next »

[Soulliard]

Edited out due to popular demand...

[Melly]

Great Magic of the Deep
The third level is, as far as I can tell, nearly impossible and entirely luck-based. If there's some secret I'm missing, I don't have the patience to find it.

The third screen is unbeatable, and meant to be so.

You seem to have something against joke games.

[Soulliard]

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).

[Mr. Yes]

Nice reviews, though kind of short. Sort of disappointing though that only two of them are in the "very fun" category.

[Soulliard]

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.

[Baltirow]

Great effort!

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.

[Saint]

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 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).

[Corpus]

Hmn, yeah, 8bit Gun Tales seemed to me like it had potential but also like it ultimately didn't deliver on that potential. I believe it's still being worked on, though, so hopefully it'll be improved.

My main gripe with it was the downright odd enemy placement, particularly in the case of those flat little things that sit on ledges and shoot at you. They're not on line with the direction of your shooting, so you have to jump up and down in front of them and try to time your shots perfectly just to hit them. I don't understand why the creator did this. Also, you can't actually tell whether or not your bullets are hitting enemies; there's no visual clue.

Another problem was that, when you balanced on an edge using your barrel and then turned to face in the other direction, you became stuck in the ledge. (An easy solution to this would be to have the player turn about the centre of the gun's "body" and legs, rather than the centre of the whole sprite).

I guess I should write this in the game's actual thread.

[Chris Whitman]

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

[Saint]

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

I would agree that Nightshade could've used some nicer words in certain cases (and maybe put up a special category for games he didn't like because of their genre), but even so I don't think the action of doing even poor reviews should be discouraged. I don't think Nightshade wrote this just to be mean to the competition.

When reading a comment on something you've done, you have to be able to use your own judgment to decide whether there is some merit to the claim and how the collective comments stack up against your vision and your development experience. Or in short; your reaction to his comments is your choice and not his.

[deadeye]

Considering most of the entries constitute early works or demos, I think that you completely ignored the "potential" side of things.  Not to mention rating something on "fun" alone is not very objective.  It's totally subjective to your personal taste.  For instance, I found some of the *not very fun* games on your list to be quite fun, and vice versa.  It's okay to mention whether you enjoyed it or not, but that shouldn't be your sole criteria for categorizing things.

And things like "I'm not a fan of the genre" don't really belong in reviews.  Again, it's about being objective.

Just to prove my point about how useless these kinds of reviews are, I'll review Viking Bazooka Bloodbath in your style:

--------------
*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.

[Chris Whitman]

Or in short; your reaction to his comments is your choice and not his.

Or, in short, I'm just going to walk this way and spin my arms, and if you happen to be standing in the way, it's your fault.

[Saint]

Or, in short, I'm just going to walk this way and spin my arms, and if you happen to be standing in the way, it's your fault.

Fine, I was naïve in implying that it's never the aggressor's fault when someone is offended, what I meant was simply that it's easier to ignore poor feedback than to learn from no feedback at all.

And if you disagree with Nightshade's position the least you can do is explain why, like deadeye just did, otherwise you're not exactly helping either.

[Daniel Benmergui]

Secret of Software 64
I don't like this style of game. Puzzles ought to have at least some logic behind them, instead of just requiring you to poke every object with every item in sight until something works.

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)

[dustin]

Thanks for writing all this up!  I know it must have taken a long time and would love to see reviews from anyone else who has them .

edit: Also, thanks saint for writing up all those reviews in your blog.  I'm glad you both could get my game to work.

[Noyb]

Shameful Pachinko Romance
Pachinko is boring, since it's almost entirely random.

Erm... pachinko in real life is random, but I made a conscious choice to use a deterministic physics engine. So if you drop a ball in the same spot multiple times, it'll end up in the same place every time, which was part of the reason why I made the player keep returning to the center after every drop. You can even see my thematic justification in the epilogue/poem when you quit through the menu. I can understand if you don't think it's fun, since I probably gave the player too many balls for each playthrough, and whether or not you actually get a good ending early on seems to affect what you think of the game. I included a full explanation of the gameplay mechanics in the readme for people who think it's random, which isn't everyone. But saying that it's random just tells me that you didn't play it much at all. 

In Saint's review, which while also negative I find more fair, he has the completely opposite complaint of too much determinism. (Btw, I'm not quite sure what GDI graphics refers to.)

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.

[Soulliard]

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.

[Corpus]

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.

[Soulliard]

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.

[Soulliard]

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.