CRYSTALGATE'S PROFILE

Search

Filter

Aurora Magica

This game page has a blue link that says "Aurora Magica" which appears where it shouldn't. For example, on the review page, it appears over the second review, the one written by pianotm. The link also blocks me from opening the second review with my mouse. I can still access it with my keyboard though. Even so, the link appears in every instance of this game page, including every single image.

Edit: I played the demo a bit. The premise sounds interesting, but it falls apart immediately.

The story mentions a peace treaty that allows volunteers to marry beast-girls. The problem is, people who give birth to females only would not rely on monogamy. To pull that off, they need to get a human male from the outside for every female that is to have a partner. Then when they get children, said children will be all female and the process of getting males for everyone who wants one has to be repeated.

Such a society would have to rely on having fewer males who each mate with multiple females. If they try peaceful means, then rather than looking for volunteers to marry them, they look for volunteers to just mate with them. Find single male farmers who don't own land of their own and have to work for others to get by. Offer them work as farmers in the beast kingdom instead where they will get a lot of sex and if necessary, slightly better payment than they get now. Do a similar thing with miners and what have you. The beat girls have no business making marriage the standard.

If they raid for males, it would also be less complicated with polygamy. Not only do they need less men, but they can also capture human women as well and have the humans breed a new generation of males (and females for the third generation as so on) instead of having to continue raiding forever.

Also, are beast girls vastly superior to humans when it comes to fighting? If they aren't, you get into a situation where the humans would have to vastly outnumber the beast girls else the raiding would end up cutting to deeply into the human population, yet if the humans do outnumber the beast girls, they would easily beat them in war.

Glacia

The favoritism towards the SPI stat has a history to it.

To start with, VX came with a lot of sample spells and those sample spells had a SPI-F of 30. A lot of VX users saw that as a recommendation and in their project, gave their spells a SPI-F of 30. The problem with that is that this setting makes the SPI stat very weak, to the point of near uselessness (I have no idea why Enterbrain gave the sample spells such a low SPI-F). Glacia was one the many games where the developers fell victim to that trap and made the SPI stat near useless. I discovered that problem and pointed it out.

Rather than say making the SPI-F of the spells four times as high, the solution in this game was to make the SPI stat four times higher. An explanation to that decision is posted somewhere, but I didn't understand said explanation. Regardless, the SPI stat in this game is point for point much weaker than any other stat, but compensates by being larger than the other stats.

Memories of Elefee

I've played to the stopping point. While flawed in obvious ways, this game has endearing characters and was rather fun.

Glacia

The old version (the one I played at least) has what I'd call "good simplicity". All the game mechanics are simple and easy to use, but most of them are still fun. I'm curious what the new version holds in store and look forward to see it.

Prayer of the Faithless

author=hector212121
Eh, i guess it would have been handy when I had Mai, but i just didn't think of it. Action economy is key; if you can kill 1 enemy with 1 action rather than redirect 2 enemy's aggression with that action, i consider it better spent.

I haven't played the last version yet, but in all other versions I've played, Provoke was handy for almost every battle Amalie was in. It may be less useful to you though since you use completely different tactics than I do. Still, try using it and then have Amalie focus so she has her highest defense.

Anyway, a question to Red_Nova. The description for Aeyr on the characters page states "Aside from that, his natural aggression enables him to manipulate the emotions of both enemies and allies to turn the tide of battle." However, I've noticed you've now given Amalie three emotion manipulating skills while Aeyr has none. Have you changed your mind regarding who gets what?

Prayer of the Faithless

Yes, I would have loved to hear the story behind your hatred towards the provoke skill. Joke aside, that skill is one of the most useful, if not the most useful, in this game. You're making the game much harder by not using it.

Prayer of the Faithless

That's right, I didn't keep in mind that you're doing a blind let's play.

Prayer of the Faithless

Can't you edit in your commentary afterwards? Post commentary is fairly common in Let's Plays after all.

Prayer of the Faithless

That explain where the annoying gimmick where videogames would list the weight of men, but not women, comes from. This becomes extra idiotic if there's 6+ of them and all of them refuses to tell. Well, you learn something new every day.

Prayer of the Faithless

author=argh
The battle system looks more complicated than most RPG Maker games while still being pretty easy to understand. I like that SP affects defense; that adds an extra layer of consideration to blowing all of it on powerful skills.

I think that this is because the battle system isn't really very complex, rather it has a lot of depth. Medium complexity/high depth is what I think describes it best.

Anyway, as far as the proving goes, I'm strongly in the camp of it being an inefficient system. One reason being that the participants have already gone trough an elite soldier training when they are pitted against each other in a death match. That said, they do get very good training (for sanity's sake I'm going to assume "worth 50 soldiers" is an exaggeration) and I can imagine someone higher up vastly over-crediting their combat prowess to the proving.