Contact Info / Websites

Skype
jacuzziant

Game Creation

2013-05-02 17:35:58 by Jojiro

Anyone wanting to collaborate on an RPG, or anyone needing a writer/pixel artist for their game, contact me.


On the Jojiro Rating System

2013-04-24 14:12:33 by Jojiro

I have a loose suspicions that few people will really read this. However, I think it might be useful to make my first news post to be about my reviews, since I've created so many of them. Specifically, this is about my game reviews, as the few art reviews I've made have really just been for the funzies.

If you go through my game reviews, the rating system is created as such:

5 Stars: An excellent game that is worth taking time out of any day to play and to explore. Either gripping game mechanics within the game or generating a significant amount of meaning that is worth thinking about. These games, if they required money to play, would be ones that I would definitely dish out cash for.

4.5 Stars: A great game of its own right that lacks that final bit of polish. These are what I would consider great games for Newgrounds and for the online community, but just barely competitive with Steam or games you pay money for in the same genre. Often times I wish these people would execute the game again with just a few edits to make them perfect.

4 Stars: Great games that miss out on a specific element. These can have great game mechanics but don't serve to add a unique flavor of their own. They can be creative games that would be made excellent if just a plot were added. Definitely still gems on Newgrounds, but not competitive with Steam or games you would pay money for.

3.5 Stars: Games that have great concept but failed in the execution. They might have the rare bug, the odd glitch, or just that bit of awkwardness that suggests lack of polish. Well-worth playing as time killers, but this is the rank where they fall off the chart for games you'd actively go out to seek.

3 Stars: Completely average games that have the potential to be greater, but didn't meet that potential in execution. Game mechanics aren't applied well or plot is awkward. Could also be well-executed games with a boring concept. Bugs and glitches may be present in an otherwise fantastic game, making it drop to 3 stars due to the drop in playability.

2.5 Stars: Games where you see more the potential than the execution, that aren't really fun to play. However, you can see the vision of the artist and understand where they are going. This doesn't make the game any more fun to play.

2 Stars: Blatantly non-creative or uninspired games with limited playability that don't even serve to kill time. The potential is not there and the game seems more like an experimental sandbox for a programmer than a product for a consumer. Not worth exploring.

1.5 Stars: Game lacks potential and vision, and is executed horrendously, but is still playable.

1 Star: The game is not playable, or if is is significantly boring. Vague suspicions that the game is a troll or an experimental project persist from the beginning of the game to the end.

0.5 Stars: The game is not only unplayable, but also not worth redeeming or redoing due to how poor the concept and execution are. It is a completely hopeless case, executed by a clear novice with a long way to go before they are adequate at creating anything submittable.

0 Stars: The game is actively an insult to the gaming and programming community. Not a bad game, for this rating; the worst rating an honest attempt gets is 0.5 Stars. 0 Stars indicates offensive content, purposefully lacking gameplay, and basically a game that doesn't deserve its space not only due to being adequate, but due to actively being insulting.