SAUCE'S PROFILE

author=Solitayre
I'm not entirely sure the text of this review matches the score, but I'm willing to take your word that you enjoyed the game.

Could you explain to me what part of the text doesn't match the score?

I'm basically describing my experience playing the game, which I thought was fun.

Almost everything that was wrong with the game had relatively low impact on my gaming experience, for some of the reasons that I stated.

As a reviewer, I couldn't overlook the issues. But since those issues didn't terribly hurt my experience as a gamer, I didn't take off too many stars for them.

Michael Bay is. Just a really bad one.

Anyway, Max is a pretty big tool. I've said this before and in here. My point is... don't pretend you're not. This is directed at the people piling on. I didn't say a word about the reviewer. Or about how bad Max's reaction was. You're egging him on intentionally.

Your reaction to criticism entices other members to press your buttons. They’ve probably noticed you reply to every single comment and that you takes things very personally which makes you an ideal target. Just letting you know from an external point of view.

This pretty much sums it up. I'm on the flip side saying... so you acknowledge that people target him. For the reaction, of course. And somehow you think that's okay...

The point of reviews is to present pros and cons of the game. If he doesn't care, he shouldn't read reviews or at least refrain from commenting on them. Furthermore, if he didn't want feedback, he wouldn't have released a demo and went straight for the full game. I never said I don't acknowledge the existence of the percentage of RM users that only want to fool around in the program and don't expect to spend hours on end making a good game, you're pulling this out of your ass. I actually like such people and have nothing against them, but the problem is Max is not one of them. On many occasions did he say he wants to make a popular game, and yet does all he can to NOT make a popular game. Then jumps at reviewers.

author=Sauce
Max, obviously, does not fit into this category.

Reading comprehension. Try it.

author=DE
So, it's back to "I do it my way even if it sucks and everyone says a simple alternative would be better, just because?" Cool.

This ignores my demographic. You said. Hence, I'm not "pulling this out of my ass."

Let me use a real life example. There's no bigger tool in sports than Lebron James. That kid feels so entitled to a championship and praise and all the comparisons to previous greats while choking away his limited finals opportunities. "Why people criticizing me? MJ took 7 years to win a championship!" As if he has the right to compare himself to MJ.

I fucking hate Lebron James. I say to myself, man if I ever met him, I'd piss on him multiple times "Not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6..."

THAT being said. If I ever met him and said this to his face "Haha Lebron, you douche, you deserve to lose you damn choke artist!" I'd be a bigger tool than Lebron James. And I don't mean fun heckling from the stands. I mean like, he's signing an autography and I just blurt that out.

Anyway, moral of the story. Yes yes Max is an idiot, egotistical, blah blah. Nothing new to me or anyone here, apparently. But don't pretend like y'all aren't tools for coming at him.

author=DE
This attitude seems to be prevalent in RM circles, it isn't, and shouldn't be this way. Indie game communities actually pursue feedback like this and when someone complains about something that serves no positive purpose in the game (like the fake loading screen or the rod/axe/pick hot keys), they change it. Same with pixel art communities, they want others to point out weak parts of their work! Yet some RM users think they're all-knowing and don't allow others to point out the obvious flaws in their work and advise them to change it for the better, because THEY DON'T MAKE MISTAKES! EVER! I can get it when someone gets angry when people whine about the fact that the guy had the gall to include random battles in their game (seriously...), but flipping out because of someone criticizing the obviously flawed aspects of the game?

News flash! Michelangelo was an artist. Milton was an artist. Mozart was an artist. Max McGee is not an artist, he's a game developer making simple games that entertain. Heck, I myself am an pixel artist, but the "artist" part is misleading. I don't create art, I create pixel images. I'm not an artist, I'm a graphic designer. Are you saying that a person who fools around in VX, makes maps out of RTP images, and designs a very simple, almost plot-less game creates art? Not every creator is an artist! Art's become cheap these days it would seem...

A person who practices any of the various creative arts, such as a sculptor, novelist, poet, or filmmaker.
Right off Merriam Webster. Creative arts, writing, film? You know like how musicians are called artists? In no way, shape or form, is RM not a creative work.

Secondly, Max is an odd mix of "I want you to like my game, but FUCK YOU if you don't, I'm quitting!"

Personally, I won't care to make much any changes to my game if criticized. If you don't like it, too bad, try another one. I'm not here to make the perfect game, or even a great game. I'm here to learn a few gamemaking tips. And a medium to release my game on the internet. If I don't like your tips, then I won't use them. Pretty simple stuff.

The fact that you don't account for my gamemaking demographic (which is probably 95% of all gamemakers but less than 5% of active rmn forum people) is why I said your reality's warped.

Max, obviously, does not fit into this category. But think about this for a second.

"Aw hell yeah, it's another bad review for Max. I gotta see what happens! HAHA, yes he did it! Shitstorm incoming! Let me egg him on!"

"Oh god, Max's game was awful. What's that? A review for the horrible game? Let me check it out. Huh?! How dare he get upset! Ingrate. Let me show my moral superiority!"

I'm sure plenty of people haven't played it.

Plus. I wasn't on rmn when it was released.

This review is valid, in that I suppose it fulfills the necessary requirements to be accepted. Denying this review because of vitriol or excessive negativity, or even because of the strong reaction to it, would be bogus. The review belongs, and really nothing should be said about the staff that accepted it.

That being said. I'd like to give a 'review' of this review. It's terrible. I've never played Wither. I have no idea what it's about and absolutely no reason to defend it.

I read your review and STILL have no idea what it's about or what I should expect if I try it. You mostly described a 'genre' of indie games that you did NOT think Wither falls into. Doesn't tell me anything about Wither. Only that it's not... whatever it was you just said in your third paragraph.

THEN, when you started to 'discuss' the reason for your rating, you said this:

"The car. You have a car. Did it run into a tree? I think it ran into a tree. When you approach it, it crumbles. This was simple, probably done before, but still brilliant. I'd rate it 3 Joss Whedons out of 2. "

What the hell does that mean? I'm assuming someone who's played the game might know what the means, but that doesn't help the people who might actually need the review - people who haven't played the game.

or how about this crap?

2) Resolution. It was dumb in and of itself (and it was really in there), but honestly? You got your twelve flowers that visually appeared as twelve flowers on your menu screen (why didn't the coins show up?), which gives the game a sense of progression. When you finally leave the game, you've definitely completed it. Kudos for that.

So does it have a good resolution or not? I don't even know what this shit means. All I learned is that I should expect good consistency and that it isn't whatever that other genre is. Just what I needed to know before I download.

Don't bother saying - play the game and you'd understand, that would completely defeat the purpose of such reviews.

So in the end, I give your review 3 stars. Why 3 stars?
1) Consistency. Your review was consistently bad. That's difficult to accomplish, considering how poorly it was written.

2) That Thanksgiving turkey. Normally I hate reviews like this, but that turkey was excellent, so I'm in a good mood.

3) Buffy. This has nothing to do with anything, and might not make sense to people who don't know me. But this is why I give you 3 Joss Whedons out of 2.

So 3 star review. Don't get me wrong, your review still blows. But I'm worried about you bitching back at me, so I'll fall back on my decent 3 star rating.