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
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsFLOWERTHIEF'S PROFILE
Close
Switching to Python.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Heartache 101 ~Sour into Sweet~ Review
Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'm listening. Can't promise anything, especially with my real life demands these days, but I am listening.
Heartache 101 ~Sour into Sweet~ Review
Heartache 101 ~Sour into Sweet~ Review
In order to look like Higurashi, the characters would first need to get their hands run over by a cartoon steamroller :P
Tina of the Stars Review
I definitely recognize some of the music from commercial games. (Puzzle Bobble? Bomberman? Something like that)
Cavern of Doom Review
Heartache 101 ~Sour into Sweet~ Review
I must say though that seeing the game described as "nothing new under the sun" does surprise me. The project began when I was thinking to myself about datesims and how there's no reason to replay one once you've pursued all the character(s) you're interested in and wouldn't it be cool if there was a datesim in which the content could be expanded. To my knowledge no one has ever attempted that before. (maybe there's a good reason for that haha) In other words, I started the project precisely because I thought it would be a new and original idea that had never been done before, and every aspect was designed with the goal of facilitating customization in mind, from deliberately choosing the most cliche setting for a datesim possible, to the typical unseen protagonist, to the lack of event graphics, to all the development time spent on writing a scripting language that can be used to add new story. If a player doesn't find the possibility of creating new content or playing new content created by others at least a little bit intriguing (and judging by the reviews's passing comment of this major aspect of the game as "not exactly a bad feature" I think it's safe to say that you didn't) then they may not be the game's primary target audience. I suppose 3 stars really is the best it could have hoped for then.
Heartache 101 ~Sour into Sweet~ Review
Yeah, they should be either categorized differently or not posted at all. I'm all for receiving criticism--my project page explicitly asks for it--but I don't want that criticism coming in the form of a review and certainly not a review posted before the game is marked as complete. (In fact, I didn't want everybody playing it as early as they did. I clearly remember checking the "testers only" box...which did nothing)
The rating I find particularly unfair. I don't think a version number can make it any less so.
Once a game is marked as complete, an author doesn't have as much ground to complain when an old review is made less relevant by subsequent patches. At least I think that is generally understood in the commercial world where reviews were in demand at the time by consumers wanting to know if they should buy the product on release-date. Not the reviewer's fault there that the developer didn't properly test their product before asking people to shell out for it. (But if you ask me, reviews of free games have less reason to exist than reviews of commercial games. There's too much emphasis in this community on being critical of each other's games imo when the proper emphasis should be on getting games to their target audiences)
The rating I find particularly unfair. I don't think a version number can make it any less so.
Once a game is marked as complete, an author doesn't have as much ground to complain when an old review is made less relevant by subsequent patches. At least I think that is generally understood in the commercial world where reviews were in demand at the time by consumers wanting to know if they should buy the product on release-date. Not the reviewer's fault there that the developer didn't properly test their product before asking people to shell out for it. (But if you ask me, reviews of free games have less reason to exist than reviews of commercial games. There's too much emphasis in this community on being critical of each other's games imo when the proper emphasis should be on getting games to their target audiences)
Heartache 101 ~Sour into Sweet~ Review
But why is this even allowed? If the game is in testing, then obviously, there is going to be a version 0.80 or what-have-you before long. (Am I not updating frequently enough for that fact to be clear?) And how is the rating made to not apply or not apply as much when the game hits a later version?
Or are you saying that if I wanted to, I could pick on some project in an incomplete state that has whatever faults and issues it has, give it a mediocre rating and review based on that experience, and walk away with my misao points. Then, after the game is complete, and long after the faults and issues have been addressed by the developer, the game is stuck with that mediocre rating and review forever? (thus influencing potential players to pass it over)
Or are you saying that if I wanted to, I could pick on some project in an incomplete state that has whatever faults and issues it has, give it a mediocre rating and review based on that experience, and walk away with my misao points. Then, after the game is complete, and long after the faults and issues have been addressed by the developer, the game is stuck with that mediocre rating and review forever? (thus influencing potential players to pass it over)
Heartache 101 ~Sour into Sweet~ Review
Pages:
1
Games - Tester
Games - Other
