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 ListsRYAREISENDER'S PROFILE
RyaReisender
200
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Board Games and Video Games
I think I learned more about making good games from being a game master in Pen & Paper RPGs (and designing or altering rulesets) than I ever learned from board games.
Being taken seriously.
I think the biggest problem of going commercial with RPG Maker and being taken serious is that if you look at screenshots and can actually see it was done with RPG Maker it's a HUGE turn off for most people outside RPG Maker communities.
So if you want to be taken seriously you need to at least do your own art completely and probably also use some programming to code your own battle system rather than using one of the standard ones.
And the UI is also very important. It shouldn't look "clicked together" and the font needs to be nice and fitting to the game.
So if you want to be taken seriously you need to at least do your own art completely and probably also use some programming to code your own battle system rather than using one of the standard ones.
And the UI is also very important. It shouldn't look "clicked together" and the font needs to be nice and fitting to the game.
Thank you guys!
I generally don't really subscribe to games, but you can add me to the number of interested persons for statistically purposes. :p
The only wish I have is that you'll actually finish the game even if it takes longer than expected.
The only wish I have is that you'll actually finish the game even if it takes longer than expected.
Lunar Wish: Orbs of Fate Review
If you look at it objectively and want to scale your score from 1 (least effort put into of all games on RMN) to 5 (most effort put into) then you'd be right that 1.5 seems pretty low as it's easy to find some much poorer designed games with much less effort put into.
If you however do subjective reviewing aka rating the game by how much you enjoyed it, it doesn't really make much difference how much effort was put into the game. Any game you felt like quitting after a few minutes playing is just as bad. And that small puzzle game that was probably made in a single day might be really enjoyable.
For example I really hate BoF Dragon Quarter. I only played it 2 minutes, died, tried it again some months later, died again after 2 minutes, gave up on it forever. I haven't enjoyed a single minute of that game. Lunar Wish did a little bit better than that. So I'd probably rate it subjectively higher than Dragon Quarter. However, I'm pretty sure there was more effort put into Dragon Quarter (much larger staff). But why would I want to rate a game by that?
If you however do subjective reviewing aka rating the game by how much you enjoyed it, it doesn't really make much difference how much effort was put into the game. Any game you felt like quitting after a few minutes playing is just as bad. And that small puzzle game that was probably made in a single day might be really enjoyable.
For example I really hate BoF Dragon Quarter. I only played it 2 minutes, died, tried it again some months later, died again after 2 minutes, gave up on it forever. I haven't enjoyed a single minute of that game. Lunar Wish did a little bit better than that. So I'd probably rate it subjectively higher than Dragon Quarter. However, I'm pretty sure there was more effort put into Dragon Quarter (much larger staff). But why would I want to rate a game by that?
Lunar Wish: Orbs of Fate Review
I would really like to see such a discussion on forums rather than part of a single review. It's quite enjoyable to discuss subjective reviewing vs. objective reviewing as well as what reviews should be there for, as these things are often not very clear and everybody thinks differently.
Coincidentally, I was recently banned from my previous community for defending objective reviewing (and consequently criticizing the staff for censoring it) - however in this case I'm still on Sated's side because I still think that both types have their validity to exist.
The other way around it can happen exactly the same way. Someone writing an "as objective as possible" review, listing all the facts, it gets a score of 1.5 and then someone coming in and saying "Are you stupid? I played this game and it was awesome! Reviews should reflect how the game feels like and not be rated on objective facts."
This will always be like discussing god vs. evolution. There is never a solution, but you can discuss forever and it's fun (at least I consider myself thoroughly entertained by the replies to this review).
1. It suggests to the developer to make his games more unique.
2. It give the developer the hint that the sadistic humor (as the developer himself called it in a review comment of another review) is a huge turn-off for at least some people (actually quite some going by the replies here and the fact that I myself felt exactly the same way as well).
It also provides information to the players:
1. Don't play this if don't like the generic JRPG style.
2. Don't play this if you don't like the humor shown in the review.
So yeah, goal of a review achieved.
Edit: I want to add that especially on RMN where every game gets many reviews, I find it much more intersting if a review highlights one aspect of the game particularly good or bad. I will often find myself reading the worst an the best review to decide if the game is something for me, so I'm glad if they don't just list all the facts but tell me why they loved or hated it.
It's a bit different when there is only one single review for the game, then I'd rather have it more objectively listing the facts so I can go through the list of facts and decide based on them if I'll like it or not.
Coincidentally, I was recently banned from my previous community for defending objective reviewing (and consequently criticizing the staff for censoring it) - however in this case I'm still on Sated's side because I still think that both types have their validity to exist.
The other way around it can happen exactly the same way. Someone writing an "as objective as possible" review, listing all the facts, it gets a score of 1.5 and then someone coming in and saying "Are you stupid? I played this game and it was awesome! Reviews should reflect how the game feels like and not be rated on objective facts."
This will always be like discussing god vs. evolution. There is never a solution, but you can discuss forever and it's fun (at least I consider myself thoroughly entertained by the replies to this review).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't at least one of the purposes of reviews, to help our fellow developers to improve their games?I'm sure that this review does that:
1. It suggests to the developer to make his games more unique.
2. It give the developer the hint that the sadistic humor (as the developer himself called it in a review comment of another review) is a huge turn-off for at least some people (actually quite some going by the replies here and the fact that I myself felt exactly the same way as well).
It also provides information to the players:
1. Don't play this if don't like the generic JRPG style.
2. Don't play this if you don't like the humor shown in the review.
So yeah, goal of a review achieved.
Edit: I want to add that especially on RMN where every game gets many reviews, I find it much more intersting if a review highlights one aspect of the game particularly good or bad. I will often find myself reading the worst an the best review to decide if the game is something for me, so I'm glad if they don't just list all the facts but tell me why they loved or hated it.
It's a bit different when there is only one single review for the game, then I'd rather have it more objectively listing the facts so I can go through the list of facts and decide based on them if I'll like it or not.
Breath of Fire 6 announced, but...what the fuck?
Lunar Wish: Orbs of Fate Review
If you already go in with the attitude that RPG Maker games can't be good or unique, then you are bound to make bad games.
But the past years have already shown that you can make amazing and unique games even with RPG Maker. Even to the extend that people won't even notice it was done with RPG Maker.
Feels like you're implying that RPG Maker reviews should always be good because there are no expectations in the first place. That's weird.
But the past years have already shown that you can make amazing and unique games even with RPG Maker. Even to the extend that people won't even notice it was done with RPG Maker.
Feels like you're implying that RPG Maker reviews should always be good because there are no expectations in the first place. That's weird.
[Poll] “Leave No Soldier Behind” *salutes* (Need Opinions On A New “Running Away” Mechanic)
Running away in RPGs is VERY flawed in the first place. Okay, some games have "run away always successful (but the monster stays on the map), those are fine, but usually make things too easy. Everything that goes about "X% chance to run away" are just dumb. It doesn't require any skill and failing multiple times in row is just frustrating (especially if you just want to run away because the battles got boring and you quickly want to get to the next save point).
If you want to improve running away, then think of something that actually requires playing skill. Like some trivia about the enemy you are currently facing.
If you want to improve running away, then think of something that actually requires playing skill. Like some trivia about the enemy you are currently facing.
Lunar Wish: Orbs of Fate Review
As far as I know the game neither uses original graphics nor music, so imo, there no need to rate them.
I personally generally just give "non original" graphics 3/5 if suitably used. 4/5 if used to perfection and less than 3 if it just doesn't look good. But I can understand why you would want to avoid rating them altogether.
Also yeah at least in the normal subjective reviewing style, reviews are all about opinion and that doesn't really need to depend on all the parts of a game. Isn't it usually one single factor that annoys you so much that causes you to stop playing a game?
I personally generally just give "non original" graphics 3/5 if suitably used. 4/5 if used to perfection and less than 3 if it just doesn't look good. But I can understand why you would want to avoid rating them altogether.
Also yeah at least in the normal subjective reviewing style, reviews are all about opinion and that doesn't really need to depend on all the parts of a game. Isn't it usually one single factor that annoys you so much that causes you to stop playing a game?
Games - Tester
Games - Other
