Review: Dragon Egg - A Good but Rushed Platformer

[munchiaz]

I really enjoy this game. Haven't played it in awhile, now i want to play it right now

[Black Tiger]

I really enjoy this game. Haven't played it in awhile, now i want to play it right now

You can literally stumble through the entire game in about 15 minutes (even when looking over your shoulder and with the audio out of sync), so it should be easy to make time for.

[Gredler]

Great review, but let's not jump to conclusions. The game may feel rushed, but that doesn't mean it actually was. Sometimes game designers make bad judgments when designing games (just like movie directors). Nothing wrong with saying it feels rushed, but if you say outright that the game IS rushed, you should make sure you have a source for that information rather than just your own intuition.

A review should try to list the objective facts about a game, but ultimately it's a subjective opinion.  And that's what I give there, my opinion that the game feels incomplete.  It's not just me who feels that way; the Brothers Duomazov's review says the same thing, and for the same core reason I do: " It makes you wonder if, at some point, the designers just decided to speed things up and get the project out the door. ", it says.  I agree with that idea.  The VGDen review doesn't say "rushed", but does comment on the oddest thing about this game: the shortness of the second "half" of the game, levels 4 through 6: " The game is also fairly short - the first level does feature several sub-stages, but later ones are incredibly short and you often reach the various bosses in no time."  I don't think what I say is too different from either of those.  Or at least, it wasn't meant to be.

Here are the stages in the game:

1-1
1-2
1-3
1 Boss
2-1
2-2
2-3
2 Boss
3-1
3-2 (maze level)
3 Boss
4-1 (short easy autoscroller stage)
4 Boss
5-1
5 Boss
6-1
6 Boss

See what I mean?  I can't imagine this being the original intent.  Yes, levels 5-1 and 6-1 are longer than any individual stage in world 1, but they aren't longer than the levels in worlds 2 or 3.  And here's another thing -- level 4 ends with you going off the end of a waterfall... then you drop into the boss room against this slime monster thing?  That doesn't flow at all.

I was going to mention it yesterday, but didn't want to bag on you about a review that obviously took quite a bit of time and effort - and I appreciate that effort. I do think you prove a point for me though when I was going to say it seems more designed into a corner than rushed.

Often games go underway with a specific schedule and budget, and that doesn't mean it was "rushed" it means they were given a timeline and budget to work within. From a business standpoint, getting these devs paid, it makes sense.

They easily could have squandered their resources on the first "half" of the game, and simply didn't have the money or memory on the hucard, to one up their earlier levels. Perhaps they used those first levels to greenlight the project and then found themselves in a position to finish the game and had not enough resources.

We are all speculating, and I don't think it's necessary to insert speculation into an objective review. Sticking to what you absolutely know about the game is probably the best idea when presenting a review of that game.

[A Black Falcon]

I was going to mention it yesterday, but didn't want to bag on you about a review that obviously took quite a bit of time and effort - and I appreciate that effort. I do think you prove a point for me though when I was going to say it seems more designed into a corner than rushed.

Often games go underway with a specific schedule and budget, and that doesn't mean it was "rushed" it means they were given a timeline and budget to work within. From a business standpoint, getting these devs paid, it makes sense.

They easily could have squandered their resources on the first "half" of the game, and simply didn't have the money or memory on the hucard, to one up their earlier levels. Perhaps they used those first levels to greenlight the project and then found themselves in a position to finish the game and had not enough resources.

Sure, those are all possible.  What you describe here reads to me like several good examples of how games release in incomplete states, or, in other words, rushed.  It could be that they had a set amount of time, and spent too long on the first half and they had to patch together what they had for the second to make the schedule, sure... but that's a rushed game!  It's pretty much the definition of one.  What you describe seems like just some more specific scenarios that result in a game shipping as I described, feeling incomplete and "rushed [out]".

We are all speculating, and I don't think it's necessary to insert speculation into an objective review. Sticking to what you absolutely know about the game is probably the best idea when presenting a review of that game.

Any review of this game is going to talk about the issue in some way though, because beyond the gameplay itself it's the #1 most glaring thing you notice.  I don't think a review of the game which doesn't mention how weird the game feels because of the unbalanced levels and such would be as good of a review; as most things I write make obvious, I like writing to be detailed. (The Wheel of Time is one of the best fantasy book series ever!)  Sure, it is speculation to guess at exactly why the game ended up as it did, but I don't mind some speculation, if you make it clear that that's what it is, which I do think I do.  Why do you think it's harmful?

Beyond this question in particular, a review isn't only an attempt at objective truth, it is also a subjective opinion.  There was a time when professional reviewers tried to make reviews entirely objective, but that has faded as people have recognized that it's impossible.  You should try for objectivity when you can, yes, but ultimately a review is an opinion.  I think a good review should present the reviewers' opinion, while also covering the game objectively enough to help anyone who reads it to know if the game might interest them, regardless of whether they agree with the reviewers' opinions or not.

... What are you talking about?  I specifically mentioned the clouds as a nice effect that gives a parallax-like look.  Of course they're actually sprites, not a parallax layer, but the idea was good and it works.

And you also said "there is no real parallax scrolling".  I know you're too foolish to understand this, but either a game has parallax or it doesn't; only your bias and willful ignorance of dictionary definitions defines parallax solely as "two+ tile based background layers", a made up definition you can't even be bothered to apply consistently.

As Necro and Falcon remember, we had a big discussion on parallax scrolling...ultimately, the intelligent person would recognize that the ultimate test should be the user experience. If the user sees the effect, then it exists, regardless of how it was achieved.

Now, if I were writing the review, I would discuss the overall effectiveness of the effect.

As I have pointed out in the past, many, many games use parallax in a manner I have found jarring/displeasing (Final Battle on Genesis), whilst other games, using the *same* ratio of character-movement:background-plane-movement  produce a pleasing effect (name most horizontal/vertical shooters). Why? Because the speed of a spacecraft hurling through space is not the same as a big dude slowly walking across the screen...so parallax effects should be done to *enhance* the experience and not disorient/annoy the player.

It would be perfectly acceptable to say that the parallax effects in Dragon Egg are not particularly impressive and explain why.

I think the "parallax" clouds were a good idea that gets some parallax in this game on this system that doesn't support it like the SNES and Genesis do.  I like those moving clouds and they absolutely add to the game.  But yes, it's not quite on par with a full parallax background -- it is only clouds, nothing else.  Many stages do have moving clouds on them, but still, having all "parallax" objects be identical-looking clouds that can only appear in sky areas of levels, which not all levels have, does limit things versus the kinds of parallax you see in other games.

Anyway, sorry for bringing up old debates, but I feel that your reviews would be even better if they focused on the user experience, first and foremost.

I really do think that how something is done DOES matter, regardless of if it's identical to the user or not.  We disagree on this, apparently.

However, despite that, if you have software parallax-style effects that look identical to hardware stuff?  Yeah, I can see calling that the same.  Since Neo-Geo game graphics are exclusively made up of sprites they don't have "real" backgrounds or parallax, but the difference doesn't matter much for the user, certainly.  The effect in Dragon Egg! is not on that level, though.

For an example of something on the Turbo which gets closer, how about Super Darius?  It looks like the parallax in that game probably is made up of sprites, but it's a pretty nice effect and looks great.

For example, does it matter if FMV is running full-screen @256 color @ 16 frames per second if the director chose boring angles/composition etc? The technical backend is not nearly as important as the user experience front end when it comes to these games.

In this scenario both things matter, I'm not sure which one more than the other.

[A Black Falcon]

Here's another review of the game in English (thanks to BKK from Neogaf for finding this)



... and, like every review of the game I've seen, it mentions how the second half feels unfinished and, beyond that, speculates a bit about why.

[Gredler]

I think when people hear the term rushed in the title of review it implies some sort of foundation of truth that it was rushed, when in fact it very well might not have been rushed but rather mismanaged to the point where the final project feels incomplete.

My point was that rushed and incomplete "feel" are completely separate issues, and that many incomplete feeling games are not rushed. Duke Nukem Forever felt rushed and incomplete, but took like 13 years of development. I don't imagine I'd see a review for Duke Nukem Forever that says "Rushed", but the gameplay reeks of mismanagement and incomplete ideas.

Edit: it's a weird thing go read speculation stated as fact in the title of a review, just saying.

[A Black Falcon]

I think when people hear the term rushed in the title of review it implies some sort of foundation of truth that it was rushed, when in fact it very well might not have been rushed but rather mismanaged to the point where the final project feels incomplete.

My point was that rushed and incomplete "feel" are completely separate issues, and that many incomplete feeling games are not rushed. Duke Nukem Forever felt rushed and incomplete, but took like 13 years of development. I don't imagine I'd see a review for Duke Nukem Forever that says "Rushed", but the gameplay reeks of mismanagement and incomplete ideas.

I don't think "rushed" and "incomplete" are very different terms.  If a game released unfinished and incomplete, it was rushed for some reason.  And there's no question that Dragon Egg released incomplete.  I could have used "incomplete" or "unfinished" in the review title instead of "rushed" and the meaning wouldn't change.  And I do think it's fair to mention; there's a reason why every review of the game I have seen discusses the issue.

As for Duke Nukem Forever, as a big Apogee (later known as 3D Realms) fan from the early '90s, I followed that games' development along the way.  And yes, the final game we got on the shelves was incomplete and rushed to release.  The problems started when George Broussard decide that he had to keep pace with the industry, so he kept trying to update the game to match the current trends in AAA development.  Problem is, 3D Realms' team was small, so it took a lot longer for them to do an equivalent amount of work to the huge teams AAA games were being made by by in the '00s.  So, development dragged on, as the game was repeatedly restarted and then developed slowly by a not-too-big team.  But 3DR had plenty of money for years due to previous successes and the money they made for selling off the Max Payne rights, so it kept on... until, with the game finally heading towards completion, they ran low on funds.  Eventually Gearbox stepped in to finish it, but what they basically did was just have some ex-3DR people patch together what had been finished of the game into something shippable.  I think it would be fair to call the game "rushed" because 3DR wasn't able to actually finish the game, resulting in lots of cut content and a rushed feel.  Of course, it's also accurate to call it really killed by too much money (since they could self-fund there was no publisher forcing them to stick to a schedule) and mismanagement, but the end result of all that was that when they were finally working on something Broussard considered shippable, they didn't have time to finish it.

As for the game itself, I do think DNF is okay, but it doesn't live up to the hype of things like the great trailers from the late '90s and early '00s, for sure.

Edit: it's a weird thing go read speculation stated as fact in the title of a review, just saying.

The idea is to have a title which, in a couple of words, encapsulates my opinion on a game.

[Gentlegamer]

It's short and feels rushed, sure, but you blaming it on the Super Famicom or Masaya wanting to distance themselves from hueys is just a guess.

Why is it that Runin's review is a fourth as wordy as your wall of text yet says four times as much? 

... What are you talking about?  I specifically mentioned the clouds as a nice effect that gives a parallax-like look.  Of course they're actually sprites, not a parallax layer, but the idea was good and it works.

And you also said "there is no real parallax scrolling".  I know you're too foolish to understand this, but either a game has parallax or it doesn't; only your bias and willful ignorance of dictionary definitions defines parallax solely as "two+ tile based background layers", a made up definition you can't even be bothered to apply consistently.

I know this has been a big discussion before, but "parallax" is a visual effect; how it's achieved in a video game doesn't really matter (unless it uses resources that screw up the rest of the game, for example).

ABF should praise PCE games that achieve a parallax effect despite the lack of dedicated "parallax" background layers.

[Necromancer]

There's no true parallax in any games on the TG-16, Neo Geo, etc. because none of 'em have two (or more) tiled background layers.  Line scrolls, sprites, manipulating the far background color (like in Magical Chase) don't count; that's nothing but fake parallax!

Logic and common sense be damned.  Black Falcon hath spoken!!! 

[lukester]

I'm not sure why people are once again bitching about some stupid parallax comment, when they are ignoring the elephant in the room.

As Necro pointed out, TheBrothersDuomazov review says more with less.

http://www.thebrothersduomazov.com/2009/03/dragon-egg.html

Black Falcon's review is long, verbose, convoluted and soulless. He is too focused on providing facts and facts and history, but he never gets to the point. The damn review is longer than my High School thesis.

I do not intend to be rude ABF, but you need to focus on writing material that grabs your audience, instead of boring them in a way that they won't even finish half of what you wrote. Professional gaming historian? Sure. Professional reviewer/writer? Absolutely not.

Maybe someone else can elaborate for me.

[Gentlegamer]

Lukester makes a good point (I've defended review length before, but they are getting even longer, my eyes glazed over these blocks of text).

While I don't think this is the end all of writing (like some), ABF would benefit from

https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-William-Strunk-Jr/dp/1557427283

If he has a masters degree, I bet he's already encountered it. USE ITS ADVICE.

[Gredler]

If he is defending Duke Nukem Forever as a game that was "rushed" and not simply mismanaged, I get the impression admitting mistakes or shortcomings is not going to happen with this guy. Once it's been  written there is no revision, because revision would mean he was wrong and that is impossible.

Duke Nukem Forever: If it wasn't rushed it would have been good. The review no one will read because it's too long and needlessly verbose.

Edit: real question you think any amount of time or money would have made duke Nukem Forever good, or even bettter? 13 years and it was released rushed?

[esteban]

I'm not sure why people are once again bitching about some stupid parallax comment, when they are ignoring the elephant in the room.

As Necro pointed out, TheBrothersDuomazov review says more with less.

http://www.thebrothersduomazov.com/2009/03/dragon-egg.html

Black Falcon's review is long, verbose, convoluted and soulless. He is too focused on providing facts and facts and history, but he never gets to the point. The damn review is longer than my High School thesis.

I do not intend to be rude ABF, but you need to focus on writing material that grabs your audience, instead of boring them in a way that they won't even finish half of what you wrote. Professional gaming historian? Sure. Professional reviewer/writer? Absolutely not.

Maybe someone else can elaborate for me.

IN DEFENSE OF LONG-FORM

The one thing I love about Black Falcon is that he takes the time to write long-form. It provides a unique experience that is sorely lacking . Think of it as a "journey"... the purpose of writing can, and should, go beyond bullet points.

There are SO MANY "CAPSULE" (abbreviated) reviews (in all formats—written, podcast, video), I am so happy to read something that takes longer than 30 seconds.

Black Falcon *knows* that 99% of folks only want "very short summaries"... He is clearly *not* writing for this demographic (short attention span).

The pacing and scope of long-form writing is quite enjoyable to me—I want *more* of it—regardless of whether or not I agree with it. I feel that Black Falcon is a kindred spirit, in this regard. I feel like I can get to *know* an author through the choices he/she makes in how to present his/her ideas (long-form vs. short-form, formal vs. informal, etc.) and  not just via an author's opinions on game ____.

In fact, I would argue that although a significant amount of my enjoyment is derived from "having a dialogue" with arguments/theses that I don't find compelling...I also enjoy critiquing the style/format an author uses (as folks here have done—critiquing BF's overly verbose style )

Anyway, bottom line: the world is catered to short-attention-spans...which is a tragedy.

I want more of this: http://www.2-dimensions.com

(Click on any of his "Anatomy of..." projects.... I don't agree with every aspect of his analyses...but only a long-form allows for such a unique experience of exploring and grappling with game design and user experience).

NOTE: I know I am in the minority on this issue.

[Punch]

Esteban your post is too long, did not read.

(just joking, of course)
I like lengthy pieces too but only if it adds information to it, I hate texts full of empty padding style text. Didn't read it yet but I will as soon as I have time.

[esteban]

Esteban your post is too long, did not read.

(just joking, of course)
I like lengthy pieces too but only if it adds information to it, I hate texts full of empty padding style text. Didn't read it yet but I will as soon as I have time.

Yes. If a piece is chock'full'o'filler...then it is laborious to read.

We may not all agree on where to draw the line between prose and padding, but I certainly agree with you.