Rainbow Moon Review - Gaming Nexus

From the review: "Despite having some control issues, Rainbow Moon gets most of the core gameplay right. Unfortunately, the game's horrible pacing and insane difficulty makes this impossible to recommend. This would have been a better product if the developers weren't so preoccupied with microtransactions!"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
portal_22251d ago

"Cash grab". I thought this as I kept running out of coins until I realised you had to collect the sacks of gold during a match otherwise only the last sack is collected at the finish. Now I have plenty of coins :) 3.5 is a joke, so is this website.

Shikoro2251d ago

Yeah, this review is an obvious hit grab. :)

portal_22251d ago

"Submitted by GaymingNexus" ive just been trolled.

GribbleGrunger2251d ago

disgraceful score. Sir, you are a cad

r212251d ago

What the flying frack? No way is RM a 3.5 out of a freaking 10. At least a 7 or 8.
A score of 3.5 would mean the game is horrid, doesnt work well and is just unplayable. Rainbow Moon has none of those qualities :L


extremely repetitive,bland characters and environments(dungeons especially )
boring combat that becomes a chore as the game grinds on into a mind numbing cycle of fight/move/fight
I never had any real money issues largely because I discovered numerous coin making schemes.some npc characters will repeatedly pay you to gather materials etc...
One should also keep in mind that the game is 14$,for that price it is relatively worth it as 50+ hours can easily be had here.It isn't without it's little likeable qualities and while it certainly isn't a 3.5/10 it IS closer to a 5.5/10 than many would like to believe.

Robotronfiend2251d ago

"Insane difficulty". Please. I'm at the final battle right now and it was not hard to get here. I never bought a coin or a pearl. I never had to grind a single level for anything. Sometimes you need to take responsibility for not having skill at a certain genre instead of automatically blaming the game.

The author has it backwards. The article was a cash grab (hits for ads), not the game.