I had to focus a lot on replayability, since there wasn't enough time to add much content. I hope I've addicted at least some of you. 

Yeah, good job!

I dunno. The trailer looked very nice. I'd probably see it.

Mark your calendars!

That was kind of my plan, actually. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who would like VBB to have more... stuff.

Judging by the comments on this thread, posting it obviously wasn't a good idea. If I've offended anyone, then I apologize. That was never my intent; I only wanted to give advice that I had hoped would be useful.

If a mod could lock this thread, that would be great.


PS: If you did want my thoughts on your game, PM me.

One thing I really have to say: Wasn't the whole point of 8-bit Gun Tales that it had precise collision detection? Hanging off platforms by your nose/barrel and sniping enemies was sweet.

That was a nice feature, but to avoid other collision problems, masks should have been used.

The main character's mask should look something like this (Warning: Bad ASCII art)

WWWWWWWWW
WWWW
WWWW

In other words, it should be one large rectangle with a smaller rectangle jutting out. When the character reverses directions, it should flip around the center of the larger triangle, to avoid getting stuck in walls.

Finally, whenever the player reversed directions, it would need to check whether the gun's barrel would end up getting stuck in the wall. If that was the case, the character should back up without changing direction.


Also, if you're standing on the same platform as an enemy, you should be able to shoot it. Please, either make those laser boxes taller, or make the bullets larger (or make them create shock waves that kill all enemies nearby).


Those two simple changes are, in my opinion, the only major factors holding back 8Bit Gun Tales.

Which is fine, and totally appropriate for, say, the Feedback forum.

Perhaps this thread would fit better there?

Well, 8-Bit Gun Tales was probably a little overly-ambitious for a first project. But, with some work, it could still turn out very well in the end. Better collisions and more well-designed enemies would be a huge improvement.

There! I've clarified and lengthened all my reviews, so hopefully that will put your minds at ease!

I agree that my game wasn't very inovative, but could you have put a little more effort into finding something to say about it?

Basically, it just didn't do anything differently from any other top-down shooter. The graphics were nice, but besides that, nothing separated it from the pack.

If you haven't played through it thinking it was just going to stick you with illogical/boring puzzles, do give it a try.  If you did play through it, I'd still appreciate some feedback from a non adventure game fan for things that you think would make it more fun for you since I'm all about shaking up the genre!

I'd like to say that HBB was pretty good compared to many of the adventure games I've tried, so I will attempt to finish it some day. One general criticism I have of adventure games, though, is that there tend to be a lot of controls for accomplishing relatively simple actions. For example, you could probably get by with just the Eye and Hand buttons; the Feet and Mouth buttons could easily be combined with the other two.

That's kinda my point... you're not posting reviews, you're posting your opinions.  And yes, it is possible to be more objective in reviewing something.  Good, useful reviews don't just say "it was great" or "it was boring."  Check my review of your game again... I didn't enjoy it all that much, but I would still rate it decently.

I never stopped at just saying a game was "great" or "boring". I always provided a reason for why I felt the way I did, so don't accuse me of doing the opposite.

Now, the way I see it, when reviewers try to be objective, they generally just try to say what the public wants to hear. They might think, "I don't really like this, but I should, because I'll bet everyone else does (or at least my peers do)." I don't think that's a good method for evaluating anything. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I, on the other hand, make reviews solely based on my personal experiences. I don't know of any reliable criteria for evaluating a game objectively, nor do I think there are any. The only way I trust myself to give a fair review is to simply state my opinion, honestly and unfiltered.

Of course, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I'm just one voice out of billions. So, if you disagree with any of my reviews, please post your own. If more people share their honest opinions, we will all have a much better idea of what people like and dislike about our work, and how we can improve.

My point is you can't rate a game on "fun" alone.

Why not? Though 'fun' may be a nebulous concept, it's still the primary reason why most of us play games.

Hmm. I'm not sure that comments like, "It didn't look all that exciting anyway," "Unreliable collision detection hurts an already unexceptional game," and "Didn't seem that great anyway" are especially constructive.

True... true. I'll clarify my positions. Thanks for pointing those out to me.

Erm... pachinko in real life is random, but I made a conscious choice to use a deterministic physics engine.

I expected the pachinko in the game to function like pachinko in real life, which is why I made this assumption. I didn't have time to extensively test the game (or most of them, for that matter), so I may have missed a few details like this. Sorry about that.

(I still played long enough to get a good ending, though)

Honestly, I think one-line reviews leave way too much information out, although I appreciate you trying all the games. I guess my main complaint is that this doesn't feel like "constructive criticism," and instead focuses more on the subjectivity of your tastes.

I agree that longer review would be better, but that doesn't mean short reviews are useless. I'll add to them when I find time.

But it's not about poking the items! It's about discovering the Secret of Software 64!

(Now I destroy any traces of reason by invoking Godwin's law)

It's ART! You are saying you don't like ART?!?
In the end, you are no different from the nazis that burnt books...

(seriously now: thanks for the review, negative or not)

Sure thing. And I can see why some people would like SoS64; I just don't enjoy that sort of gameplay.

Not to mention rating something on "fun" alone is not very objective.  It's totally subjective to your personal taste.

Of course it is. There's no such thing as an objective review. I'm just posting my opinions, and you're free to disagree with them.

Considering most of the entries constitute early works or demos, I think that you completely ignored the "potential" side of things.

'Potential' is even more subjective than 'Fun'. In any case, I'm rating the games as they are right now. If, several months from now, the game turns out to be incredible, I can write up a more positive review.

For instance, I found some of the *not very fun* games on your list to be quite fun, and vice versa.

Perhaps I should clarify. I meant *not very fun for me*.

--------------
*Not Very Fun*
I found that all I had to do to rack up kills was find the "sweet spot" of a level and just sit there spamming the bazooka repeatedly.
--------------

But to continue on:
I did find that there was a lot of good in it as well.  The controls were  very fluid and responsive, which is always a plus.  The spritework was very good.  The number of secondary weapons added variety to the gameplay (until I found the aforementioned sweet-spot).  The backgrounds could use some work, as could the level design, but overall it was a pretty good and solid game and I would give it an above average rating... even though I didn't enjoy it all that much, and even though I'm not a fan of the genre.

I'd love to edit the reviews and give more positive feedback when I have time, but writing 48 separate reviews isn't easy, so I kept them short. I only had time to list one or two of my biggest complaints, before I went on to the next game.

Even a one-sentence review can be very helpful, though. With a single statement, you've told me that lack of game balance and poor level design choices were the biggest problems with my game and fixing those issues are top priorities after the competition ends.

Nightshade casts: Fire Shield (Red)!

My only pet peeve is with the general description for the "Somewhat Fun" category. You say "[...] but they weren't worth playing more than once or twice."

Yet for a few games, you mention that don't like the game type or couldn't understand what was going on. That doesn't seem to coincide with the point whether a game is replayable or not.

Fair enough. 'Fun' is hard to quantify, and I was just trying to help you see where I was coming from. I'll make the description clearer.

Heh, I did a similar write-up on my blog (though I have some 5 games left), and while there are some notable differences we seem to be in general agreement.

I've been following it for the last few days. Great job!

I also think employing XNA is pushing the rules somewhat; while I don't think there should be a rule against using it there should definitely be a recommendation against making something requiring uncommon software configurations (that is, anything beyond flash, and possibly Java).

I didn't give them a bad rating. I couldn't give them any rating at all, because I couldn't play them. I'm sure many of them are fine games, and if I somehow get hold of a better computer in the next few days, I'll post reviews.

I find these reviews to be kind of mean-spirited and nit-picky.

I'm just trying to help people improve their games. If I gave a game a low rating, I tried to explain why I didn't like it, so that the developer knew where I would like to see improvement.

I'm not really surprised, actually, since "very fun" games are incredibly rare. Those are games so exceptional that they are worth playing again and again, even after the competition ends. They have the 'x-factor' that elevates them above other games.

And by the way, I included Viking Bazooka Bloodbath in the "very fun" category as a joke, since that was my own entry, and I'm a little biased. I hope it really is "very fun", though.

I don't have anything against joke games, per se. Most joke games just don't have very good gameplay (and that particular joke game wasn't very funny either).

It took me a split second to tell whether a human was male or female, which made scanning the ground for women a little more difficult than it should have been. Perhaps you could make the women a little lighter and the men a little darker (or vice versa).

Edited out due to popular demand...

I was planning on making priests who attack with beams of holy light, similar to your laser, but much slower. Unfortunately, I ran out of time. If only I didn't have to go on that silly vacation...