St. Elmo's Fire

  • Huh, that’s interesting. I forgot to paste raw. It’s fixed now.

  • Some extremely low-effort revenge reviews, and otherwise not much.

    Jun 12Shooting Star Dragon 3000
    A response to your review at

    Dude, don’t be a dick. […]

  • Some variety today, including a story with talking pokemon that does nothing to examine the implications, and a bunch of gross porn.

    Anime: 8

    Hi! I’m doing a round of reviews around the site, hoping to help g […]

  • FFXIII is… kind of the worst of both worlds. It’s ostensibly turn-based, but it doesn’t pause while you’re inputting commands. It generously provides you a way around this by automatically selecting recommended commands via an AI with a single button press, which in practice is all you’ll ever do. You can watch a gameplay video if you’re…[Read more]

  • Just posted the ending chapter of this. If you’ve been waiting to read, now’s a good time.

    (Would also still appreciate a TVTropes entry)

  • A nice response to a detailed review, and otherwise nothing.

    re: Your review to Quagsires Quest
    6 JunLeoTheDumb
    A response to your review at

    ok I just have this […]

  • A competent but otherwise unremarkable novelization, two instances of weird untagged porn (including totally-not-incest between adopted siblings), and what looks to be an actually good grimdark Rocket takeover […]

  • That was very good! I particularly liked The Parable of the Good Robot.

    Forward (which I linked in the review) is also looking pretty good on this, though it’s focused more on the human side.

  • ERROR: Human Not Found is a murder mystery visual novel about a murdered AI. You play as one of the researchers involved in the AI’s development, and team up with another AI to investigate the mystery. It’s free […]

    • Act replied 2 weeks ago

      You should check out Catherynne Valente’s novella Silently and Very Fast. It sounds like exactly what you wanted from this game. P sure it’s up on for free.

      • That was very good! I particularly liked The Parable of the Good Robot.

        Forward (which I linked in the review) is also looking pretty good on this, though it’s focused more on the human side.

  • A lot of weirdness but nothing particularly noteworthy.

    re: Your review to The Deathman’s Dragons
    2 JunThe Deathman’s Overlord
    A response to your review at

    Thank […]

  • A decent story about an autistic kid, a Mary Sue/Mewtwo romance, and a story where Lusamine spends all her time sobbing over her losses instead of doing anything about it because she’s so pathetic and […]

  • I clearly state that I repost PMs on my profile. I have never made any attempt to keep this a secret or entrap anyone.

    I do not see how this is in any way a breach of trust. Your message was in response to a public comment and contained no sensitive information (if either of those things are different, I do not repost). I genuinely do not…[Read more]

  • Very chill today.

    re: Your review to In Beta
    30 MayNamohysip
    A response to your review at

    Heya, thanks for the review! I’ll reply to this bit by bit.

    -I didn’t […]

    • The species name is their legal name, in the same way we have last names. Grammatically, “He’s a Charmander” is the same context of “He’s a Smith” and so on, similar to referring to someone by their clan name. A happy compromise!

      That’s actually pretty clever if the story’s confined to one region or location.

    • I clearly state that I repost PMs on my profile. I have never made any attempt to keep this a secret or entrap anyone.

      I do not see how this is in any way a breach of trust. Your message was in response to a public comment and contained no sensitive information (if either of those things are different, I do not repost). I genuinely do not understand the issue.

      • Eh, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that a disclaimer about PM reposting be included in the review boilerplate, especially if people are now taking things posted in private messages and using them to attack authors who don’t immediately condemn everything you say in your reviews. I would find it really unsettling if someone got up in my face with words that I thought only one other person had seen, and I don’t usually look at author profiles before I reply to reviews.

        • The boilerplate would be great and free up profile space (it’s usually not even relevant to people actually showing up to PM me through my profile) if people hadn’t made it clear that the “I’m doing this thing” warning gets taken even worse than seeing us doing the thing. Indeed, this has just illustrated that people are completely nuts on the subject and left to their own devices decide a pressing issue is that hypothetically we could put different text in people’s mouths.

          • Well, I figure the people who’ll get weird about it will get weird about something no matter what you do, and the people who don’t get weird about things might appreciate it. But I totally understand not wanting to invite more drama. :(

    • Think about how badly that’d actually be taken. It’s easy to jump to the idea that any other way of doing it must be better simply because one’s already happened and the other hasn’t.

      PMs on a site that has no other way of talking to people are not getting sent as the result of an intentional decision that they wanted something kept private. They’re getting sent because someone clicks the only links available to them. The main difference between what’s happening here and the standard behavior across the internet is that we attempt to do so consistently and honestly instead of picking a couple people we want to crucify and showing off precisely enough to best mock them.

    • Your over-the-top catastrophizing is not useful, nor is your seeming assumption that this was started last week as some plot to humiliate you. Take a deep breath, look around the blogs and Farla’s forum to get a sense of why this has been the review procedure for like 15 years, and then come back and have a calm discussion.

      If you don’t want your conversation here, tell us and it will go away. No one will think less of you for this.

      Or, idk, keep raving incoherently about how there’s some timeline where posting PMs causes nuclear war.

    • Speaking of honesty, you know what’s also funny about doing these private conversations publicly? Editing source html on a page. It’s stupid easy to hit F12 on a page and literally edit the text of what’s said in a private message before taking a screenshot, copy/paste, whatever. And because a lot of people don’t actually know this is done, they’ll have no way to defend themselves if their message had been edited.

      So because a bad thing we’re not doing is physically possible in the world and such misrepresentation of what was actually said is horrible, it’d be better to not have the actual text. Because people being able to defend themselves against mistruth is important, we shouldn’t let anyone know what was actually said and it should just be however we choose to describe it instead.

      People are not actually hurt by their words here. They consistently don’t ask us to take the PMs down even when they’re here just to say how very upset they are about it. Instead, like you, people mostly start hypothetical arguments about how this could be a terrible thing if only we intentionally did something to make it terrible – misrepresenting people, using it as a hitlist, publishing actual sensitive information, refusing to take it down when the person asks. And those tend to be the reasons why people react badly to being told we’re doing this – not because they don’t want their words known, but because when they think of the very idea, they assume there’s some convoluted malicious plan behind it.

    • Wait, so you’re aware we’ve been undergoing a targeted alt- right hate campaign that including among other things *someone contracting the lawyer of our web host to try to get the site taken down for hate speech* and you’re unable to understand why we’re in favor of clear, comprehensive documentation? In fact, in this situation, we’re in the wrong for promoting total transparency.


    • I thought I’d pop in to give my two cents. Sorry for the long post, everyone. I actually do agree with you on an emotional level, Namo, specifically about how the disclaimers pertaining to the posting of PMs aren’t posted in the most relevant place, as most people don’t actually visit the profile of the person reviewing. Ideally, such information wouldn’t be posted at all. The overall situation at hand, however, is far from an ideal one, where people react fairly and rationally. As Act has pointed out, and as you yourself are apparently aware of on some level, the people here have been treated unfairly, and as a result, have had to respond accordingly. It’s not that they’re doing this as part of some harassment campaign, it’s kinda the opposite.


      I haven’t been around long enough to see all of it, but from my understanding, Farla has been reviewing fairly, giving constructive criticism for 15 years. “Fairly,” in this case, means reviewing a story without going for the praise sandwich, and illuminating all the various flaws she sees for the author to be able to address so that they may improve their story or as a writer. Unfortunately, most people don’t want a fair review, they want idle praise, even if that means a reviewer lying through their teeth or not saying anything at all. And in this society of “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all,” a great deal of people have arisen with the notion that for some reason that a review– an actual review, not just “omg I luv it pls continue”– is out-of-bounds, and should be treated as an act of war.

      Hence, Hybrid.

      The people here are actually really good, honorable people, though. I haven’t agreed with every method they do, and my involvement in the scene first came with my being a petulant naysayer, even, after Saint told me my extremely less-than-perfect story was less than perfect. But it didn’t take me long to realize that they’re not actually the spawn of Satan, and that they do have a reason for the way they do things.

      In the past, I had even requested that the people here take down PM chains regarding my reviews, and they did. If this is about your reviews being made public, and if you genuinely have a problem with that, if you ask them to remove them, they will do so. I can understand your issue with private messages being made public. I don’t really like it, either. The issue at hand is that they’ve been attacked for fifteen or so years (I have no idea the exact amount for when this started happening, just that it’s been going on for some time) by people who can commit all manners of libel. They can say Farla or Saint or Act or anyone who reviews, really, made a death threat against them, made hate speech, any provocative thing that will get the already-aggravated masses even more riled up against the people who dare to give more than the customary praise sandwich.

      That, of course, is where the PMs come in. I’m sure you’re aware that some reviewing websites post the PMs of authors who behave in a childish manner, so that they may mock them as a deterrent for future childish behavior, such as in the case of this:

      The problem here is that Farla has a stronger code of ethics than scifiandscary, and while that website is probably justified in their policy of posting private conversations for people who harass them, it has the possibility of damaging their reputation or writing career, as was mentioned by the author that link concerns. People don’t notice a PM chain if it’s one in a thousand, but if someone posts one in a rare occasion, or if people know it’s tied to drama, it’s like an endorsement to gather the internet ’round to gawk at the person, “see that’s the one, look how stupid he was for saying those things, what a loser…”

      Furthermore, having access to everything that’s been said provides Dragon Quill a defense against people who would and have committed libel. No, it’s not perfect, photoshop exists, but something is better than nothing, right? If DQ didn’t have to deal with such an overwhelming amount of trolls, I would argue for a compromise, something similar to what I did when I thought my reviews might be made public, and give the author options in a corresponding review, such as:

      -PMs remain totally private-A summary of what you have said will be given-PMs are posted with name omitted-PMs will be posted without modification

      But if such a system exists, DQ’s name can be slandered with impunity, as they have the first option of making everything private. The fact that they’re willing to take down PM chains at all is proof of their applying a code of honor to this system. The second option still allows room for people to cry wolf. The third one is totally useless, as it doesn’t tie the conversation to a specific user at all, and thus cannot be used as a defense against an untrue accusation. The fourth option, the one currently in place, is the only one capable of doing that, at least to some degree.

      TLDR; the system in place exists for a reason, if you care to look hard enough. They’re not doing this to harass anyone, but so that they won’t be harassed further.

      Edit: cleaned up some of the beginning paragraph so my intended message was made clearer.

  • “Harmony of Dissonance” one of the better storylines, really?

    It’s a low bar, but yeah. There’s an actual mystery going on with Maxim, they purposefully mess with you to make the two-castle thing less obvious at first, and I found the areas nicely atmospheric. I found it to overall have the most pathos of the Castlevanias I’ve played, and Jus…[Read more]

  • The Sorrow games would be really cool to see, but it’ll likely be a long time before we get there, if at all.

    I’d actually like to see an adaptation of Harmony of Dissonance, even if it’d delay Symphony of the Night and the Sorrow games. It’s often regarded as a forgettable entry, but I actually thought it had one of the better storylines. T…[Read more]

  • A weird story about what appears to be a self-insert replacing Lillie’s role in the plot of SuMo, a decent story about the creation of Porygon, an amusing story about an incompetent spoiled brat trainer, and a lot […]

    • Blocked; this is the guy who’s writing pokephilia romance for every single pokemon.

      … Gotta fuck ’em all?

      I’m sorry.

  • Shirou’s summoning wasn’t random, though, since he had Arthuria’s relic stuck inside of him.

    What I mean is that he wasn’t trying to summon Arthuria on purpose. You can use plot contrivance to get a summon if necessary — all the Masters are Zelda nerds with paraphernalia present or something silly like that.

  • I mean, both Nasuverse and Zelda operate on “whatever works for the story”, so you could do basically whatever! (I’d say ocarina/windwaker magic could work as Noble Phantasms for other classes, though — Noble Phantasms aren’t always directly related to the class’ function.)

    My headcanon for Zelda has always been (and still is, “official”…[Read more]

  • As for Caster, Wind Waker and OOT Link can both literally affect the weather, time, and other shit mages would envy him for.

    I was actually thinking A Link to the Past Link — he has those screen-clearing medallion spells, plus a ton of magic wands and he’s generally the highest-power Link in the series.
    It would also be cute to have Caster who’s…[Read more]

  • In principle, there is a requirement for the Assassin in that your true name must not be widely known in association with your legend (so, mostly limiting the pool to various Hassassins and Jack the Ripper), but it kinda gets ignored in later installments.

    That works perfectly, then — there’s no way “Link” is his real name.

    With Berserker, your…

    [Read more]

  • Load More
Skip to toolbar