Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
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
Veil of Darkness
Good story-driven game. Although very short, it was charming. I kind of wished it had ended a bit differently, but that's just me.
FOUR STARS...for what ??
Probably a mixture of both, increase of games, less interest in reviews; however, reviews have definitely fallen short compared to what they once were. Take some of the better known titles of old. "A Blurred Line" and "Hero's Realm" have multiple reviews. Dragon Fantasy has 5 reviews. The majority of the reviews seemed to have come before 2012.
Now fast forward to today. Dragon Fantasy: Heroes of Tsufana has but 1 review, and it's just as good as the other DF games, if not better. And it's been around here for awhile, the last known update early in 2013.
Central Impulse, a game I recently reviewed, is a bit unheard of but fairly enjoyable for what it was. The developer had wondered if the game had been forgotten or abandoned until I reviewed it.
So developers do want the feedback, but for whatever reason the reviews aren't being written.
I suppose the only alternative is to get people to make more comments if they don't want to bother with a review. They could even state in the comments a score they'd be willing to give for the game.
Likewise, if we're going to continue to insist that scores be tied into the reviews, then a better criteria for accepting reviews is necessary, since chances of getting more than 1 review is slim, and that 1 review could negatively impact that game for months to come, especially if it's written by somebody who doesn't even know what they're talking about or is biased towards the genre.
Reviews should be written in the mindset of the targeted audience. Heck, even I have commented or reviewed games with mechanics I don't generally like or care for, but I always try to put myself into the shoes of the intended audience to see if it's something that works but is not for me, or if it's something that is truly broken.
My thoughts are: If we're going to continue to allow scores to be included with reviews, and if we're going to allow those scores to impact the overall score of the game, then those reviews need to be written in a way that fairly conveys all information rather than a single aspect that the player may or may not have liked, and that score needs to reflect the true ideals and problems of that game.
Simply slapping 300 words together shouldn't be enough. Explaining why a game is being graded the way it is, and what the developer did right, and what they can work on to improve - these are things that will give meaning to the game's rate.
The problem, though, is that a better criteria would potentially require extra scrutiny and approval of reviews might take even longer than the standard 3 to 4 days.
Back to another point, I really do like video reviews and find them sometimes more effective, since the viewer can see the game play for themselves. Plus, a lot of people already do LP's, so doing an actual video review might not be too difficult. However, until it was stated here, I was not aware that actual video reviews were allowed, and I'm sure others weren't either. Maybe if that point is driven home, more people would consider this as a potential way to increase reviews.
Now fast forward to today. Dragon Fantasy: Heroes of Tsufana has but 1 review, and it's just as good as the other DF games, if not better. And it's been around here for awhile, the last known update early in 2013.
Central Impulse, a game I recently reviewed, is a bit unheard of but fairly enjoyable for what it was. The developer had wondered if the game had been forgotten or abandoned until I reviewed it.
So developers do want the feedback, but for whatever reason the reviews aren't being written.
I suppose the only alternative is to get people to make more comments if they don't want to bother with a review. They could even state in the comments a score they'd be willing to give for the game.
Likewise, if we're going to continue to insist that scores be tied into the reviews, then a better criteria for accepting reviews is necessary, since chances of getting more than 1 review is slim, and that 1 review could negatively impact that game for months to come, especially if it's written by somebody who doesn't even know what they're talking about or is biased towards the genre.
Reviews should be written in the mindset of the targeted audience. Heck, even I have commented or reviewed games with mechanics I don't generally like or care for, but I always try to put myself into the shoes of the intended audience to see if it's something that works but is not for me, or if it's something that is truly broken.
My thoughts are: If we're going to continue to allow scores to be included with reviews, and if we're going to allow those scores to impact the overall score of the game, then those reviews need to be written in a way that fairly conveys all information rather than a single aspect that the player may or may not have liked, and that score needs to reflect the true ideals and problems of that game.
Simply slapping 300 words together shouldn't be enough. Explaining why a game is being graded the way it is, and what the developer did right, and what they can work on to improve - these are things that will give meaning to the game's rate.
The problem, though, is that a better criteria would potentially require extra scrutiny and approval of reviews might take even longer than the standard 3 to 4 days.
Back to another point, I really do like video reviews and find them sometimes more effective, since the viewer can see the game play for themselves. Plus, a lot of people already do LP's, so doing an actual video review might not be too difficult. However, until it was stated here, I was not aware that actual video reviews were allowed, and I'm sure others weren't either. Maybe if that point is driven home, more people would consider this as a potential way to increase reviews.
FOUR STARS...for what ??
And yet the bigger questions in all of this continue to remain unanswered. What can be done to encourage people to write more reviews? What can developers do to get their games reviewed? And why has the process of writing reviews dropped so drastically over the past couple years?
Question 1: What can be done to encourage people to write more reviews?
By motivating and encouraging them? Teaching them? Offering tools to make it easier? Nah, hell no. By calling them stupid and lazy for not writing enough reviews. Yeah, that'll teach them. If that doesn't raise the morale around here and encourage more reviews, I'm not sure what will.
News flash, I write more reviews than a lot of people, and the reviews I do write I put in a lot of thought and effort. But I don't have the patience nor the time to write a review for every game I play, especially when it takes 3 to 4 days just to get it approved.
Question 2: What can developers do to get their games reviewed?
Hmmm... by telling the developer to make better games that people will want to play and review. Wait, what? Aren't reviews intended to make developers better? So why are we telling them they need to make better games to get reviewed? What's the point of reviewing a game for a developer that doesn't need it?
Question 3: And why has the process of writing reviews dropped so drastically over the past couple years?
Take a look at RM2000, for example, and look at the games that were first added.
Sure, some of those games don't have reviews, but most have at least 1, and a good number have 2 or more.
Now take a look at the more recent games. Okay, in fairness, some are new, but not all. The majority of the games listed for about the first 4 pages don't even have a single review.
The days of writing reviews somehow ended in recent years. Maybe it has to do with the fact that people were writing them the most when RM was still a new tool, barely noticed outside of the community. Maybe it's because people are now more focused on making games rather than playing them. Maybe it's because after a dozen or so games, each game starts looking the same after awhile.
Putting myself in a developer's shoes, they're better off these days not getting a single review than they are getting just 1 from somebody who was biased about the game and scored it low for no other reason than just because they can.
And that single score will follow them years down the road when other games equally as bad if not worse will still outshine them because nobody bothered to review them, and all because we're too focused on how lazy and stupid everybody is rather than finding ways to encourage them and make the process more efficient.
Conclusion:
Whatever the reasons, reviews are all but non-existent compared to 4 or 5 years ago, and in a couple of years they'll probably be obsolete. If you're going to continue to tie the score of a game into the review then it should be expected that the majority of the games over the past couple of years won't have any scores, and most will probably never have a score.
But then that goes back to an earlier question: What's the point of including a tallied score for a game based on a review when nobody is even writing reviews?
You can brag about your review system all you want. You can blame the public for being dumb and lazy. But when I look at all the games that have yet to be reviewed and receive a rating, I see a system that is indeed flawed and not keeping up with the trend. You can say it's not broken and it's fine, but a system that's not being used is useless.
Question 1: What can be done to encourage people to write more reviews?
By motivating and encouraging them? Teaching them? Offering tools to make it easier? Nah, hell no. By calling them stupid and lazy for not writing enough reviews. Yeah, that'll teach them. If that doesn't raise the morale around here and encourage more reviews, I'm not sure what will.
News flash, I write more reviews than a lot of people, and the reviews I do write I put in a lot of thought and effort. But I don't have the patience nor the time to write a review for every game I play, especially when it takes 3 to 4 days just to get it approved.
Question 2: What can developers do to get their games reviewed?
Hmmm... by telling the developer to make better games that people will want to play and review. Wait, what? Aren't reviews intended to make developers better? So why are we telling them they need to make better games to get reviewed? What's the point of reviewing a game for a developer that doesn't need it?
Question 3: And why has the process of writing reviews dropped so drastically over the past couple years?
Take a look at RM2000, for example, and look at the games that were first added.
Sure, some of those games don't have reviews, but most have at least 1, and a good number have 2 or more.
Now take a look at the more recent games. Okay, in fairness, some are new, but not all. The majority of the games listed for about the first 4 pages don't even have a single review.
The days of writing reviews somehow ended in recent years. Maybe it has to do with the fact that people were writing them the most when RM was still a new tool, barely noticed outside of the community. Maybe it's because people are now more focused on making games rather than playing them. Maybe it's because after a dozen or so games, each game starts looking the same after awhile.
Putting myself in a developer's shoes, they're better off these days not getting a single review than they are getting just 1 from somebody who was biased about the game and scored it low for no other reason than just because they can.
And that single score will follow them years down the road when other games equally as bad if not worse will still outshine them because nobody bothered to review them, and all because we're too focused on how lazy and stupid everybody is rather than finding ways to encourage them and make the process more efficient.
Conclusion:
Whatever the reasons, reviews are all but non-existent compared to 4 or 5 years ago, and in a couple of years they'll probably be obsolete. If you're going to continue to tie the score of a game into the review then it should be expected that the majority of the games over the past couple of years won't have any scores, and most will probably never have a score.
But then that goes back to an earlier question: What's the point of including a tallied score for a game based on a review when nobody is even writing reviews?
You can brag about your review system all you want. You can blame the public for being dumb and lazy. But when I look at all the games that have yet to be reviewed and receive a rating, I see a system that is indeed flawed and not keeping up with the trend. You can say it's not broken and it's fine, but a system that's not being used is useless.
FOUR STARS...for what ??
It was suggested adding a "Was this helpful" option to the reviews, and the more helpful a review the higher up it would be.
What about doing something like this for comments, and then letting the viewer sort comments either by first to last or by most helpful?
That could give the developer an opportunity to sort the best comments first if they're looking for immediate feedback that may or may not have been covered in the review.
Fleshing out the score to a point value would also be nice, or at minimum including quarterly points. I had a game that was 2.83 and had to choose a final star rating of 2.5 (which I felt was too low) or 3 (which I felt was too high). I wound up with 3 since the story was very well done and didn't want to cast the game negatively anymore than I may have done. Being able to select 2.75 would have been a better choice because it would have shown it's a bit better than subpar, but still needs quite a bit of work.
I take scores with a grain of salt, but not everybody does. So I think it boils down to people being able to select the most reasonable score, and readers understanding that scores are going to be biased and opinionated. However, being able to have more flexibility in scoring and being able to vote up or down whether a review or comment is helpful may help.
An end of the year contest for best written review could also encourage more.
Finally, maybe a staff position for review writers could help. Public reviews could continue, but any review that has an official staff label would tell the audience it's written with the least bit of bias as possible, as the staff would be trained to review the game with the mindset of the audience it's targeting.
What about doing something like this for comments, and then letting the viewer sort comments either by first to last or by most helpful?
That could give the developer an opportunity to sort the best comments first if they're looking for immediate feedback that may or may not have been covered in the review.
Fleshing out the score to a point value would also be nice, or at minimum including quarterly points. I had a game that was 2.83 and had to choose a final star rating of 2.5 (which I felt was too low) or 3 (which I felt was too high). I wound up with 3 since the story was very well done and didn't want to cast the game negatively anymore than I may have done. Being able to select 2.75 would have been a better choice because it would have shown it's a bit better than subpar, but still needs quite a bit of work.
I take scores with a grain of salt, but not everybody does. So I think it boils down to people being able to select the most reasonable score, and readers understanding that scores are going to be biased and opinionated. However, being able to have more flexibility in scoring and being able to vote up or down whether a review or comment is helpful may help.
An end of the year contest for best written review could also encourage more.
Finally, maybe a staff position for review writers could help. Public reviews could continue, but any review that has an official staff label would tell the audience it's written with the least bit of bias as possible, as the staff would be trained to review the game with the mindset of the audience it's targeting.
FOUR STARS...for what ??
This topic is escalating to nowhere fast other than Liberty telling everybody to fuck off. Congrats, Liberty, I'm sure if we were to tell you the same, we wouldn't be here for much longer.
If you had bothered to actually participate in the discussion, you would have realized that the problem isn't so much with the length of reviews, but the fact that not enough people are writing them. This in turn means scores are more prone to being biased rather than balanced, and developers aren't getting the feedback they need.
So rather than spouting off "300 words, 300 words" over and over again like a parrot, maybe you can come up with a reasonable solution that will encourage more reviews.
Does this mean I'm taking your antics a bit more personal? Perhaps. But frankly I'm tired of the condescending attitude and belittling everybody's suggestions. Even as Admin myself at another RM community, I would never think of talking down to people that way, and I find it shameful that you're allowed to do it here.
If you had bothered to actually participate in the discussion, you would have realized that the problem isn't so much with the length of reviews, but the fact that not enough people are writing them. This in turn means scores are more prone to being biased rather than balanced, and developers aren't getting the feedback they need.
So rather than spouting off "300 words, 300 words" over and over again like a parrot, maybe you can come up with a reasonable solution that will encourage more reviews.
Does this mean I'm taking your antics a bit more personal? Perhaps. But frankly I'm tired of the condescending attitude and belittling everybody's suggestions. Even as Admin myself at another RM community, I would never think of talking down to people that way, and I find it shameful that you're allowed to do it here.
Offering to Make Your Game an App
You do realize that you're asking to help convert games to an app on a site that is primarily RPG Maker (thus the name RMN = RPG Maker Network). And a lot of the non-RM editors are much more flexible in getting games converted, that outside help may not be as necessary as RM games.
I'm not knocking you for your assistance, but I feel the only people who may want to take you up on this are the ones you can't assist (the ones that primarily use RPG Maker). If you're unable to assist converting RM games, you might want to specify which editors you can do in your main post - not only does it keep people asking for things that can't be done, but it helps you to weed through the requests more efficiently.
I'm not knocking you for your assistance, but I feel the only people who may want to take you up on this are the ones you can't assist (the ones that primarily use RPG Maker). If you're unable to assist converting RM games, you might want to specify which editors you can do in your main post - not only does it keep people asking for things that can't be done, but it helps you to weed through the requests more efficiently.
Looking for some short, easy games to play(Please read intro post.)
MorteTorment, you might want to clarify your definition of short and easy since it can vary from person to person.
For me, short would fall within 5 to 10 hours tops. And easy would mean the game is challenging but not impossible without grinding, but grinding will make it even easier.
Using that criteria based on ones I've played, I'd suggest:
Pumpkins - http://rpgmaker.net/games/5418/
Central Impulse - http://rpgmaker.net/games/5370/
The Winter Knight - http://rpgmaker.net/games/6004/
Clouded Heart - http://rpgmaker.net/games/6055/
For me, short would fall within 5 to 10 hours tops. And easy would mean the game is challenging but not impossible without grinding, but grinding will make it even easier.
Using that criteria based on ones I've played, I'd suggest:
Pumpkins - http://rpgmaker.net/games/5418/
Central Impulse - http://rpgmaker.net/games/5370/
The Winter Knight - http://rpgmaker.net/games/6004/
Clouded Heart - http://rpgmaker.net/games/6055/
FOUR STARS...for what ??
Ah, hidden. Better option yet, NeverSilent.
Maybe make the total score only viewable by the developer for their own game, but not to the public.
Maybe make the total score only viewable by the developer for their own game, but not to the public.
FOUR STARS...for what ??
150+ words seems better than 300+ characters, and still doesn't require a lot. A weighted review where the better ones get higher MS sounds like an idea and rewards those for effort.
The problem with that is it then becomes a popularity contest of who can like/dislike a game the fastest. Of course, more people would probably jump at this, but it tells the developer nothing in terms of feedback if they're seeing a bunch of 2's with no comments on what failed.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the total score removed completely. People can still include them in their reviews, but there'd be no total average score. That way, people would then do what the review intended - for them to go and read the review rather than form an uneducated opinion by simply looking at the score.
author=narcodis
I've long said people should simply be able to "recommend" or "like" or "+1" or whatever-social-media-buzzword-you'd-like a game, in lieu of bothering to write a review, and remove review scores all together. I know RMN hates it for whatever reason, or maybe it'd just be too much work, but it's the metric standard for how almost the entire rest of the internet determines the quality of a thing: public consensus.
The problem with that is it then becomes a popularity contest of who can like/dislike a game the fastest. Of course, more people would probably jump at this, but it tells the developer nothing in terms of feedback if they're seeing a bunch of 2's with no comments on what failed.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the total score removed completely. People can still include them in their reviews, but there'd be no total average score. That way, people would then do what the review intended - for them to go and read the review rather than form an uneducated opinion by simply looking at the score.
FOUR STARS...for what ??
Not every game will be reviewed the same. However, when it comes to traditional rpg's, I try to combine the elements into 3 categories in order to balance the score out:
Game Play includes the actual mechanics in the game, how linear or open the game is, side quests, the encounter/combat system, any other tools like crafting, hunting, etc, and whether or not the game is riddled with bugs.
Story is fairly obvious, but I also focus on the writing mechanics, whether or not it's full of writing mistakes or spelling errors.
Atmosphere - I recently started using this term rather than resources. Why? Because while the RTP gets old from one game to another, there are some games that still manage to impress with it. Also, because a majority of the games here seem to use either the RTP or rips, while a few are more custom. So I really don't care so much about what resources you are using (as long as they are consistent) so much as how they are used, and your ability to map with them.
Game Play includes the actual mechanics in the game, how linear or open the game is, side quests, the encounter/combat system, any other tools like crafting, hunting, etc, and whether or not the game is riddled with bugs.
Story is fairly obvious, but I also focus on the writing mechanics, whether or not it's full of writing mistakes or spelling errors.
Atmosphere - I recently started using this term rather than resources. Why? Because while the RTP gets old from one game to another, there are some games that still manage to impress with it. Also, because a majority of the games here seem to use either the RTP or rips, while a few are more custom. So I really don't care so much about what resources you are using (as long as they are consistent) so much as how they are used, and your ability to map with them.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
