Review: Dragon Egg - A Good but Rushed Platformer

[Bonknuts]

It's not an insult

It's an insult.

 Actually, it's not. It's me being directly blunt with you. Because I've seen your arguments and responses over the years, on many forums, and being blunt-and-to-the-point is about the only way to get you to respond without being automatically dismissive (and even at that, it's a crap shoot). Being blunt isn't a personal insult directed at you, but addresses your points and statements directly without any bullshit. It has its usefulness. 

it's fact that your definition of 'parallax' contradicts the dictionary.

Only trolls, fools, and biased liars argue with the dictionary.  Which one are you?

I'm not arguing with the dictionary, so none of the above.

In any case, you've changed the line to say it's limited parallax instead of fake, which is exactly what Bonknuts suggested.

I never said "fake parallax"!  I originally said "a parallax-like effect".  I did change it, and I do think it's more accurate now, but I never said, or thought of saying, the word "fake".  You're reading more into it than was there.

This is a part of a larger argument with how you define things; your perspective and view points which you frequently tend to assert against the grain (definition). I thought I made that clear in my opening statement. I didn't waste any words; everything I wrote was in particular context to the things I mentioned. If you're going to cherry pick, you're going to lose context of the meaning of what was being said.

He made no argument about 'all parallax being equal'; that's just you making things up to support your agenda.

Uh, what?  He spent a whole paragraph saying "all parallax is parallax".

 All parallax is parallax does not mean all parallax is equal. And no where did I even suggest it. Aren't you a college graduate (grad school)? How could you even connect that logic? All cars are cars, does not mean all cars are equal - it means all cars belong to the category of "cars".. is all. So I have to come to the conclusion that you either already understand this and are avoiding the issue by diversion, or your don't understand this and lack basic understand of logical concepts. I personally think it's the former.

Again, it's not an insult when it's 100% true.

When you meanly insult someone, you are insulting them and that's wrong.  Debate based on facts and opinions, not personal attacks -- those get you nowhere.

Grow some thicker skin? Learn some witty retort? I dunno. But you have a reputation on many forums for being automatically dismissive of any statement or argument that runs counter to your perspective. And it's not just that, but you play the round-around redirection game (like a politician, I swear) avoiding points in context until people lose interests in having any sort of discussion with you. Sega-16 is a prime example (your other console contribution threads). That, to me, is worse than any sort of perceived insult.

You have zero proof that it being unfinished was due to the SFC; it's called conjecture, look it up.

Without something from Masaya themselves, we'll never know why it was unfinished.  It could be a response to the SFC, sure, but it could just as easily be due to budget/time constraints, staff changes, corporate priority shifts, or any number of other factors.

If you want to write something more than just a recitation of facts, as I do, what you do is first you look at the evidence, then you try to come up with a theory that explains it.  And while we certainly don't know the definite truth behind why the game released as it is, there's no harm in trying to figure it out.

It's still conjecture, no matter how many dots you try to connect. And that's fine - it completely has its place. We all speculate at some point, but don't dress it up for more than it is (fact), because people will read it and take at face value - and that's how misinformation spreads(the internet in relation to retro consoles is already rife with this stuff... ugh). Make it explicitly clear that this is your personal conjecture and speculation. That's all I'm saying.

 PS: Don't you consider yourself a writer? I've participated in many different writing events/styles over the years, and a honest hard-critique is worth more than anything else in this world. Surely you know how to handle hard-critiques and the bluntness they're usually communicated with? I mean, you have an MA right? I think millennials have made everyone soft...

[ccovell]

[NightWolve]

Pixelated Popcorn MJ meme with parallax backdrop ? Clever.

This had me in stitches too. Haven't seen Gangnam-style guy in a while.

[Black Tiger]

Pixelated Popcorn MJ meme with parallax backdrop ? Clever.

That's not real parallax.  

[SignOfZeta]

Man. I saw this review and didn't say anything at first because it's too f*cking long to do anything but quickly skim. It's full of that Wiki-educated Buddy Hacket seagul lecture shit so many YT people use. "Rushed", bringing up the SFC, trying to provide "context" when the author has none themselves, etc. and sure, that's really really played out but really it's the longness that struck me as insane. And a print version? Printed by whom? Funk and Wagnalls don't do that stuff anymore.

It was a natural for a multi page flame thread splitting hairs like atoms.

As for the fake-ness of the parallax. As someone who uses "fake transparencies" a lot to describe that flickery shit that had to make do on every pre-SNES machine, I still find this similar term stupid. All you need to see fake transparencies are fake is to record them and slow them down and see that it's really alternating %100 and %0 opacity every field. That's why fake transparencies induce seizures, real ones don't. Pretty stark. "Fake" parallax looks identical to "real" parallax though so...who f*cking cares? It's as real as anything.

You know what game always seemed "rushed"? Dracula X. Those huge stone guys in the first level look better than most of the game, and those hidden passages in the boat that only Maria can get to lead nowhere, WTF, right?

What happens is that you have to ship the game eventually. Someone will be working on the game right up to that very second. Some parts will be uneven. That's how everything is.

Also, the part about scifi fantasy as a genre being "that all-too-common frustration" seems to indicate...well, autism, honestly, but at the very least I would say they don't know much about art if that kind of thing throws them off. Seeing a sword and a laser gun being held by the same guy is...an idea older than lasers, I'm pretty sure. There is a LOT of stuff to "frustrate" anyone who can't handle that.

[ccovell]

Where can I download this demo?

Cancelled.  I tried to obtain permission for MJ's likeness, but you wouldn't believe the ridiculous rates that mediums charge.

[Bonknuts]

I love that you put in the clouds from the game xD

SignOfZeta: Completely agree on the transparencies thing.

[esteban]

I find this aesthetically and thematically pleasing.

[spenoza]

ABF, while there are some here who like to rag on you, some of us are trying to give you some constructive criticism . Maybe you disagree with some of it (the way you respond, you seem to disagree with ALL of it), but try incorporating it, anyway. You might find it gives your review new strength. Being concise makes writing more impactful. Applying community-accepted definitions (e.g. parallax scrolling) makes your review better received within the community. Clearly delineating your impressions and subjective content from objective content (feels rushed vs was rushed - clear evidence needed for the latter to be taken seriously) imparts greater respect for impartiality. I see the time you put into your review, but I want to see your review writing get better, rather than remaining a bit sloppy.

[esteban]

I look forward to ABF's next review, I just hope he is courageous enough to post it here when the time comes.

I agree with spenoza: please do not think that all of us are simply "hating on you".... for me, it is my genuine 2¢...as if I were your editor.



Also, any thread that inspires COVELL to post an image is a GOOD THING.

[ccovell]

Also, any thread that inspires COVELL to post an image is a GOOD THING.

Please, nobody make a thread called "POST PICTURES OF YOUR BALLS" then.

[esteban]

Also, any thread that inspires COVELL to post an image is a GOOD THING.

Please, nobody make a thread called "POST PICTURES OF YOUR BALLS" then.

As long as you continue working on the Super Blodia Special (HuCARD) that I dreamed about, then you have a deal.

[A Black Falcon]

ABF, while there are some here who like to rag on you, some of us are trying to give you some constructive criticism . Maybe you disagree with some of it (the way you respond, you seem to disagree with ALL of it),

"All of it"?  Of course not, I made multiple edits to the review based on critiques from this thread.

but try incorporating it, anyway. You might find it gives your review new strength. Being concise makes writing more impactful. Applying community-accepted definitions (e.g. parallax scrolling) makes your review better received within the community.

The problem with "community-accepted definitions" is, which community?  Different ones online may disagree.  Or which part of the community?  There are more than enough arguments about definitions of terms out there to know that there is hardly some monolith.

Clearly delineating your impressions and subjective content from objective content (feels rushed vs was rushed - clear evidence needed for the latter to be taken seriously) imparts greater respect for impartiality.

I always think I do this well and clearly -- differentiating opinion from fact is essential, and I pay attention to that!   But for whatever reason other people complain a lot about this anyway.  I'm sure part of it is just that it's often people disagreeing with me about something, but the general "you don't separate opinion from fact" complaint is not true and doesn't make sense, what is opinion clearly is opinion and what is fact clearly is fact...

I see the time you put into your review, but I want to see your review writing get better, rather than remaining a bit sloppy.

It's about as good as it'll get with just me writing it.  To imrpove it I'd need an editor, which would mean some kind of professional position.  I know editing passes improve writing, I've seen that before (comparing the earlier to later versions of my thesis...), but you need someone else to be that editor; you really can't edit your own work.
 

Man. I saw this review and didn't say anything at first because it's too f*cking long to do anything but quickly skim. It's full of that Wiki-educated Buddy Hacket seagul lecture shit so many YT people use. "Rushed", bringing up the SFC, trying to provide "context" when the author has none themselves, etc. and sure, that's really really played out but really it's the longness that struck me as insane. And a print version? Printed by whom? Funk and Wagnalls don't do that stuff anymore.

It was a natural for a multi page flame thread splitting hairs like atoms.

As for the fake-ness of the parallax. As someone who uses "fake transparencies" a lot to describe that flickery shit that had to make do on every pre-SNES machine, I still find this similar term stupid. All you need to see fake transparencies are fake is to record them and slow them down and see that it's really alternating %100 and %0 opacity every field. That's why fake transparencies induce seizures, real ones don't. Pretty stark. "Fake" parallax looks identical to "real" parallax though so...who f*cking cares? It's as real as anything.

There are two ways you can look at this -- either to say that how something is done matters regardless of whether that is visible to the player or not, or to say that the extent of the effect matters.  You make an argument against that first interpretation here, sure, but just by the second one, this game still falls a bit short, considering that the parallax is exclusively (identical) clouds and nothing else.

I know this forum is defensive on the TG16/PCE's parallax weaknesses, but it IS the system's weakness, much like how colors on screen is the Genesis's, or the slow CPU is the SNES's.

You know what game always seemed "rushed"? Dracula X. Those huge stone guys in the first level look better than most of the game, and those hidden passages in the boat that only Maria can get to lead nowhere, WTF, right?

What happens is that you have to ship the game eventually. Someone will be working on the game right up to that very second. Some parts will be uneven. That's how everything is.

Indeed, that is true, games need to be shipped sometime and this often leads to cutting features and content from the final product.  But most games, including Rondo of Blood, disguise this better than Dragon Egg! does.

For another example of a game I reviewed some time back that feels blatantly unfinished, and I commented on that at length in the review, see my review of Power Piggs of the Dark Age for the SNES: http://www.blackfalcongames.net/?p=47

Also, the part about scifi fantasy as a genre being "that all-too-common frustration" seems to indicate...well, autism, honestly, but at the very least I would say they don't know much about art if that kind of thing throws them off. Seeing a sword and a laser gun being held by the same guy is...an idea older than lasers, I'm pretty sure. There is a LOT of stuff to "frustrate" anyone who can't handle that.

Yes, there is "a lot of stuff" to frustrate me in this issue, that's for sure.  But if I like other things about something, I can and will like it anyway, despite having some things I dislike about it.  This game is good despite that, I like the Castlevania games even though they make NO SENSE AT ALL historically (seriously, random elements from Greece through modern day, all tossed together!), there are good fantasy animes with plenty of random too-modern elements (for a classic example, I really like The Slayers...), etc.

So, for me, the issue here is when writers decide that they'll just repeat common genre tropes, instead of trying to create an actual internally consistent world.  I want to see the latter, but most writers, or game designers, just make the former... and anime, and anime-inspired games, have built up a set of tropes for what anime fantasy "should" be, and following those rules ensures a historical mishmash of random stuff that could never exist at one time, all together in one world.  I love history and have degrees in the field, so of course historical accuracy is something I pay attention to!

I've got two theories for how all this happened -- first, that it's possible that because Japan is not a Western nation and does not have as much grounding in our cultural history they don't care as much for accuracy in Western historical settings as Western developers would, and vice versa for Western games and Asian settings.  I do think you see this in both directions -- look at how Western Asian fantasy settings so often randomly mix together Japan and China (Ninjas and Chinese marital artists, etc.), for an example from our side.  And second, that anime and Japanese game fantasy worlds took a huge amount of inspiration from the [Western] early '80s Wizardry and Ultima games... games which have some sci-fi elements in their otherwise mostly fantasy worlds.  Most Western fantasy games are not like that, but those set a bad precedent which Japan fell in love with.

Returning to Dragon Egg!, you have medieval castles in a medieval kingdom, swords and bows as weapons but also floating robot guns and invincible gun turrets, electricity, both modern-style clothing (for the heroine) and fantasy medieval outfits (for enemies like the orc archers and giants), and more... what people are supposed to do is just say "okay whatever" and ignore or never notice this stuff, but I don't, it bothers me.  But again, this kind of thing isn't going to ruin a game for me or something, it's just annoying.

I look forward to ABF's next review, I just hope he is courageous enough to post it here when the time comes.

Whenever I write something else for a game for this system, sure, I will.  The question I have is, should I post anything for other systems here, something I haven't done before?  Links, full text, not sure.

(For instance, I am currently working on a review of one of my favorite console games ever, San Francisco Rush 2049 (N64/Dreamcast, and a bit about the arcade version).)

I agree with spenoza: please do not think that all of us are simply "hating on you".... for me, it is my genuine 2¢...as if I were your editor.



Also, any thread that inspires COVELL to post an image is a GOOD THING.

Certainly, it's not everyone attacking me; indeed, you aren't, and are quite reasonable.  Thanks for that.  What I should do is respond to posts like this, not the insulting ones...

[Gredler]

For instance, I am currently working on a review of one of my favorite console games ever, San Francisco Rush 2049 (N64/Dreamcast, and a bit about the arcade version)

Rush was rushed btw, heard that one from the horse's mouth, so you can safely label that as a rushed game because of the documented facts that its development cycle was rushed

[Necromancer]

There are two ways you can look at this -- either to say that how something is done matters regardless of whether that is visible to the player or not, or to say that the extent of the effect matters.  You make an argument against that first interpretation here, sure, but just by the second one, this game still falls a bit short, considering that the parallax is exclusively (identical) clouds and nothing else.

Explaining how the effect is achieved and saying it's limited or doesn't look very good is fine; it's your insistence that it's fake that's the problem.  Will you ever get this through your thick skull, or will you continue to twist people's words to fit your bias?

What I should do is respond to posts like this, not the insulting ones...

Or I'll just ban you outright for the lies, shifting arguments, and blatant trolling.