S. F. LAVALLE'S PROFILE

Search

Filter

Phantom Legacy (Part 1) Review

I still support removal of star scores. Site development discussion has been quite low lately; everyone involved has been bogged down with some pretty hefty life issues. I personally haven't even browsed RMN in some days.

I'd also like to note that this review is a pretty good example of our current review system when it's done right. The detail is good, and the scores are well-represented.

Forever's End Review

author=Perihelion
Yeah, I don't see a need to lock it.

Just so everyone knows, a discussion about the rating system has been started on the forum:
http://rpgmaker.net/forums/topics/8615/?p=1#posts


Ah, I missed that, thanks. Everyone probably moved discussion there, so I'll leave this open.

Forever's End Review

author=mellytan
I personally believe that quantitative scores are the bane of game reviews in general and should be abolished here and everywhere.

But I guess RMN is a “website”, a database of “gams”, and things need to be “sortable” by "quality" somehow, so I will not get into any discussion of Sailerius' score because it is a representation of his personal evaluation of the quality of the game.

That said, the most important takeaway from this review should be Sailerius' extremely valid and well-articulated suggestions. He seems to have played a good deal of the game, is not vague in his criticism, and offers suggestions to make the game better instead of just ripping on it senselessly.

I would myself suggest to NicoB that he at least take these points into serious consideration as he continues to refine his game. Sailerius was correct in pointing out that "WOWOW this is the best game i evvver played, 5/5" comments from easily-pleased people pandering to your ego are not going to help you develop. It is critical but accurate reviews like these that are the most helpful--if only you listen to them.


Agreed on all counts. This definitely brings to light the flaws of the star rating system. As I mentioned before, we'd be open to alternatives; at the moment we're going off of precedent and what's coded into the site. The score is the primary complaint I've seen, and the review content does provide some useful feedback.

Again, I encourage everyone to send PMs to the staff or start a new topic in the Feedback forum about the star rating system and your ideas for making it better, or gone. Any other thoughts before I lock this up?

Forever's End Review

author=Lowell_Richards
I don't think it's fair to curve the game because of the endless pool of bad RM games but seeing the reactions in this thread makes me wonder what the review system is for if there is no set standards on quality based on the number of stars. From what it looks like now the standards of a review are set by each reviewer rather than a consistent scale.


This is exactly right. More below.

author=Feldschlacht IV
Censoring or locking an avenue of discussion because the eternally brewing racquetball that is debate is making someone shift around a little in their seat isn't the way to go either.


Also a good point, which is why we haven't locked this.

I also have reservations about the score given in this review. The discussion brings up a lot of good points about review scores, manipulation if any, and reviewing standards. While I'd personally like this not to be the case, these easily-influences star scores for games affect the game's visibility. To us, not by a great deal, but we can't ignore what implications a star score gives to site visitors who aren't scene-savvy.

There's been a lot of discussion and topics about it before, but the matter is definitely not dead. If someone wants to make a new topic in Site Feedback about providing more effective ways of representing games on the site OR about how to make star scores work for users in a better and more accurate way, feel free to do so. Otherwise, feel free to send your feedback to myself or another mod.

Comments or criticism about this review may continue here, however.

Forever's End Review

author=Feldschlacht IV
Considering this is the review that gave the game a 5/5 and passed, I'd imagined it would be detailed and not be a waste of time. The 5/5 of that review shouldn't be some half-assed mess that barely grazes on the games content, only mentioning little tidbits here and there that the author liked.


Okay so what does that have to do with anything. There are still like 10 or so other reviews.


While I also feel the review was harsh, Lowell does have a valid point, imo. This is just one review (the lowest) and I don't think we should need to ask someone to check out any other than the highest review. If there is an agenda accompanying this review score, you could say the same about the highest score.

Yes, there are many other reviews to read that are positive, but his pointing out that one is the same as several people pointing out this one as being unfair. In the end, the score and the review list will speak for itself.

Forever's End Review

I don't like the idea of going after people for their reviews. I admit, I laughed when I read it and the scores. My opinions don't matter though. The review is well-written, and it's apparently he gave the game a good playthrough, so he has a valid voice.

I'm actually a little surprised by Ciel's and Magi's responses. Not that I could ever predict the #shmup consensus, I just would have thought that your positions would more closely match Craze's, in that celebrating mediocrity should be downplayed in favor of harsher criticism in an attempt to raise the collective bar (as futile as that sounds). Not that I'm calling Forever's End celebrated mediocrity, I haven't played it. The verdict on the story/writing seems to be in. Is it how the game looks aesthetically that gives it a pass? Or do you think Sailerius just took it too far? I'm interested in the input, though maybe this isn't the best place for it.

That does remind me of something. Sailerius, your review was accepted and well-written, and I personally don't have any beef with your opinions. I do find it odd, however, that you didn't mention the mapping under graphics. The game seems to look pretty nice aside from your criticisms. Maybe mapping doesn't apply to graphics any more than being standard "rm2k3 fare," and I'm not really bothered with the score as I said, I'd just be interested to know if you factored that since it was absent.

Fable of Heroes I: Legendary Edition Review

I haven't played this game, but I have to agree with many of calunio's sentiments.

Not that the game is bad, noobish, unfun, or in any way unplayable. I wouldn't make those judgments without playing the game, but I'm willing to accept from other critical reception (not challenged by this review) that the game is quite solid.

What's clear is that this game was crafted to fulfill a particular role, for a particular type of gamer. Judging from the dialogue and descriptions of the game's plot, I will side with Silviera and call it minimalist writing. This doesn't sound like the raw and clumsy dump of unprocessed ideas from a young person with a shiny old toy. Dustsoft knew what he wanted, and he made it.

While the game can be marketed as nostalgia (old school style if you will), and those who praise it may align themselves with this idea, I believe it's the development achievement that serves as the core factor of praise. This game follows to a T the mantra so many developers in the community have been spouting: keep your ideas simple, the game flowing, and GET SOMETHING DONE. There's no way the community could turn around and say this is a bad game when this game epitomizes the work ethic so prevalent in our forums.

So, to that, I say congratulations, and a job well done. You've created the mythical "first RPG Maker game" and have served as an inspiration to others.

Everything calunio said above is what comes next. It brings up the overall appeal of the game as it might be viewed outside of a percentage of people within an already low percentage of old-school fans. I don't feel that the featuring of the game on the main page is a mistake, but rather a banner of victory for the amateur RPG maker that created something in their spare time. I guess the point here is not to be swayed by the reception of the game within the confines of the community. Now, if you feel so inclined, you can challenge yourself with making a game that's approachable by more than a very small minority, one that utilizes modern game design philosophies. You've earned the community's respect, so now you have a pillar of support (ie, people will subscribe to your game, respond to your blogs, and view your questions and requests for help more seriously).

The Room Review

...who lets a 10 year-old watch Saw?

Also, thanks for being receptive to the criticism. It sounds like you are realistic in terms of what to expect.

Eternal Paradise Review

What's wrong with a review that uses an independent score at the end despite having scored sub-sections?

IGN is a pretty massive example of the above scoring system. Their final scores are not averages. If a game had perfect graphics, perfect music, perfect story and characters, but completely broken gameplay, would it deserve a 75% or 3+ stars? I want to avoid that argument about what's most important in a game, but at least you can see what I'm getting at; the categories don't necessarily carry equal weight, and it's probably different from person to person.

I think Soli's right. Scrutinize reviewers for giving scores they thought a game deserved, and we stop getting reviews that are useful, or any at all. The best retaliation you can give to a review you disagree with is to write one of your own.

To Arms! Review

comment=37210
Heh, looks like this ill-conceived review and its wave of backlash has really called the user base of RMN "To Arms"

I giggled :)
Pages: first 123 next last