Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
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 ListsAMERK'S PROFILE
amerk
2539
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Retro Quest Review
Okay, I probably won't sleep until I get this off my chest. I want to apologize for being a dick, and you're probably right, I am probably a bit biased based upon my love for retro style games. I understand the market may not have been as well accepted, but I think what the developer was going here was a sort of trip down memory lane, and in some parts a bit of a parody. It may not have been well executed as it could have been, but I felt it was better than what the 1/2 star called for. It's just a matter of opinion, after all.
But I like the idea of reposting so that my score will show up. I'll do that when I have more time.
Okay, now I can sleep and dream peaceful dreams.
But I like the idea of reposting so that my score will show up. I'll do that when I have more time.
Okay, now I can sleep and dream peaceful dreams.
Retro Quest Review
Well, Captain Obvious, maybe you would have seen that I wrote my own review, the very first one to be in fact.
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.
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.
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?
Audio: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Audio: 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.
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.
Retro Quest Review
May be my opinion, but seems as if you are reviewing this game based on your feelings against the engine in general as well as games this is trying to emulate verses the actual game itself. I've played this game myself and loved it, but I can respect that others will not enjoy it. It's a matter of preference. But I can't really understand why a person would bother to play such a game when they seem to not care for retro style games to begin with.
Case in point # 1: You stated that the gameplay is "standard fare" yet you give it 1/2 a star. Does this mean you consider most rpg's gameplay to be a 1/2 star rating, and if so why play rpg then? Or if not, perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel it deserves 1/2 star. You mentioned it was difficult, but that again goes back to what this game is trying to accomplish, which is to reflect on past NES/Gameboy style games, thus the name "Retro" in the title.
Case in point # 2: You mentioned the poor writing. Again, this reflects the style of game from the ancient NES days. Even the SNES had absurd points of dialogue ("spoony bard" anyone?), but a retro style game wouldn't be the same without it.
Case in point # 3: You put down the graphics, yet acknowledge that they seem to be simulating an old Gameboy game.
Admittedly, this is not a perfect game. It does require a lot of level grinding, and when you do level up and purchase certain pieces of equipment, you do get a lot stronger. As for not being able to escape from battle or use items in battle, I'm not sure what game you are referring to, because I was able to do both when I played it.
But one has to reason for playing such a game, they have to have a fond appreciation for games of old (Commodore, Atari, NES), as well as rpg's in general. Otherwise, why play in the first place? There is a category on images that would have shown what type of game this really is. As for reviewing, I personally think it is an attack against the genre verses the game. It wouldn't be fair for me to criticise a side scrolling game and grade it low simply because I don't like the genre.
Case in point # 1: You stated that the gameplay is "standard fare" yet you give it 1/2 a star. Does this mean you consider most rpg's gameplay to be a 1/2 star rating, and if so why play rpg then? Or if not, perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel it deserves 1/2 star. You mentioned it was difficult, but that again goes back to what this game is trying to accomplish, which is to reflect on past NES/Gameboy style games, thus the name "Retro" in the title.
Case in point # 2: You mentioned the poor writing. Again, this reflects the style of game from the ancient NES days. Even the SNES had absurd points of dialogue ("spoony bard" anyone?), but a retro style game wouldn't be the same without it.
Case in point # 3: You put down the graphics, yet acknowledge that they seem to be simulating an old Gameboy game.
Admittedly, this is not a perfect game. It does require a lot of level grinding, and when you do level up and purchase certain pieces of equipment, you do get a lot stronger. As for not being able to escape from battle or use items in battle, I'm not sure what game you are referring to, because I was able to do both when I played it.
But one has to reason for playing such a game, they have to have a fond appreciation for games of old (Commodore, Atari, NES), as well as rpg's in general. Otherwise, why play in the first place? There is a category on images that would have shown what type of game this really is. As for reviewing, I personally think it is an attack against the genre verses the game. It wouldn't be fair for me to criticise a side scrolling game and grade it low simply because I don't like the genre.
stardestroyer2.jpg
So don't play it. In any case, it's called RPG Maker for a reason. Not everybody has the time or resources to put their soul into every project, and I really could care less. This looks intriguing and I'll be one of the first to play it.
Backstage Review
Thanks. I actually stumbled over that option when I went back to replay it and realized what I had forgotten: the choice to either promise or not promise.
**SPOILER**
In any case, the plot is almost exactly alike as the bad ending, with the exception the bad ending picks up exactly where the good ending leaves off. So I really wasn't missing much, which is unfortunate, since I had hoped for something new.
However, the bad ending isn't all that bad either. In fact, since it's exactly the same as the redemption, I'd have to say the bad ending adds a sort of unique twist. And the revenge ending alters the story somewhat making it enjoyable to play through the game at least twice.
Whatever ending you prefer or don't prefer, the story behind it all is truly one hell of an experience.
**SPOILER**
In any case, the plot is almost exactly alike as the bad ending, with the exception the bad ending picks up exactly where the good ending leaves off. So I really wasn't missing much, which is unfortunate, since I had hoped for something new.
However, the bad ending isn't all that bad either. In fact, since it's exactly the same as the redemption, I'd have to say the bad ending adds a sort of unique twist. And the revenge ending alters the story somewhat making it enjoyable to play through the game at least twice.
Whatever ending you prefer or don't prefer, the story behind it all is truly one hell of an experience.
FHscreen1.PNG
I wouldn't necessarily scale it down, but maybe add a few things, like maybe a table or two. If a battle takes place, the custom menu will (hopefully) cover over it and not have any impact.
OLDfucker.png
Awesome quote to the above post. If this game is comical, that'd be a good line. And I would like to add:
"Duh, uh, which way did they go?"
"Duh, uh, which way did they go?"
scan0001.PNG
I like the humorous style, but I think either all characters should be like this, or none of the characters, to avoid conflicting styles.
LINE'S END
My clue to this game ever going into production will be when there is an actual picture on the rmn page other than an ugly block of gray. Then and only then will I start to hold my breath again.
The 7 Dragons Review
I actually found humor in reading this review, but for the most part have to agree, if not quite so aggressively, in what Corfaisus says. You start off in a cave, but no idea why, especially since you have to return to this cave upon leaving it and talking with the king. You start out at level 3, your femal partner at level 5, but no explanation why aside from attempting to boost your stats right off the bat. There's never any clear direction of where to go, you have tons of islands scattered about, but none of them have any enemy encounters. The mapping needs a lot of work.
All in all, the game really needs a lot of fixing before it can be considered ready. But I do give props to the designer for taking the plunge, and he does seem to write with care to spelling and grammar. Fix the gameplay, too, because the first island seemed way too easy, but every other island after that seemed very difficult. You have a ton of enemis to fight, and no way to run, or so it would appear.
All in all, the game really needs a lot of fixing before it can be considered ready. But I do give props to the designer for taking the plunge, and he does seem to write with care to spelling and grammar. Fix the gameplay, too, because the first island seemed way too easy, but every other island after that seemed very difficult. You have a ton of enemis to fight, and no way to run, or so it would appear.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
