Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Media
Images
Blogs
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
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsSHINAN'S PROFILE
Shinan
4314
Close
I'm Shinan.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Les Visiteurs Dans L'Espace Review
Heartache 101 ~Sour into Sweet~ Review
That is true. I could easily see this game become something really exciting with user generated content. But just like I wouldn't judge Bethesda games based on how good the modding community is I feel that this review really only focuses on the vanilla game. (since... Well the fact is that most people stumbling upon this game will most likely only play the vanilla. Or at the very least play vanilla through first and then if they're still interested throw in some user generated content)
On the other hand I am interested in how user generated content will be part of the finished game there in the end. If presented and advertised correctly this could become pretty awesome in the end come to think of it.
On the other hand I am interested in how user generated content will be part of the finished game there in the end. If presented and advertised correctly this could become pretty awesome in the end come to think of it.
Heartache 101 ~Sour into Sweet~ Review
It seems we disagree on some basic fundamentals.
However on playing this game it seemed "complete enough" to me (It was finishable, it didn't "break" at any point... That I remember) so having a review (even if of a public beta) seemed a perfectly reasonable thing to do. (Like I also would find it perfectly reasonable to review a game like Dwarf Fortress or Minecraft) And I did enjoy the game (as can be read from the review) and I am looking forward to whatever the 1.0 version of the game can bring.
On the rating though I'm always stingy with my scores and even if the game fixed every single issue I had with it it'd probably not go above three stars anyway. (2.5 in this case means "average, if you like the genre you should probably check it out but there's nothing new under the sun in this one". Or as I put it in the review: "This is basically popcorn entertainment where you don't have to think too much.")
However on playing this game it seemed "complete enough" to me (It was finishable, it didn't "break" at any point... That I remember) so having a review (even if of a public beta) seemed a perfectly reasonable thing to do. (Like I also would find it perfectly reasonable to review a game like Dwarf Fortress or Minecraft) And I did enjoy the game (as can be read from the review) and I am looking forward to whatever the 1.0 version of the game can bring.
On the rating though I'm always stingy with my scores and even if the game fixed every single issue I had with it it'd probably not go above three stars anyway. (2.5 in this case means "average, if you like the genre you should probably check it out but there's nothing new under the sun in this one". Or as I put it in the review: "This is basically popcorn entertainment where you don't have to think too much.")
Heartache 101 ~Sour into Sweet~ Review
This has been an issue in the past as well. What is a proper review if such a review is of an incomplete game? Should they be categorized differently? (so that once a game is set as "complete" any reviews before it should be put in a "preview" category) What about post-complete patches? A game can be improved vastly with some patches and additional content. But generally I think you can read a lot by looking at the date the review was posted. (and I helpfully enough put the version number I was reviewing in the top. I did a similar thing in my One Night review.
You could essentially see my review as an extended preview. (with suggestions as to how the finished game could be improved. And makerscore-whoring is just a bonus.)
Also in-game help is helpful. But that shouldn't rule out a separate reference document. (Though in-game help that is constantly available, like in a menu, can generally work just as well.)
You could essentially see my review as an extended preview. (with suggestions as to how the finished game could be improved. And makerscore-whoring is just a bonus.)
Also in-game help is helpful. But that shouldn't rule out a separate reference document. (Though in-game help that is constantly available, like in a menu, can generally work just as well.)
Forever's End Review
author=Feldschlacht IV
This. Are you kidding me? I mean if this review has any amount of relativity with the LEAGUES OF OTHER HORRIBLY SHITTY RM games, or freeware games in general, I mean, 0 out of 5 in Gameplay and Writing is definitely unfair to me. I mean did you even try to scale this game against his peers?
Well scores can also come a bit from expectations. Say a game has been lauded as the best game ever and then when you play it severely disappoints you. Turns out it's a piece of shit. Yeah, sure, objectively speaking it's better than stuff that are actually pieces of shit. But the fact that a game was such a huge disappointment can lower a score far beyond anything even remotely objective.
w Review
"Some people just want to see the world burn." Batman.
I'm pretty certain it was Alfred who said that. Now I can't take anything in this review seriously anymore when you have such a fundamental fact wrong.
The Astonishing Captain Skull Review
Legendary Legend Review
I agree with this review.
The writing is pretty predictable. It's the kind of writing you find in every single webcomic/piece of fanfiction in the whole world. (without the furry gay sex... Unless there's furry gay sex later in the game)
The writing is pretty predictable. It's the kind of writing you find in every single webcomic/piece of fanfiction in the whole world. (without the furry gay sex... Unless there's furry gay sex later in the game)
Games - Tester
Games - Other
