SAILERIUS'S PROFILE

author=Super_stunner

author=Sailerius

author=Super_stunner
Thank you for your review, however you have seen just 1% of the game. And some things you wrote are hugely exaggerated or not even true. basically you don't have a slightest picture of the game yet.

But you do have some points that I can work on.

Having played the game myself, I have to say that there's really no exaggeration in the points she raises. I honestly wanted to review the game myself, but the gameplay is so buggy, slow and the story so nonsensical and uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to play any longer. The fact that battles randomly hang and force you to close the game alone makes it a chore to play, to say the least.

Well battles never hang with me, and nobody posted bugs about hat either. You can see the summon gauges with the 9 button. And the spells, yes sometimes it appears 2 times that you have learned something, this is because those are 2 different systems and I need to rewrite both of the systems to fix that which will take me months. So I decided to leave that bug in because its too much work for such a small thing.

The story starts really when you are 20 hours in the game, this is done to keep a mistery in the story. Remember the game is very long so the story needs to be build slow.

Why does the story need to build slowly? The game is long because the story builds slowly. A game should be able to grab the player in the first two hours. How can you demand players endure 20 hours before the game starts getting good? In that time, you could play several other games to completion which are good all the way through.

You really need to work on the pacing. Intentionally padding out the game to make it longer is wasting the player's time.

author=undefined

author=undefined
That's not an excuse. If the writing is bad, it's bad. Just because every other game in the genre has bad writing doesn't make the writing any better. I don't look at games in comparison to other games in their genre, I look at games as games that should stand up on their own merits.

"This game achieved exactly what it intended to, but I hate oldschool RPGs so the game sucks" (is what i'm hearing). Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who believe nostalgia to be a good thing, just because you don't doesn't mean you should try and turn people away from a game that many will feel IS nostalgic. It DOES excuse bad writing and graphics, because it is EXACTLY what retro gamers are looking for and expecting. Failing to acknowledge this makes me feel like I'm being manipulated, which means the review as a whole is very poorly executed.

You want your engage your audience, not isolate them for being old fogies like me.

I don't mind if you disagree with my opinion, but I would appreciate your not constructing a straw man and using it to discount my viewpoint by arguing against things I didn't say.

As for me criticising this review is because of what was written. He starts off talking about the RM2K3 upset over the filesize and the font. That's due to the engine, not the game designer, and a bit of research would have shown how to fix some of his problems due to the font.

Only an amateur designer hides behind their engine. When you choose to use an engine, you either have to overcome its limitations or accept that your game will suffer because of them. That said, the player shouldn't have to "do research" to get the game to run. There should be a readme included that walks the player through the steps of getting the game running properly. I could hardly be assed to do it and I had decided to review the game; how can the creator expect a player who downloaded it on a whim to go through these hoops?

His first line in gameplay was how this is standard fare, how you are a single character, walking aimlessly around dungeons, and fighting tough enemies. Sounds like half the rpg's I played on NES. So he doesn't like it. How does that equate a 1/2 star rating? Because he wasn't pampered along like next gen games? He stated he couldn't use items in battle or run from enemies. Then my assumption is he either doesn't know how to play an rpg, or had a corrupt file, because those weren't problems I faced playing the game.

Just because there are commercial games that do it doesn't mean it's good practice. The problem isn't the dungeon crawling or difficult enemies but the fact that there's nothing innovative about the way they're presented. There is nothing interesting or rewarding about the gameplay. I've played plenty of RPGs, so if I couldn't figure it out, it was a fault of the game for not having sufficient self-documentation. If the gameplay is boring, a chore, and without interesting challenge without any redeeming qualities, that sounds like a 0.5/5 to me.

As for writing, I'll give it to him it could have been better, but not deserving of a 1 star rating considering (again) half the games I played back in the days of NES had pretty bad dialogue, if any at all. I don't quite understand the 1.5 rating for graphics and then acknowledge they simulate Gameboy games and say "In that regard, I guess the graphics accomplish what they're shooting for". So if they accomplished their goal, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume a 1.5 rating for graphics and level design was a smidge too low?

Just because he modeled the game's writing after games with bad writing doesn't excuse him for having bad writing. The same point stands for the graphics. I'm not going to give this game a good score for having "not bad" graphics, because that's an insult to other games with better graphics. No effort was put into the graphics or making them appealing.

He states it was not appalling bad, but yet gives it an appalling low score of 1.5. If it's not bad, not great, but maybe forgettable, sounds sort of average to me.

The audio is merely "acceptable." Average to me is "pretty good." This game's audio was not pretty good.

And while I'm on the subject, his overall rating is 1/2 star. Now, I don't agree with his rating for his categories, and I'm not an expert when it comes to math, but he has 4 categories rated as such: 0.5, 1, 1.5, & 1.5. Last I checked, that's an average score of 1.125 out of 5 stars, not the 1/2 star he gave it. If he's going to review a game as an assignment, perhaps he should do without being biased and at least get the score correct.

My final score isn't an average; it's my overall impression of the game. I'm not going to write up a grading rubric for how I come to the average because there's no formula for it. I don't average together all the categories because the categories are arbitrary constructs and don't apply equally to every game. In some games, such as this, gameplay should be weighted more than story, making an average of the categories a poor way of determining a final score.

author=undefined
I do not really think "rips" should factor into a game's graphical rating. The graphics are pretty bland and mish-meshed, so maybe that is what you were trying to say

He's free to review however he likes. Some reviewers detract from the score for having RTP graphics, so how is this any different?