1: why did you HATE my game? I’ve seen some of your more critical reviews and they did not have nearly as much venom?
2: that’s it I don’t have anymore dot points
In all seriousness I do enjoy playing my game and yes my game design choices where intentional and I stand by them. Talking to others there are plenty of things I could change and there are hills I’m not going to die on for a follow up (eg allowing players to cancel a party member selection). So yeah? Why do you HATE my game?
I wouldn't call it hate, I don't understand your intent and your design, so I'm asking for information I find necessary to solve the puzzle. I didn't enjoy myself, and couldn't see what is fun about it, so I ask you if this is what you wanted, or what you managed to assemble in time. I thought asking "are you satisfied with this" was much more mean, so I changed it to what sounded more neutral to me. The classes don't feel different, but I'm not looking at the code to know if they really are or not, so I need to know if you designed them as flair or with mechanics. Rotating taking a turn is baffling and I need to know if it's a code issue, or your intended gameplay. Likewise for the arrow, is this a code thing, or your desire? And the final point there's no way to put nicely, so I just put it as it were, because I can't tell if this outsider art or a fan trying to put their own spin on the genre they like.
I've been called abrasive multiple times, so I can't pretend I don't know, but this is still how it comes out when I'm policing my tone. In my quest to understand, I must question. It's easy to say shit game and move on, but that doesn't give me any answers (and I hunger for answers always) and without understanding what I'm engaging with, I can't give feedback. I can't tell what's intent and what is results, so by clearing that I could find what words I could offer you, if any.
I appreciate the clarification. But reading your comment felt very much like you expected this game to be something it wasn't. it felt angry and wasn't overly pleasant to read first thing in the morning. personally if I were to ask the same questions I would never use "YOU" as it feels more like a personal attack against the dev as opposed to asking "why is spin its own turn". clearing the air and approaching these questions at face value. yes I am proud of my work. the classes are important in regards to the modes system. simplistically it boils down to:
attack mode = knight does more damage
balance = all do more damage with an extra boost being given to the Rogue
magic = mage does more damage
defence = all do less damage with the added benefit of taking less damage from the bosses
why is rotation its own turn?
simplistically it boils down to making it an equally important to moving, attacking or using an action. this is to both help it relate to the theme of spin and to elevate the importance of positioning when attacking or taking damage from a boss as yes positions party members to hit from the sides and the back was something I wanted to focus on.
what's the deal with the arrow?
the arrow is both a technical and game design decision. due to the hit boxes of the party members and their ability to work out their distance to the boss and weather they are in range, they are quite large. this leads to trying to click one party member while accidentally hitting someone else. the game play reason is due to the size of the boss it can completely obscure the party member. creating the arrow allows you to engage even if that party member is not visible. for a follow up I would add a secondary hit box to detect if the player is clicking the party member as well as utilising the pointer.
as for the last question I am a fan of the games that inspired NOVA. but those games aren't what you're thinking of. my greatest inspirations for developing Nova where Final fantasy Xiii and The last remnant. (games that if you've played id suspect you wouldn't be a fan of) while this game may look like into the breach in some ways the actual games to inspire my work weren't into the breach or final fantasy tactics.
I see. The tactics game I'm used to have rotating as free action, or something you decide on after your action this turn, so it is passively part of your strategy and foresight (not turning your character properly biting you in the ass later is tuesday), so to how I see tactics games, putting this much emphasis on its cost reduces what comes from it, especially since the battles are active. Being able to spin your characters even when they can't act in my perception gives much more value to the act of rotation than just turning to the direction you want to go being worth an action. The feeling of not turning the right direction turns from something that "oh i forgot but too late now" to a main gameplay feature. "this character cant act, but I can still actively make it face the boss to minimize damage." By making it so, you can then make bosses that move and attack more, as I felt that they probably were so slow to actually act because you balanced them under the cost of a rotation.
Yeah, both being clickable and one being a "in case you can't see them" is much more intuitive gaming-friendly than a demand for the arrow only. And I haven't played either, so I can't say if you've clocked me or not. I can say that I don't have an interest in playing FFXIII at least, that must half count as me not liking it.
And while I was thinking of Final Fantasy Tactics in what I could compare the gameplay experience of, I was wondering if the tactics game that would have inspired you if you were an SRPG gamer were Fire Emblem and/or Tactics Ogre. Didn't even consider Into the Breach for this one.
