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 ListsCRYSTALGATE'S PROFILE
Crystalgate
694
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Ex-Stigma Link system
Are the characters you're linked with required to be in the party or even in the active battle formation for the links to work?
"Did no damage" - Problems balancing player gear/stats vs. enemies
The enemies can't hurt you because their attack is less than half of your defense. How much attack they should have depends on your defense and HP, not your attack.
Here's a quick help. If the target has no defense, it takes full damage (duh.) If the target has same defense as the attacker has attack, it takes half damage. If the defender has twice the defense than the attacker has attack, it takes no damage. For values between those examples, the damage will be somewhere between.
Your characters have a default +95% chance to hit via their classes. If the handaxe has a -10% chance to hit, that makes the accuracy 85%.
The guide you're using looks worthless to me. The author seem to have a poor grasp on how the stats work.
I may be able to help you with balance. I need more information though. How high do you want your character's stats to be at first level and end level, approximately that is?
Here's a quick help. If the target has no defense, it takes full damage (duh.) If the target has same defense as the attacker has attack, it takes half damage. If the defender has twice the defense than the attacker has attack, it takes no damage. For values between those examples, the damage will be somewhere between.
Your characters have a default +95% chance to hit via their classes. If the handaxe has a -10% chance to hit, that makes the accuracy 85%.
The guide you're using looks worthless to me. The author seem to have a poor grasp on how the stats work.
I may be able to help you with balance. I need more information though. How high do you want your character's stats to be at first level and end level, approximately that is?
Lunar Wish: Orbs of Fate Review
author=alterego
@Crystalgate: In your previous post you said: "I would never do that" and I thought: "I never implied that." And now you say: "I am trying to provide the readers with ample information with my reviews as well..." so I'm thinking that maybe you're taking this a bit too personally? This isn't about you. If you already do that with your reviews, then I don't care how you call it, I'm probably fine with it... But what about this review? Don't you think it could have been improved in some way? Or what about RyaRiesender's comment? Would you stand by a review of the first two minutes of a game? Do you really not see a problem with that approach?
I used myself as examples, but I do think my points apply to most people. Most people who are very subjective in their reviews (a group I think includes everyone including those who claim to be objective) will not go "0 out of 5 stars for not being the game I would have liked to play." I asked why I would do that, but why would anyone save a small minority do that, regardless of whether or not they are trying to be objective? I also don't think that giving information has jack shit to do with whether or not you're trying to be objective.
As for this review, it could maybe be improved, but I don't think it compares badly to most other reviews in this site.
I would not approve of a review after just two minutes playtime. I do however think Sated played long enough. I don't want an even remotedly strict minimum playtime requirement on reviews. The people who are likely to quit are those who didn't like the game, nobody's going to say "this was one of the most fun games I've played, but I couldn't stand it after two hours." Therefore, if you bar people who quit the game prior to a certain amount of time from reviewing the game, you will cause a bias towards making the game look better.
Lunar Wish: Orbs of Fate Review
author=Corfaisus
It's because our previous disagreement still holds as an influence over how you view others.
Now you're claiming that you know why I think in a certain way. Since you're telling me this, you're implying you know it better than I do. You're way to sure of yourself.
Lunar Wish: Orbs of Fate Review
author=alterego
@Crystalgate:In reply to your first point: That's not true. A review that aims to be "objective" does not make an attempt to tell you what to like about a game. It merely tries to provide you with ample and pertinent information so you can make your own mind; This is what I believe should be the core aspect of any review. In second place would be providing the developer with ideas that could help improve the game. And in third would be personal opinions and other "creative license" quirks.
But I mean, it's not like reviews are the only avenue available to you to provide feedback. To simply let a developer know what you liked about their game you could drop them a comment in their game profile...
Likewise, some of the broadest aspects of our exchange could be discussed elsewhere, so, sorry if I'm not replying to all your post.
I am trying to provide the readers with ample information with my reviews as well, even though I'm not trying to be objective when giving score and when telling what was good about a game and what wasn't. If you try to be objective, then you try to be objective. You can also try to provide ample and pertinent information, but I don't think that automatically follows by trying to be objective.
Let's assume I dislike a certain character in a certain game. She repeatedly has to be rescued and she gets into those situations by her own choices. There's no reason to try to be objective about my opinion of her since regardless of how poor opinion of her I present, the readers can decide for themselves if getting herself into situations that others then have to bail her out of really is that bad. How would trying to be more objective about my opinion help?
What's good and what's bad is an extremely subjective thing. If people describe what they like, I can usually follow what they are thinking and decide whether or not I agree. When people try to be objective, more often than not their own feelings will slip in anyway, now under the disguise of being objective. This just makes the review messy.
Both Sated and Corfaisus have recently reviewed this game. Having read trough both of them, I can't for the life of me see anything that would indicate Corfaisus' review being more objective. I just don't think trying to be objective about an extremely subjective matter works.
Lunar Wish: Orbs of Fate Review
author=alteregoIf they don't try to be objective, they will rate the game according to how much they liked the game. If they try to be objective as you said, they will instead rate the game according to how good the game is based on some other criteria. That other criteria will probably to a large extent be based on how much people should like the game and I'd rather see how much people actually likes the game.
Whoa! Whoa! What? ...While I understand that is to be expected, and even desirable in some cases, for a review to reflect the tastes and biases of its author; how can "objectivity" not be an ideal to some extent as well? And no, it's not about guessing what the average player would think of something and conform to that belief. It's about judging the game based on its own merits.
What "own merits" means, you may ask. Well, let's not pretend art/entertainment exists completely in a vacuum. We, as a species, have spent a great deal of our existence studying what makes art good, what makes music good, graphics, writing, etc. (All of which are "building blocks" of our games) It may not be an exact science but it is still a science. And while none of us may be experts on the matter, we at least have to make some effort to tap into this understanding - to have it in consideration when judging something.
That idea seems backwards to me. When you study what makes something good, I think you take what people think of it into account. Basically, the feedback a product receives is used to create the science. With your way however, we would instead base the feedback on the science. The more people who does that, the less feedback you have that can then be used to refine the science. The science seems more useful to me when you're making a game rather than when you're rating it.
If we stand for things be judged based entirely on tastes, what stops me from rating a game poorly based on my own misguided expectations of it? "0 out of 5 stars for not being the game I would have liked to play" Yeah, that would be really helpful...
I don't try to objective when scoring games, but I have never done what you just described. Why would I do that?
That said, the expectations of the players should count. If a lot of players have wrong expectations of the game, then it most likely means the game is erroneously advertised. In this case it's a good thing if that lowers the average score. This will accurately reflect what people who plays the game thinks of it since an erroneous advertisement means less satisfied customers.
Lunar Wish: Orbs of Fate Review
author=Corfaisus
Or you could just tell the truth. Perhaps this is valid with games like Wither and The Mirror Lied, but other things will simply be "what you see is what you get".
I'm not confident I understood what you just said, but I hope this will be relevant:
You look at events of a game and then make an interpretation of them. If you describe your interpretation, you're describing what you think is going on. If you make one interpretation, but then describe something else, you're willfully lying.
I can see a third option, you don't make an interpretation and instead describe every event that lead to your interpretation so the reader can think of it whatever they want. This is often not feasible unless you want your review to become a novel.
author=Corfaisus
When did I claim any of this? Of course the score should reflect the review, but the substance of the review should be entirely based on the merits of the game. Throwing this out makes any critique towards any one subject void.
If you can't rationally review a game, you shouldn't be reviewing in the first place.
What does "entirely based on the merits of the game" even mean? Any form of entertainment only entertains when it reaches to someone. They require out thoughts and emotions to really do something. No entertainment has any form of merit on it's own, the merit is based on what happens when it reaches a mind.
I'm also not sure what "rationally review" is supposed to mean. Well, if you spot a feature you think other people may like even though you didn't care much about it, then you should go ahead and describe said feature. Most of your review will be your take on the game though.
Lunar Wish: Orbs of Fate Review
author=Corfaisus
The problem that remains is that you didn't say exactly what happened and instead went for how you felt and what you assumed was going on, an experience that was wildly different than my own despite the fact that we played the same game, hence why I bothered quoting you in my first post. An incorrect or incomplete account of an actual happening does no one any good, surely you understand this?
He pretty clearly described the practical assessment, Tash killing someone else's pet and how callous Gummi was about her bodyguards being dead and ungrateful about being rescued. Those may not be perfectly accurate, but as far as I can tell they are close enough what happened. Also, a reviewer is always going to describe what he/she assumes is going on, the only way not to do so is to lie.
As I said before, while it is true that reviews will always have a little bit of you in them, you should try your hardest to make them as objective as possible.
You absolutely should not try to be objective when giving a score, doing so means you rate the according to what you believe the average player thinks of it and this is very bad since that belief can easily be wrong. As far as being objective when it comes to the information, my impression is that Sated genuinely thinks that this game is very generic in all categories except characters who he thinks are very bad. Is he supposed to start guessing what other people may think instead?
What do you call a "Great Mario Level"?
One thing I've often noticed in ROM hacks and SMBX levels is them lacking themes.
Let's take the desert world in SMB 3 as an example. There are multiple levels there with the desert theme. However, if you look at the maps, you should see that each of those levels while sharing the desert theme also has a unique theme on their own. Sometimes the theme is easily described, such as the level with multiple mini pyramids. Other times the theme is a type of obstacle that's repeated multiple times. Basically, the levels don't look like random platforming challenges stitched together.
This says nothing about challenges or such, but I feel that this part is what many people overlook.
Let's take the desert world in SMB 3 as an example. There are multiple levels there with the desert theme. However, if you look at the maps, you should see that each of those levels while sharing the desert theme also has a unique theme on their own. Sometimes the theme is easily described, such as the level with multiple mini pyramids. Other times the theme is a type of obstacle that's repeated multiple times. Basically, the levels don't look like random platforming challenges stitched together.
This says nothing about challenges or such, but I feel that this part is what many people overlook.
Breath of Fire 6 announced, but...what the fuck?
author=Liberty
Also, this guy makes a case. Dunno that I buy it but it's a case.
I don't think you can test the waters that way. The sales figures you get from a game that's called Breath of Fire, but isn't really Breath of Fire, isn't very useful to gouging the sales for a hypothetical title that actually is what the fans want. Solitayre's explanation makes more sense.
If they really want to test the waters, they can treat it as a niche game and give it a low budget. The thing with niche games is that they sell much less than mainstream games, but they are also way cheaper to make.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
