woootbm's YT channel: hard critiques on RPG Maker games

[woootbm]

Hey, thanks for playin' my game.
Ya'll made it really entertaining, and a lot of the feedback will be super helpful.
F/F+, alright, better than Treasonous Tom, if nothing else.
(Also, thanks for actually paying attention to skill descriptions and such!)

Hey, don't sell yourself short. You also beat Radolf, Hate Free Heroes, and Creamsoda! But I did feel some kind of inkling playing this. Maybe with time and growing you can put something good out there! Thanks for being a good sport!

Oh, I forgot to warn everyone about the amount of rambling me and Tony do in this one. It's like half the video Sorry!

 

[woootbm]

Another dev log, yo:



Not much to say here, already talked about this in status posts. Just kinda showing something I've been working on, really.

If there's any takeaway for dev/design philosophy, it's to encourage folks to DO STUFF in their game. Don't just give me default skills and poorly edited dialogue. There's still plenty of things you can build with this tool.

 

[woootbm]

Another review! And we're takin' on the big dogs again as we ask "Is it RPG Maker?" with "Battle Chasers: Nightwar."



Apparently it isn't! But you coulda fooled me with these game design choices. Lesson learned. If you want to succeed, just have god-tier art design and a cult classic comic fan base willing to throw their money at your crowdfunding page and you got it! Easy!

 

[RCXGaming]

Another review! And we're takin' on the big dogs again as we ask "Is it RPG Maker?" with "Battle Chasers: Nightwar."



Apparently it isn't! But you coulda fooled me with these game design choices. Lesson learned. If you want to succeed, just have god-tier art design and a cult classic comic fan base willing to throw their money at your crowdfunding page and you got it! Easy!

Finally took the time to watch this (and Sea of Stars in greater depth). I might get a little heated for odd reasons.

Spoiler: Battler Chasers

This is the biggest budget game you've covered on the stream so far, isn't it? It's kind of insane how much talent is behind it, with all of the gorgeous art... and then I see you play the actual game.

I genuinely lost interest after you fought the third slime, since it was like... damn, this is really what people think is JRPG gameplay, huh? Strip the game's art and fancy 3D graphics away and you wind up with a game that could easily be replicated by people on the forum here.

The major sins I noticed were:
* Your auto attack is so useful it eclipses everything else, and the game encourages you to just spam it for extra Overcharge. Like what's even the point of attacks that use the MP meter?

* Related: The enemies are uniform blobs of stats that can all be beaten more or less the same way - status effects didn't seem to be much of a factor, and the amount of times you fought the exact same troop of like, one easy enemy that gets killed in three turns of auto attacking is kind of hilarious in a disturbing way.

* The big robot guy you have doesn't feel like a big robot guy with a gatling gun arm. It felt like you could swap his sprite out with a human character and nothing would really change? I think it'd make the game far more interesting if he had special defenses, but the enemies are built around that so they aren't just doing boring regular attacks?

* The... enemy encounters... are literally just spots you walk onto on a linear map. Not very interactable.

* Couldn't parse what was going on worth a damn. Is this one of those "read the lore logs to know what's going on" type of games?

Spoiler: Mini-rant about turn-based combat

Tony says something about turn-based combat at around 1:20:00+ when you guys are grading the gameplay, and it's like... Turn based combat can in fact go very far.

But the issue is that a large majority of developers don't know how to make it engaging. You could make it so it's in real time (ATB or whatever other system) and throw in all the little gimmicks you want like Overcharge, but the issue is that nobody understands encounter design.

Nobody understands why the basic attack being the best option is a bad thing, or how to to force the player to experiment.

Turn based combat is at its best when every single turn can be used to make a significant decision, where you have to weave through a mini-maze of obstacles, traps, counters and whatever else that prevent you from just pressing enter to victory.

Every new encounter is meant to bring something different to the table instead of mashing the attack command to dispatch an enemy that you already beat up half an hour ago. Is kinda why RPG bosses usually wind up being big boring damage sponges, since the encounters before them didn't teach the player anything and thus the gameplay is just a stat check.

Look at Kingdom Hearts gameplay discourse and you'll see the same problem even applies to action games: if you aren't often thrown into specific situations where using your other skills are better than just mashing attack or healing every other turn, then it causes the same problem as turn based:

Big damage sponge enemy that you wail against with minimal interactivity + defensive gameplay where you're never in danger of dying.

But at least action games you can move around and stuff, whereas turn-based NEEDS that action economy.

... And this isn't even touching what happens out of combat, where you're lucky if there's things to do on the overworld + the dungeon even has basic puzzles.

The fact a bigger budget game like Battle Chasers doesn't even attempt encounter design beyond the bare basics is kind of mind-bending.

Spoiler: Sea of Stars

This one's pixel style is far more to my taste (not a fan of the grittier comic book style Battle Chasers has), but... oh. I've heard about this one way before you guys ever covered it on stream in the form of youtube essayists talking it up as "the next Chrono Trigger".

The huge problem here is that it's not even remotely close. Yeah, Sea of Stars may look nice, but...

Spoiler: rant 2

For one, the pacing is inexcusable. One second you're traveling around as adult Zale, fight exactly two encounters and then you get dragged into a 50+ minute backstory. Like what the ****? The game couldn't open with this, for one?

More importantly, it violates the number one rule of Chrono Trigger - don't overindulge in your writing. The reason the story in Chrono works is because it's extremely economical - no navel gazing, no extraneous lore dumping, the characters say their piece and that's it - no 15 minute long conversations trying to enlighten the viewer about the daily life of a boblin or how the Evil Kingdom is going to destroy the world or anything stupid like that.

In fact, the only reason there's even lore in that game to begin with is because you (the player) and the characters are trying to piece together what's happening just based on what you're seeing around you. Helps that you're after a single goal that motivates the characters throughout the entire thing.

Sea of Stars, though, constantly throws out terms like the Dweller of Woe and The Fleshmancer before you're even out of the prologue, and it's like... thanks, but none of this means anything without proper context that you see with your own eyes.

It's also the typical RPG verboseness that I hate, like shut up and get to the next setpiece already.

The things I do like though are:
* The action commands where you can press buttons to block and attack again. Those can never go wrong, but I do think it's a bit wonky here. Maybe it'd be good to have a "defending" symbol for enemies as an accessibility feature you can turn off or on?

* The shield system where you need to use certain skills on the enemy to break their shield or charge up or something? I have a few encounters like that in the works.

* The mechanic where actors get back up on their own, but if they keep dying it'll take longer? That's pretty neat.

* The verticality of the levels is pretty cool, as well as that you can freely fall down ledges.

Not a fan of how the first real boss went on for much longer than it should have. It seemed like you did everything you could with it in the first three turns or so until it decided to show a 4-button variation of the moon barrier thing near the end.

It definitely needed more interactivity with your skills than just needing to use a moon attack + regular attacking it over and over again, to be honest.

 

[alice_gristle]

@RCXGaming always glad to see somebody is on the same page as me when it comes to writin' Makes me feel less like a delusional madwoman in the attic!

 

[woootbm]

Oh boy! Time for many words!

I genuinely lost interest after you fought the third slime, since it was like... damn, this is really what people think is JRPG gameplay, huh?

It is what I think of when it comes to JRPG gameplay

Your auto attack is so useful it eclipses everything else, and the game encourages you to just spam it for extra Overcharge.

I think if you stop and do the math it's worthwhile. But definitely the numbers upfront aren't exciting (IE 10% haste? Does this even do enough to affect the turn order?). I know I cut it pretty close with numbers myself, but I show enemy health so it's easier to notice "Oh, this stronger move will one shot them."

The enemies are uniform blobs of stats that can all be beaten more or less the same way

I tend to think of people saying "you have to get X hours into it before..." and that applies here. Perhaps if I had invested 20 hours into the game the enemies would be more interesting. I just don't have the time or faith for that.

The big robot guy you have doesn't feel like a big robot guy with a gatling gun arm.

I'm guessing this is the comic's fault. Like... he's SO massive. And there seems to be some kinda subversion of expectations going on. The little girl is the tankiest character by design. On top of that, we got the "everyone is COOL" design philosophy here. Writing philosophy generally dictates people have flaws but that kinda gets stomped on when everyone is trying to avoid going below an established amount of cool.

Tony says something about turn-based combat at around 1:20:00+ when you guys are grading the gameplay, and it's like... Turn based combat can in fact go very far.

This is a Tony thing and not a me thing. I've always been into turn-based stuff. Maybe because my dad taught me chess at a very young age. I have a high appreciation for taking time to consider your next move. I can't think of a JRPG that did this well, but certainly CRPG's and stuff like XCOM. No movement is harder to design, but definitely possible. I played this crappy P2W Marvel Avengers game on Facebook a while ago and I think that got me excited for JRPG style turn-based. Of all things! P2W licensed social game garbage!

but the issue is that nobody understands encounter design.

First encounter: 2 bats. Second encounter? 3 bats! Ooooooh.

Yeah, RPGM games basically get a 0 for encounter design a lot of the time. Insane to see the same thing happening here.

I try to do this thing where I introduce enemy abilities slowly, and then you see how they pair together to mess you up. And then I don't use those same enemies in the next area (or if I do it's either a new version or something that I want to pair with new enemies). I don't think this really shows in my current demo until the last couple fights, and even then it's not too strong. Kinda babying the player through the intro and all. But at least there's an inkling within the first hour, instead of making the player get through 5-30 hours of garbage.

The fact a bigger budget game like Battle Chasers doesn't even attempt encounter design beyond the bare basics is kind of mind-bending.

To defend them a bit from what I recall playing long ago, I think they just lean into their attrition mechanics. The dungeon is really long, and you have to be smart about managing HP/MP to get to the end. So at least there's some kind of system the player is engaging in. Not enough to hold me, though.

The reason the story in Chrono works is because it's extremely economical

Hm, maybe I should actually play this sometime. Maybe it could be a "Is it RPG Maker?" episode, ha!

Maybe it'd be good to have a "defending" symbol for enemies as an accessibility feature you can turn off or on?

I found one item that gave "more feedback" as a means of QoL. I think I did some research and there's more stuff you can unlock like this. Pretty weird choice to time gate this stuff and also subtly make the player feel like a cheater for using them. Should have just made them an option! And default on at that.

* The mechanic where actors get back up on their own, but if they keep dying it'll take longer? That's pretty neat.

Yeah, I thought that was pretty cool. I could see some tense fights where you are barely hanging on and keep coming back, heh.

It definitely needed more interactivity with your skills than just needing to use a moon attack + regular attacking it over and over again, to be honest.

Welllll maybe if I played for another 20 hours...

@RCXGaming always glad to see somebody is on the same page as me when it comes to writin' Makes me feel less like a delusional madwoman in the attic!

Me and Tony are always saying things like "Stop wasting my time!" and "Cut this down" and "Too much back and forth" in (it feels like) every episode. So we definitely agree, haha!

 

[bgillisp]

I do have a question: 2 bats first encounter 3 bats 2nd encounter IS often introducing it slowly too. So how is that different than what you say you are doing (unless you are just making a stab at early enemies only having attack)? If you go too slow players will say the same thing you just said there as you'll still be repeating a lot of the same encounters over and over.

BUT...some also need the continual reenforcement as well. Some will get it fast, but some will not. So while it might seem similar, continually reenforcing it can work well too for those who are slower to get it, or for those coming back from a while of not playing.

 

[RCXGaming]

Oh boy! Time for many words!

I mean isn't that half the fun of being part of a forum?

I think if you stop and do the math it's worthwhile. But definitely the numbers upfront aren't exciting (IE 10% haste? Does this even do enough to affect the turn order?). I know I cut it pretty close with numbers myself, but I show enemy health so it's easier to notice "Oh, this stronger move will one shot them."

I went and edited Galv's Battle Info Window to not say how much the damage numbers will inflict directly (since I feel it's already enough to see how much HP the enemy has), instead it works like:

• If damage == 0: "None"
• else if damage < mhp * 0.10: "Low"
• else if damage >= mhp * 0.10 && damage <= mhp * 0.40: "Decent"
• else if damage > mhp * 0.40: "High"
• else if damage >= mhp: "Lethal"

... As well as having other checks if the attack is a recovery move, the enemy absorbs the element of your attack, or deals damage to MP instead. It's immediate feedback before you pull the trigger so you don't have to waste a turn guessing if the attack will even do anything.

I tend to think of people saying "you have to get X hours into it before..." and that applies here. Perhaps if I had invested 20 hours into the game the enemies would be more interesting. I just don't have the time or faith for that.

Pretty sure there's been a ton of threads or at least posts here about opening up strong and showing the player what to expect from the first fifteen minutes. The "x amount of hours until the real fun begins" defense just gets worse and worse as the years go by.

If a game you (not literally you, woootbm) like functions on "it gets better later on", the most you can do is not expect them to enjoy it the same way as you.

I'm guessing this is the comic's fault. Like... he's SO massive. And there seems to be some kinda subversion of expectations going on. The little girl is the tankiest character by design. On top of that, we got the "everyone is COOL" design philosophy here. Writing philosophy generally dictates people have flaws but that kinda gets stomped on when everyone is trying to avoid going below an established amount of cool.

Ah yes, the dreaded problem of "expectation subversion". Wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

This is a Tony thing and not a me thing. I've always been into turn-based stuff. Maybe because my dad taught me chess at a very young age. I have a high appreciation for taking time to consider your next move. I can't think of a JRPG that did this well, but certainly CRPG's and stuff like XCOM. No movement is harder to design, but definitely possible. I played this crappy P2W Marvel Avengers game on Facebook a while ago and I think that got me excited for JRPG style turn-based. Of all things! P2W licensed social game garbage!

Curious. What did it even do different? Because my expectations are below the floor for anything mobile or stuff on social media websites.

First encounter: 2 bats. Second encounter? 3 bats! Ooooooh.

Yeah, RPGM games basically get a 0 for encounter design a lot of the time. Insane to see the same thing happening here.

I try to do this thing where I introduce enemy abilities slowly, and then you see how they pair together to mess you up. And then I don't use those same enemies in the next area (or if I do it's either a new version or something that I want to pair with new enemies). I don't think this really shows in my current demo until the last couple fights, and even then it's not too strong. Kinda babying the player through the intro and all. But at least there's an inkling within the first hour, instead of making the player get through 5-30 hours of garbage.

A lot of my game design is building mechanics on top of each other. First an easy example where the player isn't in much real danger or won't waste much time, like a single enemy who has a mechanic like a regenerating shield that only takes 1 damage from anything that isn't electric... but it pops after a hit.

Then I throw that same enemy into a group with other enemies whose mechanics are also established. That other enemy can perma-petrify one of your characters for the fight if you don't kill them in time, so it becomes a balancing act of who to go after first. And so on, with many other examples.

This happens from moment one from the first battle, so it's a philosophy that applies to the entire game and not after a "certain point". Though I would make the first few battles easy enough that it doesn't completely crush unprepared players... I'm not exactly making Dark Souls here.

Hm, maybe I should actually play this sometime. Maybe it could be a "Is it RPG Maker?" episode, ha!

Probably. The only other critiques I can think of is that Chrono Trigger is pretty easy and that it's held back by its age as a 90s era SNES RPG. (It displays a prompt on the top of the screen when enemies do something crazy like a counter or a big attack, but it's nothing like having access to tooltips. Also there's no HP bar for enemies.)

Its bosses punish you for trying to mash the attack command, but the regular enemies themselves aren't really much of a threat for most of the adventure. But at the very least you can duck and weave through enemy encounters since they're all on the map.

I found one item that gave "more feedback" as a means of QoL. I think I did some research and there's more stuff you can unlock like this. Pretty weird choice to time gate this stuff and also subtly make the player feel like a cheater for using them. Should have just made them an option! And default on at that.

???

They hid... an accessibility feature... through a key item???

I'd reserve that for a difficulty slider, not a basic feature of the game! I already thought it was weird when Pokemon Sword and Shield hid their volume options through a headphone key item.

--

TLDR; Good stream, glad I caught it.

 

[woootbm]

I do have a question: 2 bats first encounter 3 bats 2nd encounter IS often introducing it slowly too. So how is that different than what you say you are doing (unless you are just making a stab at early enemies only having attack)? If you go too slow players will say the same thing you just said there as you'll still be repeating a lot of the same encounters over and over.

BUT...some also need the continual reenforcement as well. Some will get it fast, but some will not. So while it might seem similar, continually reenforcing it can work well too for those who are slower to get it, or for those coming back from a while of not playing.

What is there to learn from 2 bats vs 3 bats? That sometimes there's 3 enemies? More enemies means more damage? It's the same enemy three times, and one that is so weak it just wastes as much time as it takes to press attack.

I do start pretty slow myself. But part of that is because I have a lot of systems for players to mess around with out the gate so I want them to have a moment to experiment freely. Still, the enemies do present basic differences that reinforce some concepts of the game. The first fight is just one enemy, but it has a buff. You can check it out and see it gives resistance to physical. If you take too many turns to kill it, your ally gently scolds you for taking too long. If you experiment, you should find you have an energy attack that ignores the resistance, or scan him for an instant kill weakness.

The next fight is this same guy plus another enemy who is easier to kill but deals more damage and is faster. Incredibly basic, but hopefully gets the ball rolling on the player thinking about different options and target prioritization. Eventually you fight an alpha who can give extra turns to his allies, but is otherwise weak. I also have some super weak enemies who can be killed by a regular attack, too. All of it is super basic and just done with base stats, but hopefully guides the player into the right mindset. Also you get a chance to see how you take damage pretty fast but you get a full recover on fight completion. Which is good to know before I start throwing "kill or be killed" fights at you.

I can see the argument that Battle Chasers was doing the same thing of letting me learn the mechanics. But I skipped like 90% of the fights and it was still this slow, man.

Curious. What did it even do different? Because my expectations are below the floor for anything mobile or stuff on social media websites.

Admittedly, most of the fun was in system design, not combat, like a lot of turn-based RPG's. In this case, collecting heroes and maxing them out and all that.

For combat, it threw a lot of complexity at you:

Unfortunately being a dead game I'm struggling to find stuff on the internet that showcases some of the more interesting characters. But heroes had a lot of passives and their attacks had a lot of debuffs, buffs, interactions... it was pretty bonkers since it had like a hundred characters and each one had their own skills. And technically there wasn't even a basic attack. Usually the 1st slot was something very simple (or... a basic attack, heh) but it still cost mana to use. On top of that, you had a custom character who built out their 4 skills from a selection of weapons so your team just felt super customizable in terms of how many combo's of skills you could get.

The PvE was super grindy, but it really became interesting in the "PvP" (the enemy would be AI controlled, lol) because now you had to pit your custom team against another custom team made by another player. There was so much in terms of big moves, counter-play, baiting out the enemy vs. taking too much damage/debuffs, etc.

I wish I could remember more specifics but I stopped playing like... 6 years ago? And it shut down a bit after.

This happens from moment one from the first battle, so it's a philosophy that applies to the entire game and not after a "certain point". Though I would make the first few battles easy enough that it doesn't completely crush unprepared players... I'm not exactly making Dark Souls here.

Yeah, this is a better answer for @bgillisp . I want the gameplay to start immediately. Sure, have a tutorial to get me started but the tutorial shouldn't be 10 hours long. It should be like 1 hour long or less and in that time I want to get an idea of what the game will evolve into to make me want to see it.

Probably. The only other critiques I can think of is that Chrono Trigger[...]

Ah! I'll just have to see about that for myself!

I already thought it was weird when Pokemon Sword and Shield hid their volume options through a headphone key item.

@TheAM-Dol would give this game a -5 for accessibility! And his scale only includes 0 and 1

 

[bgillisp]

That could be the case but still there is a case to start really small and slow. A lot of classic JRPGs don't go all in fast on mechanics either. Do too much player says it is overloading them and they quit too. Sometimes the lesson is just resource management and getting used to managing resources to get through a dungeon (or even to avoid battles)

Granted bats could be changed, and the example you give might be more a case of the issue of enemies with only attack as a skill. Though basics of damage and damaging still has to be taught somewhere. Can't assume everyone played an RPG before and early RPGs were accused of bad gatekeeping by doing just that and having early encounters go "wanna break your BONES!" right away. I remember all the discussions of RPGs being too hard to get into from the 80s/90s too due to those kind of issues (granted it was PC RPGs too I heard that on. So not FF games).

There's probably a balance in the middle to find. Maybe that could be your next dev discussion topic?

Edit: If wondering I do similar as you do too, but asking to get some discussion going as some are going to see this and go "But how is that different really?". Hence my suggestion of the dev discussion on how to balance it.

 

[woootbm]

@bgillisp Those early RPG's were so colorful and cartoony, I tend to think they were meant to be kid-friendly? So in that regard baby steps makes sense to be more approachable for a first timer. Battle Chasers has babes and blood in it, and is based on a 20+ year old comic so I don't imagine it's meant to be so kid-friendly. We also guessed that the first town we reached was the ONLY town, so my guess is that they went the route of stretching out gameplay with useless fights.

For my own approach, I do have some extra fights. Not TOO many. But they are skippable and offer more chances for experimentation (as well as XP so you can get more juiced). I think that's a good middle ground.

Really the main implication (especially on the RM side) is laziness. Slap some numbers on a bat, click the button to add it to a troop. Encounter design done in 5 seconds. Add another bat. That's another encounter done in 2 seconds. Make the encounter rate really high (or slap a bunch of player touch events down) that make you fight useless bats. Hours of "entertainment" for seconds of work.

What I could do a dev log on is what goes into my encounter design. Especially since I have this flow of creating a "team" of enemies, but then having to come up with and add subtargets and how that interacts with the flow of the fight. And THEN I have to come up with the Diplomacy combat for that fight (although I cheat by having a lot of fights with dumb enemies where Diplomacy isn't an option).

 

[bgillisp]

I'm guessing you didn't play 80s/90s PC RPGs, as they were often far from cartoony. But old Wizardry, Might and Magic, Ultima, the gold box SSI games, Blade of Destiny, those were not even close to for kids.

If you want an interesting idea, get one of those on gog (steam tends to be an older version and it often fails) and rip it a new one! A lot of them are also...interesting in their design ideas. You might get a hoot seing how far we've come too. I could suggest a couple if you want ideas

Or just look up a video of the final fight of Pools of Darkness (1992ish PC RPG), and save the $$$. That is like the pinance of bad old RPG design.

Still I think this could make an interesting discussion topic for those days you don't got a game to play.

 

[woootbm]

Oh, man that's getting way too far back. Also, these are CRPG's and I was talking about JRPG's (which Battle Chasers seems to lean towards). Of course, CRPG's can sometimes do the same thing except with Rats instead of Bats. But when we go back this far the issue is hardware limitations. Like... I have plugins bigger than some of these early games So of course they're gonna reuse everything.

But that's where a lot of (J)RPG bad design comes from; confusing tradition for limitations. There's no reason you can't have more enemies with more complicated AI at a faster pace. There's no reason to stretch out every bit and byte for more gameplay.

 

[woootbm]

Heyo. Another dev log:



Today I'm just showing off an animation change. I'm trying to make my scanning look less jank. I don't talk much about the concept of iteration, it's just that I've tried this a few times. Sometimes things take a few tries to get them looking right!

 

[woootbm]

It's that time again, time for another dev submission! This one comes to us from @kelarly :



And- warning- me and Tony are going full jerk mode here. As I explain in the video: we're going through a heel turn, even though we're already heels. So now we're like double heels.

We're still giving critiques, though, not just outright trolls. At least, I hope not. We think we're just getting more cynical the more of these games we see.


On a side note, I talked with Tony about trying to do a dev chat that would be like a high-level guide of "Making Your (First) RPG Not Trash" (working title). It wouldn't be a tutorial, but rather simple advice like "try to make your opening only take 15 minutes or less." Might be next week, we'll see how it comes together.

 

[RCXGaming]

It's that time again, time for another dev submission! This one comes to us from @kelarly :



And- warning- me and Tony are going full jerk mode here. As I explain in the video: we're going through a heel turn, even though we're already heels. So now we're like double heels.

We're still giving critiques, though, not just outright trolls. At least, I hope not. We think we're just getting more cynical the more of these games we see.


On a side note, I talked with Tony about trying to do a dev chat that would be like a high-level guide of "Making Your (First) RPG Not Trash" (working title). It wouldn't be a tutorial, but rather simple advice like "try to make your opening only take 15 minutes or less." Might be next week, we'll see how it comes together.

No disrespect towards @kelarly, but other than the 3D aspect, this is what I expect to see from a generic RPG Maker game... not helped by you selling it for five dollars on itch.

Too many skills, lackluster medieval setting and story (which is pretty unfortunate, given that DnD is a springboard for amazing campaign ideas if you and your group are bold enough) and the combat just kinda dragged on and on.

I genuinely tapped out watching Tony and Woootbm play it, but I did stay up long enough to comment on one bit of gameplay design:

The Yanfly Turn Skip thing. I like it because it allows me to freely choose different actions for a character in case I changed my mind on what they should do that turn, and I expect my players to do the same.

However, there's a major error in its design: that you can skip turns outright and just start a combat phase without doing anything, which is very easy to do by mistake.

I whipped up a good hotfix, though: and that's to prevent it from skipping the last person's turn and starting the fight phase. EG. if you're in a group of 4 people and the first three have their actions decided, you can't just press right and trigger the fight without making an actual decision for the last person.

Shouldn't be that hard to cook up, given that it's just numbers work.

 

[TheAM-Dol]

"try to make your opening only take 15 minutes or less."

So here's the thing, there have been games where the player has control of the game, but yet, it still feels like an opening. Likely because things are still really hand-holdy, tutorial boxes are popping up frequently, and the game hasn't really establish a sense of agency (for the player) yet.
Likely because of all of the above, it can feel like you are still in the intro.

So, that is just to say, that if you do this conversation thing (which I would be interested in hearing) I'd make sure to also maybe clearly define what a game intro is. Where is the boundary between "Playing the game" and "being introduced to the game"?

I think a good example might be Kingdom Hearts II and Twilight Town. You play as Roxas for a good 2 hours or so in Twilight town, but it all still feels like a tutorial. The game feels like it begins after Sora comes back into the picture and is all geared up.

 

[kelarly]

It's that time again, time for another dev submission! This one comes to us from @kelarly :



And- warning- me and Tony are going full jerk mode here. As I explain in the video: we're going through a heel turn, even though we're already heels. So now we're like double heels.

We're still giving critiques, though, not just outright trolls. At least, I hope not. We think we're just getting more cynical the more of these games we see.


On a side note, I talked with Tony about trying to do a dev chat that would be like a high-level guide of "Making Your (First) RPG Not Trash" (working title). It wouldn't be a tutorial, but rather simple advice like "try to make your opening only take 15 minutes or less." Might be next week, we'll see how it comes together.

Hey guys, thanks for trying out my game! I really do appreciate it.

I have never put any of my games up for money, so I was curious how it would be rated on a commercial scale. I understand a lot of your critiques and I still appreciate your honesty and style of humor.
I work a full-time job and have a wife and kid, so I don’t have any dreams of becoming a full-on game developer. It’s just a fun hobby of mine. With all the 10$-20$ rpg maker games out there, I think 5$ is pretty cheap.
Here’s some of the critiques I agree with you on:

• For spelling/grammar errors, you’re 100% right, that’s on me. English isn’t my first language, but I have been speaking it for a long time now, so I should have spent more time spell checking.
• I tried to keep the game simple, so a lot of the maps were small and contained a lot of things to do. I’ve never hated the rtp tiles, so I feel that’s just a personal preference. I understand it can make it look generic if you’ve seen it so often.
• I did want to make all the skills very useful, so some of the buffs are going to affect their stats heavily. Also, when rpg’s use smaller damage and health numbers, you notice them more. I think you’re right though, if you want to just spam the AOEs a bunch, you can but it probably won’t be as engaging or fun.

Here’s just some responses to some of your critiques, that might help you understand where developers are coming from in your future reviews:

• I did intend for the game to appeal to non-rpg maker developers mostly. Hence the amount of tutorial at the beginning. I think that since you guys play numerous RPG maker games, weather you intend to or not, you’re going to notice rpg maker tropes and get frustrated when everything is explained outright. However, say you went in with the mindset of a player that doesn’t play many rpg maker games, or none at all, you’d probably appreciate the tutorials and not notice the rtp graphics as much. In your video, I noticed you were frustrated and saying “I already know how to attack and do all these things, stop explaining to me”, but imagine you haven’t played a rpg maker game before… just something to think about.
• The game was meant to be a DND-inspired RPG, so it’s still a typical rpg, but just has a lot of familiar dnd things, like the skill names and language.
• The game does have a lot more jokes and interesting dialogue, but you’d have to interact with more characters and try a few side quests. I suppose I can’t control how people will play the game, so I can’t do much for players that just want to run through the main quest. I also don’t want to force players to go around talking to everyone… It’s a tough balance.

That’s all I can think of now. As someone who has worked on a bunch of RPG makers games since I was a kid, I also notice a lot of tropes in RPG maker games, but I have more fun with them if I don’t think too much about it.

Thanks again for playing, and I look forward to your next review!

 

[kelarly]

No disrespect towards @kelarly, but other than the 3D aspect, this is what I expect to see from a generic RPG Maker game... not helped by you selling it for five dollars on itch.

Too many skills, lackluster medieval setting and story (which is pretty unfortunate, given that DnD is a springboard for amazing campaign ideas if you and your group are bold enough) and the combat just kinda dragged on and on.

I genuinely tapped out watching Tony and Woootbm play it, but I did stay up long enough to comment on one bit of gameplay design:

The Yanfly Turn Skip thing. I like it because it allows me to freely choose different actions for a character in case I changed my mind on what they should do that turn, and I expect my players to do the same.

However, there's a major error in its design: that you can skip turns outright and just start a combat phase without doing anything, which is very easy to do by mistake.

I whipped up a good hotfix, though: and that's to prevent it from skipping the last person's turn and starting the fight phase. EG. if you're in a group of 4 people and the first three have their actions decided, you can't just press right and trigger the fight without making an actual decision for the last person.

Shouldn't be that hard to cook up, given that it's just numbers work.

I think you might be focusing on the parts of the game that sound generic (The black knight as an antagonist for example) and assuming this game is more generic than it really is. It is a full game with multiple endings and a lot more content than shown in their review video. I think 5$ is pretty cheap, but we’ll see, maybe I’ll lower it or make it free.

The base game has the characters level-locked at 5, and then raises levels when you beat certain story points. I wanted to give players a lot of choices to experiment with in battles, to find their own method of winning. I don’t think there’s too many skills. I also don’t see the issue with a medieval setting. That’s the setting that most dnd campaigns thrive in.

You might find playing the game more interesting than watching. If you want to play the game yourself, I’d be happy to send a free link to anyone who wants to play. Just send me a PM.

I’m not trying to make tons of money off it. Just maybe make back what I spent on it.

Thanks!

 

[woootbm]

@kelarly Thanks again for being a good sport!

I don't know if I should explain my position on some of these, but here it is:

I did want to make all the skills very useful, so some of the buffs are going to affect their stats heavily. Also, when rpg’s use smaller damage and health numbers, you notice them more. I think you’re right though, if you want to just spam the AOEs a bunch, you can but it probably won’t be as engaging or fun.

With opportunities to do upwards of 8x damage, or an AoE that will 1-2 shot all enemies, it's hard to care about any other strategy. The enemies only seem to attack and guard, have a decent amount of HP, and there's always a lot of them (except on boss fights). So the alternative seems to be to deal 7-10 damage at a time while doing various CC's... it would just take a LOT more turns to get through. Without the flavor of DnD fights- where the players have infinite creativity at the DM's discretion- optimal number-crunching is all the player is going to do.

When it comes to turn-based games, there comes a point where a fight takes too many turns and feels like a slog. Also, you have a kind of attrition in your game (standard in a lot of RPG's) so the player is encouraged to deal with fights as efficiently as possible. If I take more damage, that's more time recovering HP, which costs mana and/or items.

I did intend for the game to appeal to non-rpg maker developers mostly. Hence the amount of tutorial at the beginning.

I might have overreacted here. I was more frustrated with myself because I have this problem where I read everything instead of just skipping stuff I don't need.

That being said, it is a little weird what things were tutorialized and what wasn't. Like I got a tutorial telling me to make sure to do quests, but not one about the importance of tents/some other way to regain mana? I'd imagine a newnew player might feel stuck once they hit 0 mana.

The game does have a lot more jokes and interesting dialogue, but you’d have to interact with more characters and try a few side quests.

I definitely got burned out on the main story. And one of the few times I did talk to a character was Hamwise. I didn't want to hear some rehashed version of the Lord of the Rings, so this all kind of discouraged me from doing so. If the redundancy of the main story could be (super) trimmed down, I could have given it a shot. But it would still need to be paced appropriately.

IE your structure looks like this:
Long intro > lots of optional talking > do a little combat > long exposition > more optional talking? > lots of combat > break with optional talking > etc

Ideally it might look like this:
Intro > do some combat > short exposition > some optional talking > lots of combat > break with optional talking > etc

Anyway, I think it's worth saying that although we felt there were a lot of issues, if the story was tight and less redundant that by itself would go a long way to improving the game. Once we start feeling that exhaustion and frustration the whole thing snowballs and that brings out more nitpicking.