It would be far better to do a less glorious job with your game, and at least to have a game that everyone can actually play... and dare I say, maybe even enjoy? ... than to have a drop-dead-gorgeous game, that you have to have no life at all (eg, the countless hours for level grinding), and endless patience, in order to play.

And by "play" I do mean without a walkthrough. Cheating should not be a prerequisite to being able to play the game. It should be pretty straightforward and fairly balanced in difficulty, for those who know what to expect in an RPG of this kind (in this case, the mainstream kind, as opposed to, say, puzzle RPGS, where it's taken for granted that you pretty much have to be a genius to play without a walkthrough).

Posts

author=Ayanin
Suppose I go to amazon.com and buy a $40 toaster. (Just put aside the fact that the example uses something that costs money... that is not relevant here.) The toaster gets to my house, I unpack it, put it in it's place, and the next morning I wake up, and go to have my breakfast. I plug the toaster in, I put the bread into it, put it down... and nothing happens. Okay... maybe it's a temporary problem. Try again. Nothing. Try a few more times. Nothing.

All right. I go to amazon.com. Go to the toaster's page. Go to the review section. Give it one star. Tell the story of what happened. The toaster I got of this model from this company didn't work when it arrived. Yes, I'm upset. After all, it was $40. But I try to stick to the fact that it didn't work, instead of resorting to calling the company names, and alleging they're frauds, which is usually not the case.


Does this hypothetical toaster come with a hypothetical instruction manual?

Your review keeps talking about how the game is unplayable even though many people have been able to finish it (and I doubt that your one copy of SSP is defective), so it seems to me like the problem is from you the player. Not to sound like another 'you suck at reviewing' comment, but the main criticism I have of the review is the implication that your bad experience equates to a bad product (whether that experience was your fault or not).
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
For those saying/thinking that this review shouldn't have been approved; on what grounds should I have denied it? Because I disagree with it? It isn't my place to decide whether someone is playing wrong, or what opinions they are allowed to have.

This review, to me, comes across as expressing genuine frustration at the difficulty of the game. The takeaway is "Hey guys, this game is really hard, it was so hard that I didn't enjoy playing it." That is a completely legitimate criticism to have, and a useful one for potential players to see, even if not everyone agrees.

Similarly, it's okay to dislike a review and not let it affect your perception of the game.
Okay, Ayanin, I see where you're getting at, and all your points are certainly valid, but you probably miss out something.

The fact is that Star Stealing Prince has been well established as a great game (not to mention it was released about a year ago). And, like Ronove said, it went through numerous revisions (up to Patch 3.0). If this had been a brand new unknown game, then maybe this review is valid. But in this case, you are in the minority when it comes to thinking this game is bad because of the frustrating gameplay. And you know that the majority always triumphs over the minority unless the minority becomes the majority or balances out the majority. So some of your comments like

author=Ayanin
It's the bad reviews that are often going to improve what you do

is kind of invalid for this game alone. For a game to be successful, it's the majority that is important. Though I agree that there is something to learn from bad reviews for the creator when he/she goes to create a new game, in this case, really, your negative review alone isn't significant enough to warrant changes for this game alone when there are many positive reviews against yours.

And, well, just to let you know that, like Ronove said, she has made a lot of efforts and changes in making this game less hard, but still challenging. Had you played the older versions, the difficulty is even worse. That's the reason why Ronove is upset, you know? It's like, "so much hard work put into improving the game, many people are happy, and then this bad review appears." You kind of didn't consider the past revisions of the game. Ronove is someone who listens to criticism, but she brushes off yours because you face a bad experience that, really, the majority don't face.

You should probably read the other reviews of Star Stealing Prince and then see for yourself. But yeah, your review still stands. That, I'll have to agree.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and dying + frustration are meant to be common in a challenging RPG. If you find yourself constantly dying, there can only be two things. It's either the creator's fault or your fault. And you have to look at it from your own perspective first. Find out what exactly is wrong that you are doing (and figuring out strategies is part of playing a game) before actually criticizing the game. Especially when most people don't have difficulty with the game. If most people don't have difficulty with the game, why do you have difficulty? That could only mean something went wrong on your side, not the game creator.

(Though I have to admit that the first few bosses are very tough (but not exactly as tough as you have pictured it out to be). Many people have actually complained about that before. But it has been toned down now, I think. Past that though, and it should be a more smooth sailing ride...)
author=StarSkipping
Not every reviewer has to adopt the story, graphics, music, gameplay template to express their opinion to the player. Now if the whole review was focused around the music direction alone, then I can understand the uproar (In a bizarre way I would love to see that). But as he's talking about the gameplay here that makes or breaks a game, then I can't really see how this review is automatically void. =o=

Err???
Which category of a game is most important is a personal opinion as well. You can't say that gameplay is more important than music.
If I only play RPGs because I like RPG-ish music, then I might as well rate a game on the music alone. Comes down to the same thing.

And it's pretty much a staff decision if they want to enforce "reviews have to take up every core aspect of an RPG" or allow reviews that only focus on one thing that bothered the author (or that he liked particularly much).
author=Solitayre
This review, to me, comes across as expressing genuine frustration at the difficulty of the game. The takeaway is "Hey guys, this game is really hard, it was so hard that I didn't enjoy playing it." That is a completely legitimate criticism to have, and a useful one for potential players to see, even if not everyone agrees.


The problem here is that it is not genuine frustration. Sure he wrote a lot of words expressing said opinion, but given that there are thousands of people who have had no issues with the first boss and the game has been tweaked in difficulty numerous times to the point where the first boss requires no luck at all and only basic strategy, leads me to believe that he didn't seriously try at all.

You wouldn't approve a review of Super Mario Bros if the reviewer couldn't get past level 1-1, and the same stringent suspension of disbelief should apply here. As you and the rest of the staff have played the game, you should be able to confirm that the first boss is nowhere near as hard as this reviewer claims it to be.

Quite frankly I just fail to see how a review based on 15 minutes of gameplay of a 10 hour game can ever meet the standards of this site. Did this review meet the standards simply because it was written like an essay? Come on.

author=Solitayre
This review, to me, comes across as expressing genuine frustration at the difficulty of the game. The takeaway is "Hey guys, this game is really hard, it was so hard that I didn't enjoy playing it." That is a completely legitimate criticism to have, and a useful one for potential players to see, even if not everyone agrees.

I would like to add that legitimacy does not equal quality. Did you even check the quality for this particular review thoroughly before approving, no offence?

So what kind of standards are reviews supposed to have on this site? Legitimate reviews, no matter how good or bad they are, or at least decent-quality reviews?
As far as I understood the current rules are only that you have to explain your opinion.

The question left is if the opinion has been explained well enough in this review.

To be fair the reviewer didn't just say "I don't like the game, because it is too hard. 2/5", he explained at least to some extend why it is too hard. He explained that if you use the wrong tactic on a boss you are dead on the second turn and he explained that even if you grind you won't be able to beat the boss like that. Both things are actually correct.

The worse part of the review is where he tries to sell his opinion as cold truth indirectly implying the other reviews on the game are wrong. He goes so far and claims the game is unplayable which doesn't make much sense for a game that's been finished by many players.

I would have preferred him saying something along the lines of "I'm not a person who likes to try different tactics until I succeed, I want to be able to win every boss fight on the first try. Star Stealing Prince couldn't offer me such an experience, so I never got a chance to really enjoy it."
That would have been much better.

After all, the claims that this review is important so people see what they could not like about the game only works if from reading the review you know what kind of player will actually have problems with the difficulty. The cold truth doesn't really work here very well, as it's probably only the truth for 10% of the players.
mtarzaim
Criticizing more, making less...
1761
Just to add more fuel to the fire, I'm playing the 2.4 version of the game right now (been on my usb key for quite a while), and I see where the reviewer's frustration comes from.

The "problem" with the game is it isn't using the classic formula: hit with swords and keep magic for bosses btw status is crap.
Here, it's the opposite, where statuses do all the trick.

You're a magician (never clearly explained ingame, but hey...), and you're supposed to fight like one. I.e with magic.
Then, it implies you suck with weapons, and the enemies will defeat you if you don't act first (or make mistake => one-hit gameover).

I think this choice of gameplay could be made nicer with three tweaks:
- offer the player to save often. Open the save menu, or show a text reminder.
- clearly explain to the player how to fight (in my version, I must speak to some magic research I don't know where to find)
- design the battles so they could be won either by sword or by magic. Make the monsters high on HP but low on ATK. If the player chooses sword, the battle will last longer, but they will win eventually. If the player chooses magic, the battle last shorter, hinting this is how the fights must be handled.

This aside, I found dishearting that you cannot play as a king managing his kingdom in the first chapter. For example, during the public audience, instead of having a text-only sequence, it would have been funnier to make decisions about our people's problems. Decisions which would impact what they give us before our journey. Decisions we could take by talking to them in the very begining of the game.

Another example, a true monarch would assemble a party before going into the wilderness. Setting a scene where the player chooses what kind of soldiers he will add to his party would have been nice (and realist).
Then, we would have a war camp at the start of the Sabin Forest, where, depending on which people we choosed, we would have access to different services/items/side-stories.
The town is useless anyway...

Well, too late to implement those in the game. :p
I actually like the idea of having magicians as main character(s) and leaving normal attacks pretty useless. It's something interesting and unique and adds a lot to the strategical element of the game.
author=alterego
I think the "drama" truly stems from this "all reviews are precious snow flakes" mentality we adopt, when that's not true for anything.

Edit: "Like idk, do people ever have a problem with positive reviews focusing way too much on one aspect?" - Sometimes. =B

I think we're onto something here haha. I've never seen anyone blowing a gasket over a vague positive review before. It does bring in the question if there's a double standard going on. :(


author=RyaReisender
author=StarSkipping
Not every reviewer has to adopt the story, graphics, music, gameplay template to express their opinion to the player. Now if the whole review was focused around the music direction alone, then I can understand the uproar (In a bizarre way I would love to see that). But as he's talking about the gameplay here that makes or breaks a game, then I can't really see how this review is automatically void. =o=
Err???
Which category of a game is most important is a personal opinion as well. You can't say that gameplay is more important than music.
If I only play RPGs because I like RPG-ish music, then I might as well rate a game on the music alone. Comes down to the same thing.

True, it would also factor into the gerne as well. I can see how a music review might be suitable for an rpg game inspired by Dance central. But at the end of the day, what distinguishes games from any other medium? :>

author=The little shit above me, who edited it out but trust me, it was there
Ignore the morons this website attracts, especially Volrath. They legitimately don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Hey, come on now. I'm the worst but you pick someone else's quote as the worst response? That doesn't make much sense.

I thought I was actually pretty chill. He suggested that nobody could beat this game without a walkthrough and I thought that was an unfounded assumption. Should we just not have a comments section for reviews? If everyone liked the same reviews the world would be boring as fuck.

I still don't care for the review, but the writer did his best to explain himself so that's all you can ask. You're probably angrier about the disagreement than he is.

I know you're still mad that the amount of Misaos won by Master of the Wind is higher than your IQ, but just let it go already.
Decky
I'm a dog pirate
19645
Okay, guys - keep it civil :P

But yeah, I made a topic on Standards:

http://rpgmaker.net/forums/topics/14099/

I wanna hear feedback there if possible!
author=Sated
"The fact is that Star Stealing Prince has been well established as a great game (not to mention it was released about a year ago). And, like Ronove said, it went through numerous revisions (up to Patch 3.0). If this had been a brand new unknown game, then maybe this review is valid. But in this case, you are in the minority when it comes to thinking this game is bad because of the frustrating gameplay. And you know that the majority always triumphs over the minority unless the minority becomes the majority or balances out the majority."

This is legitimately retarded.

Just because something is popular, or well respected, does not mean that a personal opinion to the contrary is wrong. Opinions are not facts, they cannot be right/wrong, they can only exist. If someone dislikes something then they dislike it and that's that.

My last post here. Anything else will be under the Standards topic (unless it's relevant).

Never once did I say that his review is wrong. Yes, I disagree with the review, but disagreeing is not the the same as saying it's wrong, if not entirely. I even stated at the end of my post that his review still stands. And I only stated that his review falls in the minority, so much so that it can't be taken seriously. Thar's not the same as saying it's wrong. Please don't misunderstand.
Sailerius
did someone say angels
3214
author=eplipswich
author=Sated
"The fact is that Star Stealing Prince has been well established as a great game (not to mention it was released about a year ago). And, like Ronove said, it went through numerous revisions (up to Patch 3.0). If this had been a brand new unknown game, then maybe this review is valid. But in this case, you are in the minority when it comes to thinking this game is bad because of the frustrating gameplay. And you know that the majority always triumphs over the minority unless the minority becomes the majority or balances out the majority."

This is legitimately retarded.

Just because something is popular, or well respected, does not mean that a personal opinion to the contrary is wrong. Opinions are not facts, they cannot be right/wrong, they can only exist. If someone dislikes something then they dislike it and that's that.
My last post here. Anything else will be under the Standards topic.

Never once did I say that his review is wrong. I even stated at the end of my post that his review still stands. I only said just his review falls in the minority, so much so that it can't be taken seriously.
Why can't minority opinions be "taken seriously?" Minority opinions are the most valuable when trying to decide whether or not to play a game. I always read the lowest-rated reviews when deciding because they tend to best illuminate the flaws of the game which blind fanboyism is eager to gloss over.

To insist that all reviews that don't conform to the same opinion should be disregarded is lunacy.

Maybe I should get back to reviewing.
author=Ayanin
Like I said... the good reviews are pretty much the least helpful/important. At least the "I love this game!" kind of good reviews. It's the bad reviews that are often going to imrpove what you do, the most, so long as the person doesn't just go, "this is stupid!" and leave it at that. If they give you examples of what happened, what they didn't like, why they left... all of that info is GOLD to someone who wants to perfect what they do. Whereas, "Awesome!!" is not particularly useful.

Can we apply this to comments about reviews as well? Are good comments the least helpful and bad comments the ones that are going to improve your reviews?
Ronove
More like Misao Stealing Prince
2867
- design the battles so they could be won either by sword or by magic. Make the monsters high on HP but low on ATK. If the player chooses sword, the battle will last longer, but they will win eventually. If the player chooses magic, the battle last shorter, hinting this is how the fights must be handled.

Wait, wait, wait. This was never choose-your-own adventure game. This point would have been valid if it was a game you could choose exactly how Snowe's stats progressed in the game, but it's not. Flame I takes down most of the enemies in the forest in one hit (and two whacks with the staff and in 3.0 and above, he should never miss unless VX decided to undermine me). And I have worked very hard to make sure those enemies don't one-hit KO you and if I remembered, in 3.0 they cannot stun lock you like they could before because of an oversight on my part. They are the easiest in the game.

After the Tower, you get Astra. She is good at both magic AND physical attacks. If you want to just plow through enemies with her sword, then have at it. But the game is designed so you take into consideration if going in swords a slashing is a good move (and sometimes, it really is not).

Everyone in this game has a role to play. Hiante is the fastest and he can blind things later on and silence things. Have him do that. In bosses, get him debuffing because he goes faster than all the bosses. Snowe is the second fastest and also your healer. He also can hit things REALLY HARD with magic and can decimate enemies should you choose to. Astra is the third fastest and she is your jack of all trades, she can do whatever you need her to do, a little healing, magic decimation, and kicking the crap out of enemies. Relenia is the slowest but she will take a hit for you in battle, she can put up shields, and can poison all enemies so if you have to take a turn to simply heal, at least you have poison wittling them down. Your point would have been valid if the game allowed you to pick and choose your party members and how to make them grow, but it's not. It's a story driven plot with characters each having a role to play.

Another example, a true monarch would assemble a party before going into the wilderness.

And you know what the point of the game is? Snowe is NOT a true monarch. It's all a lie. Everything about the scene deciding the like 10 people of your kingdom was all to make you feel like this is a stereotypical game. And the fact you CANNOT control it is because what point would that have been? I would have been wasting your time as a player (because when Snowe dies, boom all whatever you did is for nothing so that would have easily made the intro WAY too long and I would have been judged on that).

Even the difficulty in the game from the Sabine Forest to Lorel after the Eastern tower is to show hey this game was lying to you up until now. You were given this false sense of what the game is at the start to make you feel yes, this is like all the other games out there. But after Snowe DIES at the first boss in the game you have no hope of winning, you have to shape up. These enemies are not easy, these bosses are not easy because this island is slowly going to be freezing everyone to death.

Your ideas would work in a far different game and would not have worked in the game that I wanted to make.
author=Sailerius
Why can't minority opinions be "taken seriously?" Minority opinions are the most valuable when trying to decide whether or not to play a game. I always read the lowest-rated reviews when deciding because they tend to best illuminate the flaws of the game which blind fanboyism is eager to gloss over.

To insist that all reviews that don't conform to the same opinion should be disregarded is lunacy.

Maybe I should get back to reviewing.

So I suppose you're super happy and proud of karsuman's review of Vacant Sky then?
Sailerius
did someone say angels
3214
author=Diedrupo
author=Sailerius
Why can't minority opinions be "taken seriously?" Minority opinions are the most valuable when trying to decide whether or not to play a game. I always read the lowest-rated reviews when deciding because they tend to best illuminate the flaws of the game which blind fanboyism is eager to gloss over.

To insist that all reviews that don't conform to the same opinion should be disregarded is lunacy.

Maybe I should get back to reviewing.
So I suppose you're super happy and proud of karsuman's review of Vacant Sky then?

Why not? He's entitled to his opinion and provides ample justification for why he feels the way he does. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion at hand.
author=Sailerius
Minority opinions are the most valuable when trying to decide whether or not to play a game.

Well, then we have different ways of selecting games to play. It may be a different case for game designers, but for me as a player, I tend to look out for games that have a lot of hype/good reviews etc and then just play the game and see for myself whether it's fun or not and whether the game lives up to the hype. In the case of Star Stealing Prince, it does live up to a respectable level of hype.

And I guess I really should write my own reviews as well. But I don't quite have the patience to write a detailed one ~ ~ And I'm quite a busy man.

Reply

Comments have been disabled on this review.