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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsCRYSTALGATE'S PROFILE
Crystalgate
694
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
How do you tell if a game is bad?
Crimson_legionnaire asked if instant gratification is the norm nowadays, implying that it once wasn't. What I wanted to point out is that old games were very much designed with instant gratification in mind. Those 40+ hour games you're talking about are relative recent additions. That makes them rather irrelevant to the "nowadays" comment.
How do you tell if a game is bad?
Instant gratification has always been the norm when it comes to games. I mean, which one of Pacman, Donkey Kong and Dig Dug were designed with delay of gratification in mind?
I can only recall two cases where a game has become significantly more enjoyable for me later. It's FFX and Suikoden V. For both games the problem was that the early parts were to clustered with cutscenes. Later once the cutscenes became more spaced out I found them more fun. However, both games could have spaced out the cutscenes more right from the start and been more fun immediately instead for 6-8 hour later.
I can only recall two cases where a game has become significantly more enjoyable for me later. It's FFX and Suikoden V. For both games the problem was that the early parts were to clustered with cutscenes. Later once the cutscenes became more spaced out I found them more fun. However, both games could have spaced out the cutscenes more right from the start and been more fun immediately instead for 6-8 hour later.
Legionwood: Tale Of The Two Swords
Craze's Let's Play! Topic
post=207314
While you were speaking about skills, I thought I'd address a concern that might come up. "Double Strike" doesn't actually do double damage; it does something like x.05 extra damage.
According to the editor, Doubble Strike Has an Attack F of 190 which is like 90% extra damage, not counting the base damage of 20 that is.
>New Game
I will never be able to appreciate foreshadowing from the very start.
How excited I become when I spot foreshadowing depends very little on the foreshadowing itself, rather it depends on how competent the author has been so far. With a good author I will assume that when I finally get the missing piece, the whole picture will be grand. However, if the author has been a poor writer there's no reason for me to expect the big reveal to be any better written than anything before. If an author foreshadow events right from the start then I'll have no idea if that's really going to be something to look forward to. I guess you could see that as a mystery, but I consider "does the author know what the heck he's doing?" an enjoyable mystery.
I guess not everyone sees it the same way. Even so, I think foreshadowing is a way to show the player promises. You show that there's a missing element and it is implied that finding it our later will be grander than it will be if it's revealed now. I don't think it's good idea to give the player promises until you have established trust.
How excited I become when I spot foreshadowing depends very little on the foreshadowing itself, rather it depends on how competent the author has been so far. With a good author I will assume that when I finally get the missing piece, the whole picture will be grand. However, if the author has been a poor writer there's no reason for me to expect the big reveal to be any better written than anything before. If an author foreshadow events right from the start then I'll have no idea if that's really going to be something to look forward to. I guess you could see that as a mystery, but I consider "does the author know what the heck he's doing?" an enjoyable mystery.
I guess not everyone sees it the same way. Even so, I think foreshadowing is a way to show the player promises. You show that there's a missing element and it is implied that finding it our later will be grander than it will be if it's revealed now. I don't think it's good idea to give the player promises until you have established trust.
>New Game
Many people have suggested you start with action or at least get into the action very soon. I definitely agree with that. I would like to stress that RPGs are games and should be treated as games. If you feel the need to begin with a fifteen minute intro in order to tell your story then I feel that you missed the point of a game. I can usually stand a long intro if something interesting happens for the first time, but it kills the replayability unless you have a skip cutscene feature. Besides, we are supposed to enjoy the games, not "stand" them.
Some also mentioned the number of skills. It's a good idea not to overwhelm the player, but most RPGs take that thought to ridiculous lengths. There is no need to start the player off with one or no skills. If you were to start a new game and your character had three skills names "firebolt", "cure" and "sleep" respectively, would you feel overwhelmed? We know what those skills does, the question is just how effective they are. Just make sure that the player doesn't have to get it right from the get go. Make it so that using the skills correctly rewards the player (faster battles and saving money by having to use less healing items should do it,) but the player can still survive even if she/he struggles with using the right skill for the right time. Then gradually chance the difficulty towards the player having to get it right rather than that just being a convenience.
Some also mentioned the number of skills. It's a good idea not to overwhelm the player, but most RPGs take that thought to ridiculous lengths. There is no need to start the player off with one or no skills. If you were to start a new game and your character had three skills names "firebolt", "cure" and "sleep" respectively, would you feel overwhelmed? We know what those skills does, the question is just how effective they are. Just make sure that the player doesn't have to get it right from the get go. Make it so that using the skills correctly rewards the player (faster battles and saving money by having to use less healing items should do it,) but the player can still survive even if she/he struggles with using the right skill for the right time. Then gradually chance the difficulty towards the player having to get it right rather than that just being a convenience.
How do you tell if a game is bad?
Story Line Bullet Points
I spotted one bullet point that can be problematic by itself.
- Once the wizard loses round 1, he caps off the round by using the crystal to magically transport you to another land.
Action was going on at one place and now you're sending the player away from it. There is a chance you lose the player's interest and you should immediately re-hook her/him. I would suggest that you quickly show to the player that there is a connection between this new place and what was going on before, even if you don't intend to reveal what that connection may be until later. What I'd definitely would advice against is making that new place just some sort of exile the player has to escape from.
Other than that, your story leaves a lot of unanswered questions. While it's good for the audience, do you know the answer to those questions? Have you decided what power the crystal and the wizard lord has as well what said wizard lord's goal is? If you don't, there's a chance you give the wizard lord a power later on which would have been useful earlier, only he didn't use it for no other reason than that you hadn't thought of him having that power at that point. Likewise, if you at a later point give a character a goal or knowledge you haven't thought of before, said character may have earlier not properly acted on that goal or knowledge.
- Once the wizard loses round 1, he caps off the round by using the crystal to magically transport you to another land.
Action was going on at one place and now you're sending the player away from it. There is a chance you lose the player's interest and you should immediately re-hook her/him. I would suggest that you quickly show to the player that there is a connection between this new place and what was going on before, even if you don't intend to reveal what that connection may be until later. What I'd definitely would advice against is making that new place just some sort of exile the player has to escape from.
Other than that, your story leaves a lot of unanswered questions. While it's good for the audience, do you know the answer to those questions? Have you decided what power the crystal and the wizard lord has as well what said wizard lord's goal is? If you don't, there's a chance you give the wizard lord a power later on which would have been useful earlier, only he didn't use it for no other reason than that you hadn't thought of him having that power at that point. Likewise, if you at a later point give a character a goal or knowledge you haven't thought of before, said character may have earlier not properly acted on that goal or knowledge.
Legionwood: Tale Of The Two Swords
Obligatory Self-Based Characters
post=205184
I haven't based a character completely off of myself, but I do put elements of my personality into each of the characters that I write, both the good and bad traits.
Same here. It's near impossible (nor useful IMO) to avoid getting at least some part of yourself into your characters, but I try to avoid basing a character to heavily off of myself.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
