It shouldn’t pause the game… After a few days of playing I get annoyed by waiting on it. Can’t you do it similar to the sales?
I actually became good in this game. I think my lowest score I got is 5.75. Well, maybe because I turn off when I got 1 or 3 scores. Trying to beat the high score which I think is actually dumb since it’ll never be online.
Haha yeah, I know that feeling, working on a game that you think would do incredibly well and then you get 3…and you’re just like. ARGH. I never get a game higher than a 8 for a Medieval/Action Game D:
It makes sense to me. You’ve got 2 ‘meh’ coders working on the world and the graphics and the game play, then you’ve got an ace who goes nuts making the enemy AI crafty as hell.
What do you have? A Drab, hum-drum looking RPG that has enemies who can and will wipe your party constantly if you aren’t careful. Doesn’t sound like a fun RPG to me.
Take that same combo and apply it to a strategy game, where the whole POINT of the game is complexity and challenge, rather than eye candy, and that same team becomes gold. The ‘meh’ designers get the graphics to where they are enough to know what is going on and are not an eyesore…while the ace tech guy works on a Magnificent Bastard AI who will give even seasoned Strategy Veterans pause. This makes the game good because people who buy a strategy game don’t care as much about the pretty graphics, but DO want a complex and fun game with a challenging AI.
Regarding reworking the ratings system, I think it is working very well as is. I do have one suggestion to remedy the main problem of it. Because it holds you to the standard of your highest scoring game, taking too big of a leap in quality ends up feeling like a penalty, because your next few games are going to get crap reviews unless you seriously rework your engine. On the other hand, you don’t want someone to find a winning formula and just keep churning out game after game and have them all be 9.0 + winners.
A compromise would be a sort of ‘industry average’ where the expected quality of a game rises more slowly. If you come out with a 9.75 smash hit…the industry average will start to increase…but will not immediately equal that game. If you follow up your hit with another, it’ll still be seen as good, but maybe not quite as good as the original. An 8.75. The more games you make above the average, the higher and faster the average moves. Eventually the average will catch up and re-making the same game with no improvements will result in a ‘meh’ score, forcing you to innovate.
I dunno, if you look at real life ratings you see them give perfect 10s to games that don’t even deserve to have it.
Pinstar: What do you have? A Drab, hum-drum looking RPG that has enemies who can and will wipe your party constantly if you aren’t careful. Doesn’t sound like a fun RPG to me.
Actually, the Mount & Blade series had very hard AI and if you weren’t careful, you would of gotten killed easier, and it was a challenge and very fun to make, so I make that statement subjective.
First Playthrough and I got 10 score all in all(which game the AAA feature) is the game I named: Everyone! Dance!
You know the genre, it’s on mbox next and it’s funny how it got 10 in all reviewers.:))
I’ve heard of Mount & Blade, but not played it.
I’m not saying that crafty AI makes RPGs bad, I’m saying, if Mount & Blade looked and sounded like absolute garbage, yet had this really punishing AI, it wouldn’t appeal so much.
That said, from what I know about Mount & Blade, it would be a better example of an RPG + Simulation (maybe RPG + Strategy) game than a pure RPG, and thus having a stronger AI (in the context of game dev tycoon) wouldn’t hurt the game’s ratings at all.
You should play Mount & Blade, I think you would thoroughly enjoy it, with the great AI, you can turn up and down difficulty, its RPG + Strategy + Simulation I think.