Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
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 ListsDFALCON'S PROFILE
DFalcon
2141
Close
Software engineer and amateur game developer with a focus on challenging non-twitch gameplay. I set the bar for "challenging" pretty high.
Other major chunks of interest go toward reading, math and tabletop games of many stripes.
Other major chunks of interest go toward reading, math and tabletop games of many stripes.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
What do people care about?
I tend to think that a couple hours is quite a fair shake for a review here.
Is forthrightness about time played essential? Yes. Do I like to see a more complete review? Of course. If the reviewer is receiving compensation, do I expect him to soldier on longer? Yes, though I doubt anyone expects even well-paid reviewers to do all the optional content for a big RPG.
But we see thousands of indie/amateur games and every creator puts effort in. The length of time it takes to read an entire novel (though not a particularly long one) is plenty for an early reviewer who decides he'd rather move on and try another new game. I'd even rather see opinions of the first couple hours of a game by a few people who judge things differently, than have each of them spend much longer on separate games.
Some games get stronger, and sometimes elements don't pan out, but if the first couple hours aren't a decent indicator of how much someone will enjoy a game, the creator is doing something wrong.
----
Parenthetically:
The RPGmaker community does have a bit of an odd history with games getting better as you play; a significant fraction of people release a demo of the beginning of their game, then treat that part as set in stone and work on the next section, and so on. Certainly there are games where you can see the maker's improvement as time progresses.
That said, it's one reason I often come out in favor of small projects, especially for people starting out.
Is forthrightness about time played essential? Yes. Do I like to see a more complete review? Of course. If the reviewer is receiving compensation, do I expect him to soldier on longer? Yes, though I doubt anyone expects even well-paid reviewers to do all the optional content for a big RPG.
But we see thousands of indie/amateur games and every creator puts effort in. The length of time it takes to read an entire novel (though not a particularly long one) is plenty for an early reviewer who decides he'd rather move on and try another new game. I'd even rather see opinions of the first couple hours of a game by a few people who judge things differently, than have each of them spend much longer on separate games.
Some games get stronger, and sometimes elements don't pan out, but if the first couple hours aren't a decent indicator of how much someone will enjoy a game, the creator is doing something wrong.
----
Parenthetically:
The RPGmaker community does have a bit of an odd history with games getting better as you play; a significant fraction of people release a demo of the beginning of their game, then treat that part as set in stone and work on the next section, and so on. Certainly there are games where you can see the maker's improvement as time progresses.
That said, it's one reason I often come out in favor of small projects, especially for people starting out.
Alternative to battles
I worked briefly on an RPG idea where the challenge was totally decoupled from everything else about the game. Like, you'd be walking around town talking to people, trying to put pieces of a mystery together. Anytime you needed to convince someone to do something or give you a bit of information, voila: Japanese vocabulary quiz! Or whatever the player wanted to put there instead.
Anyway, I'm not sure where exactly you were going with your post. A hacker trying to unravel political intrigues may not fight much in the real world, but he can probably face off against ICE in some glowy Tron thing. There are probably RPGs where people save the world through their skill at winning a card game.
Anyway, I'm not sure where exactly you were going with your post. A hacker trying to unravel political intrigues may not fight much in the real world, but he can probably face off against ICE in some glowy Tron thing. There are probably RPGs where people save the world through their skill at winning a card game.
What do people care about?
Like catmitts, I like the serious game design discussions on here and wish we had some more often.
I enjoy playing the top tier of games on here (by my lights, of course), and appreciate reviews (esp. staff reviews) and the Featured Game for picking out some stuff that people consider most worth playing. I care about giving feedback that will improve games that try interesting things, though usually not as a numbered review.
It certainly doesn't hurt that my game tends to be well-regarded around here, and certainly I'll be hitting the site up for testers and eventually the start of an audience for my current project.
I enjoy playing the top tier of games on here (by my lights, of course), and appreciate reviews (esp. staff reviews) and the Featured Game for picking out some stuff that people consider most worth playing. I care about giving feedback that will improve games that try interesting things, though usually not as a numbered review.
It certainly doesn't hurt that my game tends to be well-regarded around here, and certainly I'll be hitting the site up for testers and eventually the start of an audience for my current project.
What are you working on now?
Wait, serious discussion in this thread? I guess I'll give a little context.
My magic skills are typically mixed-effect. Most buffs and debuffs affect more than one stat, so I can't generally be as direct in the naming as chaos suggests. At least, I'd rather have a skill name people can actually remember than something like "Single Evd+ Move+".
Something like "fire in the eyes" has an attraction because it's memorable and associates with more than one effect! (In this case, damage + blind.) However, it's a little long, not in the style I've been using. In all seriousness I'm much more likely to call this "Burn Eyes".
I'm not overly worried that this will be a problem to keep track of in battle. People don't have a lot of skills, and I may be able to at least indicate stuff like being a single-target damage+debuff with icons next to the skill name.
I agree, though I think if you want to have multiple levels of effectiveness of a similar effect you still want maximum consistency. I can deal with "Strength Master, Strength Master+, Guard Boost, Guard Boost+,..." but I don't want to have to remember whether Strength Master is stronger than Strength Superiority.
My magic skills are typically mixed-effect. Most buffs and debuffs affect more than one stat, so I can't generally be as direct in the naming as chaos suggests. At least, I'd rather have a skill name people can actually remember than something like "Single Evd+ Move+".
Something like "fire in the eyes" has an attraction because it's memorable and associates with more than one effect! (In this case, damage + blind.) However, it's a little long, not in the style I've been using. In all seriousness I'm much more likely to call this "Burn Eyes".
I'm not overly worried that this will be a problem to keep track of in battle. People don't have a lot of skills, and I may be able to at least indicate stuff like being a single-target damage+debuff with icons next to the skill name.
post=128684
I think skills with awesome sounding names and skills that tell you what they do are not mutually exclusive, especially when the help window can handle some or all of the task of conveying what a skill does. And awesome names are important to me (as is functionality).
Also, having Strength Master, Guard Boost, Agility Amp, and Spirit Charge is consistent, as is having them all called x Master. It's only if you have like three of them named one thing and the fourth in the set named differently that you are failing at consistency. If your game has two physical attributes and two magic attributes, and the buffs for them are keyworded differently (two and two, say two "boost" and two "charge" or w/e) you can be consistent that way also.
I agree, though I think if you want to have multiple levels of effectiveness of a similar effect you still want maximum consistency. I can deal with "Strength Master, Strength Master+, Guard Boost, Guard Boost+,..." but I don't want to have to remember whether Strength Master is stronger than Strength Superiority.
Frontpage Tweaks
I like this version pretty well.
I would definitely do what kentona said for listing the associated game in Game Updates.
It would be neat to have a little more info about the "Latest Games to Play" in another line below the title. At least genre, probably at most the platform-genre-completion we've already had when navigating lists of games.
The genre list on the left feels out of place, I'm not sure what I'd put there instead though.
I would definitely do what kentona said for listing the associated game in Game Updates.
It would be neat to have a little more info about the "Latest Games to Play" in another line below the title. At least genre, probably at most the platform-genre-completion we've already had when navigating lists of games.
The genre list on the left feels out of place, I'm not sure what I'd put there instead though.
Are you interested in having a release? (something)
post=127848
WIP's idea that he hates but thinks is better and he won't do anyway: announcing Release Something events about 24 hours before the actual event.
This is kind of a neat idea, though I wonder how well it'd really work.
Release Something has changed since Lys started it, I think. It's always good to remind people with projects that time is passing, and gave those people a date to put a milestone to. Anyone who's had a long project (or one that shouldn't have been long!) can testify that it's easy to let your schedule slip for long periods.
But I think part of the originals was to get stuff out there that had been worked on but might not otherwise ever be released, which seems to have shifted more to a focus on shorter games or people planning a regular release to coincide with RS. Which has also incidentally made it bigger.
That change in and of itself isn't necessarily bad, but it means that playing everything that comes out for RS is an even more ridiculous proposition (our poor podcasters!). I think if we're going to have an RS we ought to tone down on the "people should play RS releases!" a lot - RS releases are not normal releases, they're for the off-chance that someone is interested.
What are you working on now?
Working up abilities for a fire mage - my last remaining PC to make, though I still need to make some stat changes before I start any battle maps, and details of abilities will be very tentative for some time.
The temptation to make all the spell names/descriptions existing phrases ("fire in his eyes", "hotfoot", "fire in the belly", the list is endless) is strong.
The temptation to make all the spell names/descriptions existing phrases ("fire in his eyes", "hotfoot", "fire in the belly", the list is endless) is strong.
Party Size
I think conflating the issues of "size of battle party" and "number of characters available" did hurt this topic a little.
For example, I find equipment micromanagement tends to be worst in games with "normal size" battle parties of ~3-4 but several more characters available to put into the party. In those games you tend to change your party makeup a lot, and have to rethink equipment a little every time you do. Whereas games where you actually use lots more than 4 characters at once tend to abstract equipment down further.
For example, I find equipment micromanagement tends to be worst in games with "normal size" battle parties of ~3-4 but several more characters available to put into the party. In those games you tend to change your party makeup a lot, and have to rethink equipment a little every time you do. Whereas games where you actually use lots more than 4 characters at once tend to abstract equipment down further.
What Kurt Vonnegut Can Tell You About Game Design
"Don't waste the player's time" is an essential point we come back to a lot in the community. (One that bears repeating. Listen to the RMNcasts where they talk about slow walk speed or text speed - makers just have blinders on about these things sometimes.)
As far as Tabris's comment, I am not generally in favor of making RPG battles easier, but that seems to have very little to do with this discussion. Part of many RPGs is that your stats matter, and it's possible to say something like "right now there is no way I can beat this boss" or "right now I can beat this boss only if Boss Skill X misses in the first round, which has about a 15% chance of happening, which isn't worth trying with the 30-minute trek from the last save point." It's not like you can beat Final Fantasy (I) at level 1. Needing to grind in a game like that doesn't make it any harder, it just means the player's solution takes longer to implement.
As far as Tabris's comment, I am not generally in favor of making RPG battles easier, but that seems to have very little to do with this discussion. Part of many RPGs is that your stats matter, and it's possible to say something like "right now there is no way I can beat this boss" or "right now I can beat this boss only if Boss Skill X misses in the first round, which has about a 15% chance of happening, which isn't worth trying with the 30-minute trek from the last save point." It's not like you can beat Final Fantasy (I) at level 1. Needing to grind in a game like that doesn't make it any harder, it just means the player's solution takes longer to implement.
Valthirian Arc : Daybreak
I hope there's a Valthirian Arc 2! Graphics and music were very nice, the sim aspect was an interesting idea of the sort I like to see.
Innovation is tough, though, and I don't think the gameplay really panned out on this one. Hunts suffer in particular from the combination of a couple things:
a) The sim part of the game greatly rewards the player for taking hunts slow in order to have one character (typically the lowest-leveled character) do as much of the fighting as possible, because the bulk of LP goes to whoever does damage.
b) Hunts are really easy to take slow. A single level 1 Mana Scholar can beat most relevant hunts if they survive the initial rush of monsters who happen to be in aggro range of the deployment point. (In particular orcs and wolves - seraphs would be somewhat trickier.)
Innovation is tough, though, and I don't think the gameplay really panned out on this one. Hunts suffer in particular from the combination of a couple things:
a) The sim part of the game greatly rewards the player for taking hunts slow in order to have one character (typically the lowest-leveled character) do as much of the fighting as possible, because the bulk of LP goes to whoever does damage.
b) Hunts are really easy to take slow. A single level 1 Mana Scholar can beat most relevant hunts if they survive the initial rush of monsters who happen to be in aggro range of the deployment point. (In particular orcs and wolves - seraphs would be somewhat trickier.)
Games - Tester
Games - Other
