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 ListsFREDO'S PROFILE
fredo
170
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Forever's End Review
How do you mean? I tried to be fair to both, but it's really hard to distinguish the gut feelings from the objective stuff. At the end of the day, Forever's End kept me coming back, and I could feel safe recommending it to other players. Edifice, on the other hand, felt like a chore to play at times. I feel like the scores reflect that. Maybe I was a little bit more clement in the area per area score.
My standard, as stated in the Edifice review, is that 3/5 is average. Ultimately, I feel like every individual part of this game is average to barely above average. I feel like my explanations reflect that (noting both the familiarity and ease of the setting as well as its over-reliance on cliche, the competence of the mapping versus the underdesigned and overfamiliar look of the game due to the rips, and the straightforward playability compared to the unnecessary features, and so on). The total score reflects what some reviewers single out as the "tilt" - that drives that keeps you playing and keeps you having a good time that isn't represented in the other scores. To me, Forever's End could not have more tilt. I completed the game in a very short time because it kept me coming back - I was intrigued to see the world, intrigued to move the plot forward, so on and so forth. I could think of friends that I would recommend this to strongly.
I feel like most players could get something out of this. I didn't feel that way with Edifice. Maybe I didn't explain why I preferred one over the other properly, or maybe we just differ in tastes. That being said, I do want to be a fair reviewer and maybe I'm not expressing myself very well (or maybe I am, in fact, being patently unfair). I'd love to get your insight as to what you think the difference is. I feel like review-writing is something that can be improved, just like gamemaking and I do want to improve.
My standard, as stated in the Edifice review, is that 3/5 is average. Ultimately, I feel like every individual part of this game is average to barely above average. I feel like my explanations reflect that (noting both the familiarity and ease of the setting as well as its over-reliance on cliche, the competence of the mapping versus the underdesigned and overfamiliar look of the game due to the rips, and the straightforward playability compared to the unnecessary features, and so on). The total score reflects what some reviewers single out as the "tilt" - that drives that keeps you playing and keeps you having a good time that isn't represented in the other scores. To me, Forever's End could not have more tilt. I completed the game in a very short time because it kept me coming back - I was intrigued to see the world, intrigued to move the plot forward, so on and so forth. I could think of friends that I would recommend this to strongly.
I feel like most players could get something out of this. I didn't feel that way with Edifice. Maybe I didn't explain why I preferred one over the other properly, or maybe we just differ in tastes. That being said, I do want to be a fair reviewer and maybe I'm not expressing myself very well (or maybe I am, in fact, being patently unfair). I'd love to get your insight as to what you think the difference is. I feel like review-writing is something that can be improved, just like gamemaking and I do want to improve.
Edifice - A Slightly Less Decrepit Version Review
author=Craze
I am currently strongly thinking about renovating characters, but I... don't get your comments about individual skills being too complex. Like, really? And you liked Arian Wild?
Well, the thing is, I feel like a lot of skills have multiple effects that aren't synergistic in a "logical" sense. I mean, it could make sense that I would want all these effects into skill, but it always feels like a random amalgamation. I never go "OH, this is why this all comes together in one ability!" For example, Tundra and Neuroshock make sense to me. The status effects seem like a logical followup (though it would make more sense if Tundra was called cryosleep or something, but sleep and ice are often paired together). On the other hand, both HP absorbing abilities, for example, had really bizarre attached status effects that left me going "Why would these come together? What do I gain from having silence on here?" and I never remembered that silence came attached and would occasionally just go "Huh, did that just silence that guy?" I guess it's more of a name-effect disconnect than a true "too complex" issue - it's only complex in that the name of the skill has no relation to its effect and so the secondary effects feel randomly tacked on.
I thought Arian Wild was better on this level. There were still a couple skills that had a ton of bizarre effects packed together, but it was easier to remember what they all were and find use for them all (maybe because you would get used to a party and learn their skills)
I think part of the issue is that if the game had a slower learning curve, I could get used to what all the abilities do, and find niche uses for the weird extras tacked on to the abilities. When they're all thrown in together, I'm just sort of like "For the love of God, all I want is a basic ice spell. Why does everything have 15 effects?!" Maybe that's why Arian Wild and In Praise of Peace worked better for me on those levels - I had time to grow accustomed to my abilities before more were thrown in.
Wow, long post. Sorry. Hopefully it's helpful.
BTW, I am subscribed to this game. I will gladly rereview/update this review when there has been a game update. I think there's a lot of potential here. I am looking forward to your revisions.
Edifice - A Slightly Less Decrepit Version Review
I intend to revise when a major revision comes out. I wouldn't have reviewed it at all if I weren't interested enough in the project to do that.
I grouped atmosphere with plot in order to avoid having a 0/5 score on games that don't rely on plot. I think games with little to no plot rely on atmosphere to create the same basic drive in the player - that feeling that keeps you wanting to play more to see what's next.
Edit: You do make a good point about the slick battle UI. I hadn't stopped to think about it. But then, I don't care much for the menu UI, so maybe they even each other out?
I grouped atmosphere with plot in order to avoid having a 0/5 score on games that don't rely on plot. I think games with little to no plot rely on atmosphere to create the same basic drive in the player - that feeling that keeps you wanting to play more to see what's next.
Edit: You do make a good point about the slick battle UI. I hadn't stopped to think about it. But then, I don't care much for the menu UI, so maybe they even each other out?
To Arms! Review
I felt like the game was quite enjoyable, despite some flaws, but I can definitely agree with Solitayre on the issue of evasion. Frankly, I never felt like Rhea and Cutjack (or the Archers) evaded more than others, because the enemies were constantly evading anyway. I don't think I ever went through a full round of battle without at least one or two misses.
Now, I get that the game is balanced with that in mind, but it drove me nuts and made me want to break things. I would definitely fix that.
Now, I get that the game is balanced with that in mind, but it drove me nuts and made me want to break things. I would definitely fix that.
Pages:
1
Games - Tester
Games - Other
