PANCAEK'S PROFILE

I'd say, at least, 90% of RPG Maker games are generally terrible. So, when they say "it's another RPG maker game" they probably mean "It's just another RPG maker game, with nothing to separate it from the rest."

It's not a very well written review, but there's usually something constructive you can take out of any feedback, if not from the feedback it'self, than from why the feedback was given.

Happup looks like a mermaid with a lil floppy tail when he walks forward

author=Corfaisus

author=Pancaek
It doesn't seem bad, per se, however it doesn't seem to be particularly good either... Not something that should have the Yume Nikki tittle slapped on it.

I'm not sure who had the bright idea to turn a game known for aimless open exploration into a linear side scroller, but, yeah...

The problem I'm finding with this statement is that you're judging how proper it is to call this a thing based on something that had very little of such a "thing" in the first place. Theoretically, one could say that Mega Man 2 shouldn't be called a Mega Man because it introduces Energy Tanks and that puts the difficulty of the game largely on the player. It turns survival in a threatening world into stopping for lunch when you get hungry. You're in no real danger and that really can ruin the game if that's what you're looking for.

They added more to what the original game had and suddenly this makes it improper to call it what it is? Whether you like it or not, intent rules the day. It had the graces of the original author (apparently), so even if they took a good thing and made it bad, you can't just throw out this one sour spot for the sake of preserving the "integrity" of the original product. You can't just ignore the entire Gungan species because Jar Jar was an idiot, or throw Star Wars Episode 1 under the bus because he played a pretty big fucking role in it (no matter how disappointing it was).

I'm not sure I ever said anything about integrity. They turned a game that sold it'self on open exploration into a linear game where you can't explore, and that's my biggest problem. It feels sort of like someone turned Mario into an FPS, to me.

author=Corfaisus
They added more to what the original game had and suddenly this makes it improper to call it what it is?

They didn't add more to what the original game had. They had less. The majority of areas are missing, and the game only has 4 of the original 24 effects.

author=Corfaisus
Whether you like it or not, intent rules the day.

No, intent really doesn't rule the day. That's just... Fucking stupid. I'd make a Hitler analogy or something, but you probably don't need it to realize why that statement is nonsensical.

author=Corfaisus
The problem I'm finding with this statement is that you're judging how proper it is to call this a thing based on something that had very little of such a "thing" in the first place.

That's pretty arrogant. If you don't like the game, that's cool, but saying it's "very little of such a thing" is just cynical. Take all the assets in a bucket and maybe you can judge how much of a "thing" it is by how much is there. However, judging how much of a "thing" something is by means of how the player can interact with the assets is when it becomes subjective. Maybe you don't like wandering around aimlessly, looking at stuff, and that's perfectly understandable. But phrasing it as if everyone who does find it interesting is somehow wrong for doing so, isn't.