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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsAMERK'S PROFILE
amerk
2539
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Lost Story Review
I'm not denying hiromu's points, just questioning the score.
I've always been under the impression that 1-star ratings were to be reserved for games that were practically beyond redemption: games that are full of bugs, an unplayable mess, not a single redeeming quality; the developer did nothing right.
And 2-star ratings were generally for games that still fell far below average, still a big mess, but there were some redeeming values, as well as potential for the developer to learn.
I'll take a dive at it this weekend and make my own judgment.
I've always been under the impression that 1-star ratings were to be reserved for games that were practically beyond redemption: games that are full of bugs, an unplayable mess, not a single redeeming quality; the developer did nothing right.
And 2-star ratings were generally for games that still fell far below average, still a big mess, but there were some redeeming values, as well as potential for the developer to learn.
I'll take a dive at it this weekend and make my own judgment.
Lost Story Review
I'd have to play this myself, but just looking at some of the features and graphics, I'm surprised you gave it a 1-star rating.
If you can't find one redeeming quality in a game like this to give it a boost in rating, you may as well stop playing RPG Maker games now, because having seen thousands of RM games (and having played hundreds myself), I can tell you that the majority of those games don't come close (aesthetically, anyways) to this. Most RM games use stock and/or blocky resources, dull combat, and standard features.
Like I said, though, I'll have to play this myself to judge the quality, and I agree with poor game mechanics (100 slimes seems overkill). It's only about an hour, if I recall hearing, so I may tackle this in the next few days.
If you can't find one redeeming quality in a game like this to give it a boost in rating, you may as well stop playing RPG Maker games now, because having seen thousands of RM games (and having played hundreds myself), I can tell you that the majority of those games don't come close (aesthetically, anyways) to this. Most RM games use stock and/or blocky resources, dull combat, and standard features.
Like I said, though, I'll have to play this myself to judge the quality, and I agree with poor game mechanics (100 slimes seems overkill). It's only about an hour, if I recall hearing, so I may tackle this in the next few days.
Submission Rules: Update - Addendum added because ffs people!
author=Liberty
Honestly, because sample maps didn't exist until Ace came out, we never realised that it would be an issue.
Sample maps were included with VX as well, but you had to dig around for them, unlike Ace. They were included more as a sample project (in extras, I think) that you could load up and then copy/paste them into your project.
author=Chivi-chivik
It isn't as easy as opening the engine and using the drawing tools to make a map by yourself, even if you use the default RTP tileset? If I'm right, then being new to the engine is no excuse.
If it isn't that, then I don't know what is people talking about.
I don't think it's the ease of use so much as confidence. Obviously, the poster isn't going to want to load up their project here with horrible maps and be the seat of ridicule. However, that's also the reason to wait, like Liberty stated. It takes a lot of practice to learn how to use the maker efficiently. It's also a good idea to play a few of the different games here to see what works and doesn't work.
How often should a work in progress update the demo?
Also to add what others above have said, you don't need to have a demo for every added-in feature. Kylaila hit the nail on the head I think. While a developer may think it's necessary to release a multitude of demos, how many people are willing to play the same game (demo or not) multiple times in a row? I can't even be bothered playing the same game twice in a year.
There are all sorts of avenues for getting feedback, and demos shouldn't be the only one. If you have drastic changes and features, an updated demo may be warranted. Otherwise, write up blogs to encourage discussion - sometimes a blog about a feature you are planning to add may generate more hype (even if it's not yet included in the demo) because the player is in anticipation of what this will look like in the final product.
SnowOwl also made a good point. If you're releasing demos 1/2 way into the project for feedback, chances are you are either lacking the confidence needed, you waited too long, or the project is a mess.
That's not always the case, but I would speculate that in most cases you want enough feedback while the project is still in its early stage in order to ensure you are planning the game the way it should be planned right from the get-go, rather than risking having to delay the project considerably or scrapping it entirely near the end.
Finally, feedback is certainly more important than hype, but there comes a point where people get tired of giving feedback, especially if they're concerned whether or not the game will ever be finished. Considering that some developers thrive on feedback as a source of attention to the point they never finish anything, I understand why game players go weary and drift away from projects that appear to be in an infinite development cycle.
There are all sorts of avenues for getting feedback, and demos shouldn't be the only one. If you have drastic changes and features, an updated demo may be warranted. Otherwise, write up blogs to encourage discussion - sometimes a blog about a feature you are planning to add may generate more hype (even if it's not yet included in the demo) because the player is in anticipation of what this will look like in the final product.
SnowOwl also made a good point. If you're releasing demos 1/2 way into the project for feedback, chances are you are either lacking the confidence needed, you waited too long, or the project is a mess.
That's not always the case, but I would speculate that in most cases you want enough feedback while the project is still in its early stage in order to ensure you are planning the game the way it should be planned right from the get-go, rather than risking having to delay the project considerably or scrapping it entirely near the end.
Finally, feedback is certainly more important than hype, but there comes a point where people get tired of giving feedback, especially if they're concerned whether or not the game will ever be finished. Considering that some developers thrive on feedback as a source of attention to the point they never finish anything, I understand why game players go weary and drift away from projects that appear to be in an infinite development cycle.
How often should a work in progress update the demo?
I play demos as a means of seeing whether or not I'll be interested in the final product, but also to provide feedback. However, with all the games currently available, I will seldom ever play a demo more than once, no matter how many versions of that demo come out.
If I'm impressed by the first demo, I'm going to wait for the final thing, because the last thing I want is to get sucked into a game that currently has no ending, and considering how many games never get finished, I prefer to wait for the completed project than investing more time than necessary.
If I'm not impressed by the first demo, I'm pretty reluctant about giving more time for future demos. I may consider the final game once it's completed to see if things were improved, but I most likely won't play any future demos for that game.
Basically my point is - when you release a demo, ensure it's as polished as you can get, because first impressions do count.
If I'm impressed by the first demo, I'm going to wait for the final thing, because the last thing I want is to get sucked into a game that currently has no ending, and considering how many games never get finished, I prefer to wait for the completed project than investing more time than necessary.
If I'm not impressed by the first demo, I'm pretty reluctant about giving more time for future demos. I may consider the final game once it's completed to see if things were improved, but I most likely won't play any future demos for that game.
Basically my point is - when you release a demo, ensure it's as polished as you can get, because first impressions do count.
RPG Maker on a Mac
Then until EB decides to port to Mac and Linux (if ever) you're left with things like Wine or Boot Camp, but those options generally present their share of woes. I'm not sure if EB will ever port to Mac or Linux. There's talk about exports for the games created, but not sure if the tools for actually creating those games will ever be supported on other platforms.
Spirit in the Mirror Review
The engine itself isn't the problem. I like the 2K look, and I'm happy whenever people create nice mechanics out of the system without having to resort to a modern program for scripts.
However, I didn't feel the mechanics offered much outside of looks, and this coupled with an unresolved story (as you've mentioned in the post above) made me question the purpose of some of the features.
You can recruit spirits, but why? They offer nothing to the story, and they only talk to you whenever you are in the sanctuary or when you trigger their memory from something past that has nothing to do with the story being told. The recruiting could have been more enjoyable if:
1. There was a reason to swap characters in and out of the party or an incentive to do so. But with my current party, I could pretty much tackle any obstacle that I didn't feel there was much reason to change.
2. You could help the spirits. I had the feeling (at first) they were there because of unfinished business that needed to be resolved before moving on. Getting the back story through memories was fine, but without any connection to the main story or the main characters, and not being able to help them to find peace or right the wrongs of their past, it just seemed pointless. I suppose in the end they were there mainly there to help Merdaht make better choices, and they seemed to acknowledge how they wasted their life, but it seemed Merdaht was already doomed considering everything that was against him that any potential for change was already out of the question. If the spirits' experiences (through memories) could have been used to improve the main characters (either through the story or through stat growth), I think it would have offered better incentive and purpose.
The skill equipping gems was a nice touch, but it's all too easy to equip the wrong set and then get halfway through a dungeon where you have to run from combat or drag your feet with inferior attacks, and no means to switch them out until you get to a save point.
By all means, I encourage you to use the older systems. It shows how creative a developer you have to be to rely on your own skills in events versus another person's scripted code. At the very least, if you do decide to use a newer maker, at least you have the experience to still make some great events and game mechanics. But features have to have a purpose and the player has to have a reason for using them, but also be able to use them efficiently.
However, I didn't feel the mechanics offered much outside of looks, and this coupled with an unresolved story (as you've mentioned in the post above) made me question the purpose of some of the features.
You can recruit spirits, but why? They offer nothing to the story, and they only talk to you whenever you are in the sanctuary or when you trigger their memory from something past that has nothing to do with the story being told. The recruiting could have been more enjoyable if:
1. There was a reason to swap characters in and out of the party or an incentive to do so. But with my current party, I could pretty much tackle any obstacle that I didn't feel there was much reason to change.
2. You could help the spirits. I had the feeling (at first) they were there because of unfinished business that needed to be resolved before moving on. Getting the back story through memories was fine, but without any connection to the main story or the main characters, and not being able to help them to find peace or right the wrongs of their past, it just seemed pointless. I suppose in the end they were there mainly there to help Merdaht make better choices, and they seemed to acknowledge how they wasted their life, but it seemed Merdaht was already doomed considering everything that was against him that any potential for change was already out of the question. If the spirits' experiences (through memories) could have been used to improve the main characters (either through the story or through stat growth), I think it would have offered better incentive and purpose.
The skill equipping gems was a nice touch, but it's all too easy to equip the wrong set and then get halfway through a dungeon where you have to run from combat or drag your feet with inferior attacks, and no means to switch them out until you get to a save point.
By all means, I encourage you to use the older systems. It shows how creative a developer you have to be to rely on your own skills in events versus another person's scripted code. At the very least, if you do decide to use a newer maker, at least you have the experience to still make some great events and game mechanics. But features have to have a purpose and the player has to have a reason for using them, but also be able to use them efficiently.
Spirit in the Mirror Review
No, just expecting characters who don't act so wooden, NPC's with a bit more style, a more mature heroine who doesn't follow the cliched tropes of most female characters, and a story that actually makes sense.
I'm not exactly sure what you think I missed out in the storyline, and my review pretty much explains the issues I had with the plot, considering so much was left unanswered, and so much made little to no sense.
I'm not exactly sure what you think I missed out in the storyline, and my review pretty much explains the issues I had with the plot, considering so much was left unanswered, and so much made little to no sense.
Parallax Mapping or Custom Tileset?
Very true. I don't use RMXP hardly at all, and I don't use 2K/3 much more so, but I still view the tutorials for them and even look inside of their open games, because I can still learn from them and apply it new makers. Especially 2K/3 - it's amazing to see how creative the developers get with events when scripting isn't an option.
How much weight do people REALLY give to nostalgia?
There definitely is a fine line, but that doesn't mean one outweighs the other.
I grew up with all the classics. To this day, I can pick up a game like Generica and Dragon Fantasy and Hero's Realm and drool all over it because it reminds me of what rpg's used to be about, a good blend between story, combat, and game play. There is a reason people still claw after the resources in DQ IV (NES). For its time, it really pushed the limitations of the NES.
But there are other games I remember having fun with that I can't stomach today, such as the first DQ game. I recently played through a rom hack of the game (called Dragoon X) that changed the story, battlers, names, and palette of the original Dragon Quest and it did bring some enjoyment, but it also quickly tanked for me when I realized just how tedious the grinding and save mechanics really were.
Games like Super Mario Bros (especially SMB 3) age well. In fact, SMB 3 has such a great palette going on for it for its cycle in the NES, and it's still quite fun. Sure, there are some games that suck by today's standards (even if we remember having fun with them at one point) but that's not true for every game we grew up with.
Let's go even further back. Atari 2600... Phoenix, Vanguard, Moon Patrol, Berzerk. These are classic games that are still fun to play in this day and age.
I grew up with all the classics. To this day, I can pick up a game like Generica and Dragon Fantasy and Hero's Realm and drool all over it because it reminds me of what rpg's used to be about, a good blend between story, combat, and game play. There is a reason people still claw after the resources in DQ IV (NES). For its time, it really pushed the limitations of the NES.
But there are other games I remember having fun with that I can't stomach today, such as the first DQ game. I recently played through a rom hack of the game (called Dragoon X) that changed the story, battlers, names, and palette of the original Dragon Quest and it did bring some enjoyment, but it also quickly tanked for me when I realized just how tedious the grinding and save mechanics really were.
Games like Super Mario Bros (especially SMB 3) age well. In fact, SMB 3 has such a great palette going on for it for its cycle in the NES, and it's still quite fun. Sure, there are some games that suck by today's standards (even if we remember having fun with them at one point) but that's not true for every game we grew up with.
Let's go even further back. Atari 2600... Phoenix, Vanguard, Moon Patrol, Berzerk. These are classic games that are still fun to play in this day and age.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
