Nightingale's Realms Rebuilt, Adding Progression Tree, Increased Structure Limits and New Tileset |

System

Nightingale's Realms Rebuilt, Adding Progression Tree, Increased Structure Limits and New Tileset | MMORPG.com

Big changes are coming to Nightingale. Inflexion's survival crafting game will get a more structured progression system, crafting updates, an increase in structure limits, and more.

Read the full story here

ShinyFlygon

It's a shame that their Early Access reviews are going to haunt them forever, because it seems like the game might actually shape up to be worth playing by the time it's actually ready for market.

Elidien_ga

I love the game and it has such a goof foundation but you are 110% correct. Player count has been less than 500 for much of EA after the initial newness wore off. Its a solid game with a solid foundation and all that but it released way to early into EA. I feel like they should really develop it heavily for a year and relaunch it into double secret EA.

cheyane

So many of these games do a disservice to themselves by releasing to early access and all the ensuing bugs and terrible reviews. It is probably understandable as the funding dries up they have no other options but it is so difficult to recover from it.

Scot

ShinyFlygon said:

It's a shame that their Early Access reviews are going to haunt them forever, because it seems like the game might actually shape up to be worth playing by the time it's actually ready for market.

This is why games may need a second review when the properly launch, but I blame the studios for this. Early access has been turned into a system where studios get to have their cake and eat it.

Should games that do poorly in their first review even get a second, maybe not? This at least sends a signal to developers, if your early access is that bad you will get panned and find it hard to come back from that. So don't switch to EA too early as so many of them do.

mikeb0817

I don't update reviews. If they took my money, I'll review it as any other purchase - half baked or not.

Scot

mikeb0817 said:

I don't update reviews. If they took my money, I'll review it as any other purchase - half baked or not.

I think it was Joseph who talked about why would the site want to do a second review of something that does not at least perform well at EA, what chance is there really that it will do that much better? Which led me to think if a game does well in early access it is very likely to do well at proper launch, again why do the review?

I sit on the fence here, on the one hand I am pulled to the idea that a game must get a second review at proper launch on the other is it really going to useful to players? It would be a huge effort and would the site get lots of clicks for doing a second, I doubt it.

Brainy

Scot said:

mikeb0817 said:

I don't update reviews. If they took my money, I'll review it as any other purchase - half baked or not.

I think it was Joseph who talked about why would the site want to do a second review of something that does not at least perform well at EA, what chance is there really that it will do that much better? Which led me to think if a game does well in early access it is very likely to do well at proper launch, again why do the review?

I sit on the fence here, on the one hand I am pulled to the idea that a game must get a second review at proper launch on the other is it really going to useful to players? It would be a huge effort and would the site get lots of clicks for doing a second, I doubt it.

I dont see the difference from EA, and release. The moment a game allows the public to play, its released to me.

With that being said, I think there are 3 review numbers that should be tracked.

1) Review when public has access and date (historical)
2) Highest review the game received and date. (all time best)
3) Its current rating judged against games currently and date of last review (current)

All these reviews should use the standards of the time the review took place.

It would be nice to be able to compare older games to more current games using "todays" standards.   This way you can see if the game is still relevant and worth playing.

Sovrath

Should games that do poorly in their first review even get a second, maybe not? This at least sends a signal to developers, if your early access is that bad you will get panned and find it hard to come back from that. So don't switch to EA too early as so many of them do.

I don’t it’s necessary to be punishing. Especially since many early access games are from small developers. A second review would be appropriate.

Scot

Brainy said:

I dont see the difference from EA, and release. The moment a game allows the public to play, its released to me.

With that being said, I think there are 3 review numbers that should be tracked.

1) Review when public has access and date (historical)
2) Highest review the game received and date. (all time best)
3) Its current rating judged against games currently and date of last review (current)

All these reviews should use the standards of the time the review took place.

It would be nice to be able to compare older games to more current games using "todays" standards.   This way you can see if the game is still relevant and worth playing.

This would have to be done by the likes of Meta critic, I have thought of something like that myself and it would be automated, so a lot easier to do.

Sovrath said:

Should games that do poorly in their first review even get a second, maybe not? This at least sends a signal to developers, if your early access is that bad you will get panned and find it hard to come back from that. So don't switch to EA too early as so many of them do.

I don’t it’s necessary to be punishing. Especially since many early access games are from small developers. A second review would be appropriate.

I don't think it is clear cut, it was clear cut before we had early access. Call me a cynic but when it comes to game development and anything games do revenue wise I think obfuscation is purposeful or at least so handy they are happy to leave it that way.

I have thought this since pre-orders in the pre-internet age began, so this is nothing new. Reviews should be our gold standard, early access just kicked mud all over that.