DOOMED2DIE'S PROFILE

lol I'm glad this discussion had some fruit but I definitely hear some doubt... Keep in mind this is YOUR game, not mine. What I see as the roots to a good RPG (which as you're quite definitely noting requires a lot of time and effort, especially in balance.) ((I did note it's quite difficult to balance)) is not always what everyone sees. As a player, not a developer, I spoke with you on aspects I had seen make other games (to me) great and some of these games had some great successes (laxius power remains in mind as my easy to recall example).

I'll play through and give you feedback on all the different types of status afflictions and what they do. And remember, RPG=/= logic ;D

I'll also give feedback on pretty much all balance aspects. I play RPGs as almost beyond a hobby lol so if it's difficult for me, it's most likely difficult.

Naming's no real issue. You could call it Pneumonia (fluid in the lungs). Buried could be bruised from being smashed or something.

I've been developing as well and trust me I feel your pain. I'm not a demo sorta guy so I'll probably release 1 near-full demo and then just work with bugs and balancing and the like so you won't be seeing it for a while. But I'm following the exact steps I'm giving you. Balancing hurts and I've got other aspects to worry about as well. Things that I wouldn't even bother with in a normal game but perfectionism isn't just in criticizing other peoples' games lol. It's a lot of effort but I'm really seeing a lot of devotion on your end. Thank you for that. You're giving me a game I'll enjoy playing :)

Overall, I see improvement and the drive for it. I see the effort being put forth. As a developer, that's probably the most anyone can expect and the fact that you're responding to criticism says a lot.

Sorry if I sounded a bit pushy or demanded things that aren't necessarily in the nature of your game but I shared my views. I'm glad to see they had impact and I'll be there to help you tweak the numbers and the like. Don't stress too much; hopefully, I can make it so that you don't have to do all the thinking lol

For the superficiality of the fights, as I noted, essentially the routine was the same. I don't necessarily need multitiered deep fights (those are nice but only if you've had enough preparation for what you're doing) but rather something that varies. Your classes are more resistant to different status effects, why not your enemies? The only enemies I had trouble poisoning for example were skeletons, and I've successfully silenced pretty much everyone. You know? I mean, there could be some variety. I'd also like more strategy than "Fire on Ice" kind of stuff. Maybe something of the sort like more spells with cast times and the like which cause you to think before use. I mean little factors matter. Frankly, the difficulty wasn't all that high (not your fault necessarily) and I had a pretty good party, I think. The grinding was mostly because I'm obsessive about getting my skills xD But that was the major component of grinding: spamming Fire

You know your YERD_Skill Display script? Well, there's an option for extra notes that you write. You could write out the tiers there, or make a note for it. That'd be nice.

As for mirrors of each other, your ice spells could slow, your fire spells could burn, your lightning spells could numb, your light spells could blind, your lightning II might have a chance to critical (MITH Critical Skills is available at rpgmakervx.net if you want) and the like.

I mean, there's ways to make me think, "Do I want the chance to critical and spend the extra mana or should I just try and numb him and crit next turn?" and "If I use Lightning III, I lose 3 turns but I deal great damage. On the other hand, I could just use Lightning I thrice and try and numb... Hmm" things like that. Maybe for the target alls especially... "Is Hack Slash or worth it or should I just warcry for now so I can try and heal?" I mean, YERD_Skill_Effects gives you a lot of variety: cast times, fatigue, randomized targeting, stat based damage, etc. Take advantage of what you have available to you is all I'm saying. I think you could have expanded on it but that's my view. Like I said, there have been games which break the curve, but there's a reason there is a curve; it's difficult to break and requires a lot of thinking and testing. You did a good job, I just felt for a combat oriented game, there was more that could've been done.

Overall: I still liked the game, but I point out, for your sake, what could've been done better.

Would be glad if I did something good out of this. If you ask me though, you don't necessarily have to fix EpiQuest, but you are/were developing EpiQuest 2 no? Keep in mind I did criticize some of the core concepts of your game, it'd be difficult to change all that.

You won't be fighting TINY enemies, you'll be fighting enemies in proportion to your size. You should change that. :/

-It was good that neither enemy nor player just used attack
-I enjoyed the battles where I did think a bit the first time through and buffs and debuffs had actual uses.

See, when it gets to the point of being a superficial routine, that's when it's bad. When I'm using different buffs for different situations, when I'm using different skills, etc., that's when things are expansive enough to warrant a higher rating. On the other hand, when I'm using debuff A against this enemy, trying to silence him, stun her, blind it, whatever, that's different but the fights ultimately become a superficial replay of previous fights. THat's what I meant.

What I meant in a way was that at first, the game seemed to have depth and it did for an initial player but it ultimately led to the same routine.

And by the way, yes it is a weakpoint of the genre but not every RPG follows this. There have been VERY FEW but there have been some games which break the curve. I had hoped this would be one but ultimately not which is fine since there's a reson they're so special for breaking the curve. However, for a game with so much focus on combat, it was a weak point especially on this end.

Good
-Skill choices were broad enough and enjoyable
Bad
-Too many skills are exact mirrors of each other but with a different element. This makes the skilltree less expansive than what you go in expecting. Fire and Ice do exactly the same thing except Fire does fire damage and Ice does ice damage.

The skill choices were broad. And for most classes, enjoyable. It's just not as broad as expectations would've led you to believe. Some of it is a bit misleading like "1,000,000 skills to learn! But 9,999,500 of them do the same thing!" That was what I meant. It was still sufficiently broad but less expansive than what you go in expecting. Silence Dagger, Stun Dagger, etc. was broad enough. However, Fire, Fire II, Fire III was rather superficial, as noted.

-There was no way of knowing whether or not skills had a next stage
-Many skills didn't have a next stage so you just spammed that skill and realized that you got no benefit for it

Those 2 are similar enough that I can see where you came from saying they're pretty much the same thing.

-Classes with skills you could use out of battle had advantages in getting next tier of skills
-I kept doing unnecessary things like healing 10 hp so that I could get to the next tier of skills

Might be similar but hardly the same. 1 says some classes have advantages, 2 says you do unnecessary things to gain more skills.

-There's no way of telling how many times you need to use a skill to get the next tier

This is an individual complaint if you've played the game. I know it's similar to my previous notes about the skill system but the difference is that he throws you in there saying "hey, if you use a skill 50 times, most of the time, you'll get tier 2" and that's the expectation but not really the return. And that's a major part of the problem. He could've expounded on it, would've been nice.

-Lots and lots of grinding

Individual, I think.

-Escaping a battle is pointless 7 times out of 10 since the enemy event is still touching you and you'll return to the encounter (often with a different enemy group though)

Individual

-Annoying amount of encounters on the world map (especially frustrating since the walk speed is so slow and you avoid encounters else where)

Individual

-Certain skills, you can't get the better form of so you're stuck with the equipment giving you the skill all game (Disarm, Poison, etc.) and it's rather frustrating on EP but you want the skills

Kind of repeated but note that now I'm saying you have to keep the equipment for the skill you want.

-There is an annoying number of random encounters on the map (though the control you have around it is nice)

I worded this badly. Rather, "there's an annoying number of on map encounters you have to avoid but it's difficult to avoid them."

-Fights become rather superficial. Buff, Debuff, Poison, Blind, whatever, hit, damage, hit, use skill when of cooldown, Heal when necessary
-Too many skills are exact mirrors of each other but with a different element. This makes the skilltree less expansive than what you go in expecting. Fire and Ice do exactly the same thing except Fire does fire damage and Ice does ice damage.

Individual


I see 3/12 that are SIMILAR, and only 2 that were really repeated. Hardly half. Another stellar response for RMN eh?


If you want to know why this warrants 4 stars, here it is:

This game has a strong sense of balance in a sense that none of the elements seemed more reliable than others, none of the skills had a particular reason that you'd want them over others in your equipment choices, the EP system balanced everything out nicely, and all classes seemed similar enough in strength that it was no issue. The only balance problem was most likely that it was too easy to grind through the game and that your healer class had the easiest skill progression via spamming "heal" out of combat.

Other than that, it was mostly clear on the tutorials (other than a rather vague comment on the number of times you had to use a skill to level it since it said 50 most of the time and I was left wondering what about the rest? Which turned out to be a valid question in the end.) The battles had unique systems which made them stand out from others and it was no more tedious than most RPG games I've played. Very few break the curve in this end. All battles end up being the same in most RPGs. Even the famous Final Fantasies do it. I've played VERY FEW RPGs which break the curve, and that's fine. Although it is a weak point, it's a weak point more of the genre than the developer himself It can be solved by the developer, which is why I point it out. well, it could've been better in all honesty. So, that was the main reason the 1 star off.

While many of the skills, especially elemental 1s were quite broad and enjoyable to explore, many others did the exact same thing, essentially and that was quite a nuisance. Nonetheless, for the non-magician, the skill choices were broad and enjoyable. I would play through with potentially healer as the only magical type class since the magician is frankly so gimped. However, the other classes were quite interesting and fun to explore other than some more specific gripes which I'm not going to expend pages on exploring the particulars of every class.

In this game, status effects had actual uses (although it became rinse and repeat at some point) but it was enjoyable enough. I've never poisoned so many bosses in my life, and poison, while making things easier, did not make a clear turtle-and-win strategy either. The bosses had varied attacks

The varied story and its components were quite nice. Sure, the story was near 0 and the story had near 0 focus but considering the branches of progression and reward, it definitely added to replay value and I enjoyed it quite a bit. There were other rewards you can gain too, like vampirism and the like. That was a very nice bonus.

Classes also sometimes had some interesting gimmicks. My healer could be grown as a sniper, shooting off my enemies. My thief could throw daggers, my monk can throw ninja stars, my hunter gains enemy info, etc. etc. This really made it worth exploring and, as I said, made the game enjoyable.

In hindsight, 3.5 stars would've been the better choice, but criticism is so objective, it's hard to define often. And for this review, I focused more the audience towards the developer who would benefit from criticism more than compliments. My bad in all honesty, I should consider that people read reviews before getting a game (I do it myself) but yes, this review wasn't really built around you so much as ShortStar