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 ListsLOCKEZ'S PROFILE
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Close
The Unofficial Squaresoft MUD is a free online game based on the worlds and combat systems of your favorite Squaresoft games. UOSSMUD includes job trees from FFT and FF5, advanced classes from multiple other Square games, and worlds based extremely accurately upon Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, and Final Fantasies 5, 6, and 7. Travel through the original worlds and experience events that mirror those of the original games in an online, multiplayer format.
If a large, highly customized MUD, now over 10 years old and still being expanded, with a job system and worlds based on some of the most popular console RPGs seems interesting to you, feel free to log on and check it out. Visit uossmud.sandwich.net for information about logging on.
If a large, highly customized MUD, now over 10 years old and still being expanded, with a job system and worlds based on some of the most popular console RPGs seems interesting to you, feel free to log on and check it out. Visit uossmud.sandwich.net for information about logging on.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
You Have Two Hundred Words
Vindication is a constant barrage of off-the-wall comedy; a game where eccentric characters encounter absurd situations non-stop. The characters are attacked by 80s style robots from the future, struck by meteors, and forced to take pity on villains who try their best to be evil but fail miserably. But in its more serious moments, Vindication is primarily the story of one man, James Clyde. His quest for revenge against those who have wronged him rules his life, but begins to conflict with his desire to protect his daughter, while a force capable of destroying the world is left unchecked, even encouraged. It is an epic tragedy hidden within a whirlwind of wacky hijinks and terrible puns.
While unarguably a story-based game, Vindication also attempts to create a unique and interesting game that is challenging and rewarding. Constant party changes and splits keep you on your toes and require you to come up with new battle strategies constantly, while still rewarding you for developing your characters. On hard mode, the game plays almost like a survival horror game, forcing you to manage your resources wisely in order to survive the dungeons and overcome the intense challenges.
While unarguably a story-based game, Vindication also attempts to create a unique and interesting game that is challenging and rewarding. Constant party changes and splits keep you on your toes and require you to come up with new battle strategies constantly, while still rewarding you for developing your characters. On hard mode, the game plays almost like a survival horror game, forcing you to manage your resources wisely in order to survive the dungeons and overcome the intense challenges.
Players x Experts - Our attitude on playing games
Players x Experts - Our attitude on playing games
Why? If more problems pop up, wouldn't you want to fix them so the game is better for future players?
Players x Experts - Our attitude on playing games
Hmm, something that popped up in the discussions under that article made me think.
Are there a lot of people who don't update or change their game any more after it's "finished"? I "finished" my game almost five years ago but I continue to make changes to it almost every month. Some of these changes are small and others are complete overhauls - two in particular were big enough that the game almost became a new game. I cannot imagine any situation where I would ever become aware of a problem in the game but not update the game to fix it. Even if it were ten years from now, I'm sure I would attempt to fix any problem that was pointed out to me, whether that is a bug or a design issue. This is part of why I want the negative feedback - because it lets me make the game better for future players.
How common is this? Do other people sort of set their games down and say, "This is finished, I'm no longer going to pay attention to the feedback on this game to attempt to improve it," and never update the project again? In a commercial game, that's obviously the norm, since you have to decide it's ready to ship at some point. But even most commercial games these days continue to put out patches and DLC for months or years after their release.
Are there a lot of people who don't update or change their game any more after it's "finished"? I "finished" my game almost five years ago but I continue to make changes to it almost every month. Some of these changes are small and others are complete overhauls - two in particular were big enough that the game almost became a new game. I cannot imagine any situation where I would ever become aware of a problem in the game but not update the game to fix it. Even if it were ten years from now, I'm sure I would attempt to fix any problem that was pointed out to me, whether that is a bug or a design issue. This is part of why I want the negative feedback - because it lets me make the game better for future players.
How common is this? Do other people sort of set their games down and say, "This is finished, I'm no longer going to pay attention to the feedback on this game to attempt to improve it," and never update the project again? In a commercial game, that's obviously the norm, since you have to decide it's ready to ship at some point. But even most commercial games these days continue to put out patches and DLC for months or years after their release.
Lay Bare Your Numbers
I like that. Lots and lots of options is definitely the way to go. I would just warn that you need to make sure the tree continues to get bigger and bigger as the game goes on, instead of opening it all up from the beginning.
What are you working on now?
At the moment, most of the meaningful work for my upcoming RMXP game is on hold because I want to use Atoa's battle system, but it's still got some major bugs. Mostly, the fact that having only one party member causes animation bugs and random crashing. And also the fact that he hasn't finished the one feature I really want - battler movement.
So, I'm contenting myself with trying to get Wild Arms/Zelda style tools to work. I decided on a Secret of Mana style ring menu for tools, and downloaded that popular ring menu script. Then I managed to edit it to not wig out when the player gets too close to the edge of the screen, by dynamically shrinking the radius of the ring based on the player's location, to never get within 16 pixels of the edge of the screen. Stupid 16 pixel window border. If the player is actually standing on an edge tile, I have to move the whole ring one tile in, so it's not centered over the player any more. Fortunately, that should almost never actually happen, since stepping on the edge of a map should generally take you to the next map.
So, I think the tools menu is working now. Actual tools themselves have of course not even been started on yet.
So, I'm contenting myself with trying to get Wild Arms/Zelda style tools to work. I decided on a Secret of Mana style ring menu for tools, and downloaded that popular ring menu script. Then I managed to edit it to not wig out when the player gets too close to the edge of the screen, by dynamically shrinking the radius of the ring based on the player's location, to never get within 16 pixels of the edge of the screen. Stupid 16 pixel window border. If the player is actually standing on an edge tile, I have to move the whole ring one tile in, so it's not centered over the player any more. Fortunately, that should almost never actually happen, since stepping on the edge of a map should generally take you to the next map.
So, I think the tools menu is working now. Actual tools themselves have of course not even been started on yet.
Your Profile Views Count!
Hmm, I'm not as bad off as I thought. Somehow I still have no reviews for Vindication, though. 10459 views and 545 downloads here, plenty more at RRR (though their counter is broken), and yet no reviews at either site. Also less than half a dozen comments about anything people like or dislike about the game, other than laughing at individual jokes from the first half hour of the game.
Maybe it's because the game is so long? Do people not like to review games they haven't finished? Oh well. It makes me feel like the game is incredibly obscure and disliked, but comparing numbers, I guess that's not actually the case.
Maybe it's because the game is so long? Do people not like to review games they haven't finished? Oh well. It makes me feel like the game is incredibly obscure and disliked, but comparing numbers, I guess that's not actually the case.
The importance of testing.
Basically I just run through the stuff myself. I keep about 40 save files - named and numbered - at almost every major spot you could save during the game.
Sometimes I still miss things. But this isn't very common when making changes to an existing game. If I'm adding a specific new thing to the game, I generally know exactly what I'm adding and how to test it.
When I was first making the game, it was a lot more chaotic. There was no way I could find all the problems myself. That's the situation where you really need extra testers, I think. Honestly, you know what I did? I gave the game to friends - not as testers, but just telling them that it was finished. And told them I didn't think there were any bugs, but if they found any, to please let me know. You'd be amazed how well that works. In a couple cases I even got to stand behind them and watch as they played parts of it, which was insanely helpful. The only downside is, if you were hoping your best friends would enjoy the game, they probably won't as much, because it will, uh, have some bugs.
Sometimes I still miss things. But this isn't very common when making changes to an existing game. If I'm adding a specific new thing to the game, I generally know exactly what I'm adding and how to test it.
When I was first making the game, it was a lot more chaotic. There was no way I could find all the problems myself. That's the situation where you really need extra testers, I think. Honestly, you know what I did? I gave the game to friends - not as testers, but just telling them that it was finished. And told them I didn't think there were any bugs, but if they found any, to please let me know. You'd be amazed how well that works. In a couple cases I even got to stand behind them and watch as they played parts of it, which was insanely helpful. The only downside is, if you were hoping your best friends would enjoy the game, they probably won't as much, because it will, uh, have some bugs.
Lay Bare Your Numbers
Eh, having your elemental defenses and critical hit rate and dodge rate shown on the equipment screen is not going to blind you. And if the game is well designed, then those pieces of information are actually going to be vital to choosing equipment, and if you don't have them (or pay attention to them) then you're likely to die.
Basically, giving the player more information means you have to expect that they will be optimizing themselves more effectively, and so you have to give them less of an allowable error margin if you want your game to have any sort of difficulty. Especially near the beginning of the game, where the player would normally have no idea how well different things work compared to each-other. By the end of the game, they're going to know all that stuff whether you show it to them or not - unless they're completely incompetent, or the game is so easy that they never really have to worry about their equipment and stats.
I will warn you that telling the player everything removes a lot of the enjoyable feel of learning and exploration that makes RPGs fun. Figuring things out is, in RPGs, the main way we get better at the game. People like to get better at the game as it goes on. If they can figure everything in the entire game out in the first 20 minutes, the next 30 hours are going to be really boring.
Part of what I liked about FF Tactics was that the job tree was huge, and took the entire game to get through. And while the game did tell you lots of details about abilities - even ones you didn't know yet - it didn't tell you everything. You still had to test things out to see how well they worked. The game told you that casting Praise would raise an ally's bravery, and maybe even by how much - but it didn't tell you how much of a damage bonus that extra bravery would provide. And also, the game still managed to continue unlocking new stuff for you to play around with, throughout the entire game. So I never got bored of fooling around with different jobs, trying to figure out what worked and what didn't.
Basically, giving the player more information means you have to expect that they will be optimizing themselves more effectively, and so you have to give them less of an allowable error margin if you want your game to have any sort of difficulty. Especially near the beginning of the game, where the player would normally have no idea how well different things work compared to each-other. By the end of the game, they're going to know all that stuff whether you show it to them or not - unless they're completely incompetent, or the game is so easy that they never really have to worry about their equipment and stats.
I will warn you that telling the player everything removes a lot of the enjoyable feel of learning and exploration that makes RPGs fun. Figuring things out is, in RPGs, the main way we get better at the game. People like to get better at the game as it goes on. If they can figure everything in the entire game out in the first 20 minutes, the next 30 hours are going to be really boring.
Part of what I liked about FF Tactics was that the job tree was huge, and took the entire game to get through. And while the game did tell you lots of details about abilities - even ones you didn't know yet - it didn't tell you everything. You still had to test things out to see how well they worked. The game told you that casting Praise would raise an ally's bravery, and maybe even by how much - but it didn't tell you how much of a damage bonus that extra bravery would provide. And also, the game still managed to continue unlocking new stuff for you to play around with, throughout the entire game. So I never got bored of fooling around with different jobs, trying to figure out what worked and what didn't.
Players x Experts - Our attitude on playing games
Hmm, well, okay then. I know there are people who play these games, I just figured most of the ones worth playing had their own websites, rather than just being available on game development sites. But if lots of players do come here, then I am forced to admit it's worth making changes that help them.
I definitely disagree with the like vs. dislike, as it simplifies things too much and isn't well defined. One person might think anything that's not perfect is worth a "dislike" while another person might think that only a game which is totally unsalvagably ruined is worth a "dislike", or anything in between. It's better for reviewers to describe what they do and don't like, and award a standardized score; this gives much more information and isn't nearly as misleading.
I do wish our scores were standardized. So that four stars from one person meant the same as four stars from another person. But that's probably a pain in the ass, since doing that now would require deleting or editing all existing reviews.
I definitely disagree with the like vs. dislike, as it simplifies things too much and isn't well defined. One person might think anything that's not perfect is worth a "dislike" while another person might think that only a game which is totally unsalvagably ruined is worth a "dislike", or anything in between. It's better for reviewers to describe what they do and don't like, and award a standardized score; this gives much more information and isn't nearly as misleading.
I do wish our scores were standardized. So that four stars from one person meant the same as four stars from another person. But that's probably a pain in the ass, since doing that now would require deleting or editing all existing reviews.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
