RYAREISENDER'S PROFILE

It's kinda off-topic and I haven't really played Persona 4, so I'm not sure if it's not much better, but I played Persona 3 thoroughly and it had horrible design.
The dating sim part was actually fairly decent except that you had to repeat the same actions every single day (for example drink a coffee to increase charisma), but the RPG part was probably the most boring randomly generated dungeon game I've ever played. 2/5

Worthy games for PSX for me:
Star Ocean The Second Story
Valkyrie Profile
Wild Arms 1&2
Alundra 1
Lunar (both)
Suikoden 1&2
Tales of Destiny
Tales of Eternia
Xenogears
SaGaFrontier 1&2 (many don't like the series)
Beyond the Beyond (I'm the only person who likes this game, though!)

author=kentona
What is a PS Vita TV? Also, keep in mind have zero nostalgia factor for anything PS, because I didn't own one until I got a PS3, and even then I only really played Rock Band and blurays.

You could just google it?
PS Vita TV is a console with which you can play PSP, PSX and PS Vita games on TV with a dual shock controller. So pretty much like Ouya except for PSP, PSX and PS Vita games rather than Android.
It also has much more features, wait, I'll google it for you since I'm nice today:
http://www.polygon.com/2013/9/9/4710078/ps-vita-tv-lets-you-play-vita-games-on-your-television-hits-japan-on


Anyway, I really can't recommend the Ouya at this point anymore.
1. The staff is really incompetent. Not only that many of the backers didn't even get their console by now, they also allowed a lot of scams and scandals without even giving any statement on them, just ignoring they are there. Also their support hardly ever replies and there are high waiting times. There are many technical problems with the console and the people don't get any help.
2. There are hardly any good games for the console and competent developers actually started to remove their games from the console due to the scandals above.
You can for example read about it here:
http://www.sophiehoulden.com/rose-and-time-no-longer-on-ouya/ (also links to various scandals)

If failed randomness means nothing happens then randomness is pretty bad. Status effect and instant death spells are a good example. Also running away when it simple is a % success chance is the same thing. That's why I never use status or instant death spells in games and never run away either (unless it's 100% successful).

Randomness is not always bad, though. Games that do randomness right are SaGa-games in my opinion. What you learn is pretty random, but yet there are so complex mechanisms behind it, that even if players will never understand them, there is always an overall balance given.

Randomness shouldn't be ignored just because it frustrates players, because often it can also make the games more interesting and in particular give them good replay value. It just needs to be more complex than just "50% success / 50% fail". In fact good randomness needs to be so complex that no player can understand it, to prevent him bothering with trying to figure it out.


Edit: On a sidenote. If I make a game for myself, I try to make it as random as possible. From my own personal viewpoint, this makes the game a lot more interesting, because my goal would be to make it so random that the game can even surprise me as developer.

As far as I understood the current rules are only that you have to explain your opinion.

The question left is if the opinion has been explained well enough in this review.

To be fair the reviewer didn't just say "I don't like the game, because it is too hard. 2/5", he explained at least to some extend why it is too hard. He explained that if you use the wrong tactic on a boss you are dead on the second turn and he explained that even if you grind you won't be able to beat the boss like that. Both things are actually correct.

The worse part of the review is where he tries to sell his opinion as cold truth indirectly implying the other reviews on the game are wrong. He goes so far and claims the game is unplayable which doesn't make much sense for a game that's been finished by many players.

I would have preferred him saying something along the lines of "I'm not a person who likes to try different tactics until I succeed, I want to be able to win every boss fight on the first try. Star Stealing Prince couldn't offer me such an experience, so I never got a chance to really enjoy it."
That would have been much better.

After all, the claims that this review is important so people see what they could not like about the game only works if from reading the review you know what kind of player will actually have problems with the difficulty. The cold truth doesn't really work here very well, as it's probably only the truth for 10% of the players.

There are plenty of games that frustrated me a lot because they were too hard and I really wouldn't see how I could rate them any better than 2/5 when I could only play 10 minutes of them and then got stuck because of the high difficulty with no chance to get further into the game and basically having wasted my 40€ (Dragon Quarter EU version I'm looking at you).

That being said, Star Stealing Prince isn't hard. It's actually pretty easy compared to other games released here. There is not much grind required and the only hard dungeon allows you to dodge any encounter (or escape from them). I really don't understand this review, because if the reviewer has problems with this game, then he might as well give 90% of the other games a 2/5 rating as well due to them being too hard for him.