Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
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 ListsFRACTAL ADVOCATE'S PROFILE
Fractal Advocate
1252
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Oversexualization of Females in Games
While I've seen a fair bit of sexualization of women in games, I can't say I've seen that much in RM games.
Maybe I just haven't been playing the right RM games, though.
The two with screenshots are the only ones I remember, and I remember thinking they were rather well done, particularly Telia - wanting to get into someone's pants is a pretty good reason to randomly tag along with them. I don't see a few highly sexualized characters as a problem, and I don't remember the other women in those games being like that.
Maybe I just haven't been playing the right RM games, though.
The two with screenshots are the only ones I remember, and I remember thinking they were rather well done, particularly Telia - wanting to get into someone's pants is a pretty good reason to randomly tag along with them. I don't see a few highly sexualized characters as a problem, and I don't remember the other women in those games being like that.
Participation in the Game Making Community
I play RM games more than I make them.
However, If a game is sufficiently good at any point, I'm seldom analyzing it in an pseudo-objective perspective that carefully.
I generally only get pulled into game-analysis mode beyond 'what is the optimal action to take?' when I see flaws, bugs, things that break flow - or something that dovetails with an idea *I* had, but has better/worse execution.
Thus, my reviews(for games that don't suck) would generally be pretty much 'was good, except X sucked, and Y was like an idea I had, only better'. This isn't very constructive, nor much fun for me, so I don't bother.
Even if you increase your audience wider in the general public, the standard consumer isn't going to do anything, the really special ones may leave reviews - generally, brief, not very informative reviews, judging from what I saw on an Anime Music Video site - which is great to pump the ego, but not a very good to inform. Example: I had 500 DLs of a video on that site, and 2 short, kind, rather unhelpful reviews.
The only informative reviews I got on that site were those I traded/got by request from other music video makers on the forums, since they actually knew what they were talking about and were willing to go to a little effort to try to help me reach their level.
So I don't think that simply increasing the people who see your stuff is going to increase the quality of feedback.
However, If a game is sufficiently good at any point, I'm seldom analyzing it in an pseudo-objective perspective that carefully.
I generally only get pulled into game-analysis mode beyond 'what is the optimal action to take?' when I see flaws, bugs, things that break flow - or something that dovetails with an idea *I* had, but has better/worse execution.
Thus, my reviews(for games that don't suck) would generally be pretty much 'was good, except X sucked, and Y was like an idea I had, only better'. This isn't very constructive, nor much fun for me, so I don't bother.
Even if you increase your audience wider in the general public, the standard consumer isn't going to do anything, the really special ones may leave reviews - generally, brief, not very informative reviews, judging from what I saw on an Anime Music Video site - which is great to pump the ego, but not a very good to inform. Example: I had 500 DLs of a video on that site, and 2 short, kind, rather unhelpful reviews.
The only informative reviews I got on that site were those I traded/got by request from other music video makers on the forums, since they actually knew what they were talking about and were willing to go to a little effort to try to help me reach their level.
So I don't think that simply increasing the people who see your stuff is going to increase the quality of feedback.
RS!Day VIII release released!
This is a pretty nice game. I was thinking it was too easy, until I reached the Skeleton King and Butcher.
Bug of note: It seems if I press '5' without enough Decipher to read a scroll in my possession, it loops endlessly telling me I can't read the scrolls.
Bug of note: It seems if I press '5' without enough Decipher to read a scroll in my possession, it loops endlessly telling me I can't read the scrolls.
How to Succeed
Best RM Games you've Ever Played
I liked Generica and didn't finish Hero's Realm(although I liked it so far as I got), not because of length, but because of the complete party change.
It's a pretty novel way of doing things, but selecting *another* completely new party from the fourteen classes and somehow figuring out which parties I'd need... was beyond the amount of thought I really wanted to put into it at the time, and I saved, left, and never got back to it.
Plus, I had no real interest in the new hero, after I had built up a little interest in the old one.
Generica didn't break up the flow like that.
It's a pretty novel way of doing things, but selecting *another* completely new party from the fourteen classes and somehow figuring out which parties I'd need... was beyond the amount of thought I really wanted to put into it at the time, and I saved, left, and never got back to it.
Plus, I had no real interest in the new hero, after I had built up a little interest in the old one.
Generica didn't break up the flow like that.
Pet Peeves, turn offs, and other things that piss you off.
If waiters were payed semi-decent wages instead of getting tips, the overall cost of food+tip would be pretty much the same, I imagine...
Except for those who don't tip.
Except for those who don't tip.
Let's talk about cards, guys.
Cool. And yeah, I meant the first 'Stone Edge' you listed, Attack+Attack, not the Attack+Terra one. Was the name for that a typo?
Key stats are MP, ST, and possibly DF, depending how annoying you want to be.
...Also, I edited my first post some before I saw your reply, since I had further thoughts. Main differences are at the very beginning and very end - replacing Hand +2 with Hand + 1 and Endure, and also an additional heal-fix suggestion at the end..
Key stats are MP, ST, and possibly DF, depending how annoying you want to be.
...Also, I edited my first post some before I saw your reply, since I had further thoughts. Main differences are at the very beginning and very end - replacing Hand +2 with Hand + 1 and Endure, and also an additional heal-fix suggestion at the end..
Let's talk about cards, guys.
Abilities: Sanctuary, Endure, Hand Size +1
Sano x 13, Attack x17
Combos: Sanodram, Stone Edge, Vampire
Strategy requires 60 MP. A little more MP, and you could use elemental cards/combos in place of Stone Edge, if so desired, but you then lose vampire. Also, with a little more MP, could add a few + Stone Edges on the end of all of these, and might want to drop a Sano or two for an Attack. Some percentages may need to be tweaked depending on how much vampire usually heals.
If health <35%, play Sanodram if possible
If health < 75%, play Sano + Stone Edge
If health < 85%, play Vampire + Stone Edge
If health > 85%, play Stone Edge + Stone Edge + Stone Edge
Additional defaults:
One attack card >> Vampire
No attack cards >> Sanodram
If an option is not available to play, default to the one below it. If there are insufficient cards to do both cards/combos, just do the first.
This deck should be highly resistant to everything but 1-turn KOs, and 1 turn 70%+ damage (through sanctuary, even), unless I screwed up the math somewhere... and thus eventually beat pretty much every other deck, except decks which have a decent amount of healing, in which case the battle will never end.
----
If healing isn't good enough to completely cancel an attack of equal MP/card investment, it's going to be useless, and if it is, it's essentially going to be unbeatable in large enough quantities against equal stat opponents.
I'd suggest slowly scaling up damage as the battle goes along, having healing be less effective each time used, or having healing reduce cards/MP for the rest of the battle.
Sano x 13, Attack x17
Combos: Sanodram, Stone Edge, Vampire
Strategy requires 60 MP. A little more MP, and you could use elemental cards/combos in place of Stone Edge, if so desired, but you then lose vampire. Also, with a little more MP, could add a few + Stone Edges on the end of all of these, and might want to drop a Sano or two for an Attack. Some percentages may need to be tweaked depending on how much vampire usually heals.
If health <35%, play Sanodram if possible
If health < 75%, play Sano + Stone Edge
If health < 85%, play Vampire + Stone Edge
If health > 85%, play Stone Edge + Stone Edge + Stone Edge
Additional defaults:
One attack card >> Vampire
No attack cards >> Sanodram
If an option is not available to play, default to the one below it. If there are insufficient cards to do both cards/combos, just do the first.
This deck should be highly resistant to everything but 1-turn KOs, and 1 turn 70%+ damage (through sanctuary, even), unless I screwed up the math somewhere... and thus eventually beat pretty much every other deck, except decks which have a decent amount of healing, in which case the battle will never end.
----
If healing isn't good enough to completely cancel an attack of equal MP/card investment, it's going to be useless, and if it is, it's essentially going to be unbeatable in large enough quantities against equal stat opponents.
I'd suggest slowly scaling up damage as the battle goes along, having healing be less effective each time used, or having healing reduce cards/MP for the rest of the battle.
Let's talk about cards, guys.
This looks like a very cool system.
I assume this is 1vs1 fights? If there's more than one PC/enemy, it's going to alter what makes sense.
Also, can you have higher stats without the auto-abilities as an NPC? Not that I actually need an answer to that to design a deck, just curious.
Also, Sano looks too strong, unless a lot of decks are going to have one-turn kill combos, in which case, the game doesn't seem like it'll work that well.
I assume this is 1vs1 fights? If there's more than one PC/enemy, it's going to alter what makes sense.
Also, can you have higher stats without the auto-abilities as an NPC? Not that I actually need an answer to that to design a deck, just curious.
Also, Sano looks too strong, unless a lot of decks are going to have one-turn kill combos, in which case, the game doesn't seem like it'll work that well.
Idea for a new Community Project
I've heard that http://www.lackeyccg.com/ is decent for card game-type design. I think it's free too, although I've never used it.
It allows people to play eachother online, but doesn't allow AI/collectibility.
It allows people to play eachother online, but doesn't allow AI/collectibility.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
