It's Easter n stuff...yaaaay.
Flip's Adventure can best be described as a very competently put together 2D platformer with a few fundamental flaws.
Let me get the praise out of the way first. As I said, it's very competently made. I say that because the presentation is beautiful. Color theming, high framerate, satisfying sound direction, etc. You'd be hard pressed to fine even a professionally made 2D platformer out there with objectively better presentation than this one.
That said, I think the team behind Flip's Adventure was a bit too eager to get a-programmin' and, as a result, made one major fundamental design contradiction that makes the game seem quite reminiscent of the Bubsy series. The level design and the control contradict each other. What I mean by that is that the level design is somewhat akin to Castlevania's level design in that it's all designed around the path you would take if you just tried to zoom through it. The challenge comes from the unexpected; the game demands that you think about what you do before you do it.
On the other hand, the controls are kind of similar to the controls from a Mario game. The jump is super powerful and you gather momentum as you run. Both the level design and control are nigh flawless on their own, much like perfectly made peanut butter and marinara sauce. Put them together, on the other hand, and you have a monstrous concoction that you'd feel guilty giving to a goat.
Okay, that was a bit harsh. Flip's Adventure is still very fun and is definitely one of the better freeware 2D platformers out there (yeah, I said it). That said there are just too many moments when my momentum forces me to slide into a wall of spikes or when my rocket jump is so powerful that holding it down for an extra quarter of a millisecond sends me careening into a wall for me to give it my seal of approval. Everything else about the game is very well done, though.
Well, I suppose I should probably mention the whole "achievement" part of the game. See, for every level, you get rewarded for completing a perfect run (no deaths), a speed run (with a very convenient little meter on the bottom left corner of the screen to tell you how much time you have left) and/or collecting an item (or puzzle piece) somewhere in the level. This is all fine and good, but I don't think it's even possible to get a speed run and not also get a perfect run. What's even the point of treating them as two different things if the clock doesn't reset when you die?
Ah, well. That's all I got for today. Until next time, stay pretty.
Links:
What's with DigiPen 2D platformers and the word "flip?": https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=25439
here are some videos of Ego and Jontron talking about Castlevania and Bubsy, respectively:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aip2aIt0ROM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTAlr5raV2U
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Fling
This was another one of those "not real exe" things, but thankfully, I was able to find a download link on this team's personal website. This lead me to discover that Fling was made by the same people who made Bossinabox, which I found to be mostly functional and amusing if nothing else.
Well I'm glad to say Fling is a bit more complex than Bossinabox...a bit. The basic gist of the game is that you control a catapult and your goal is to destroy the other catapults that are trying to destroy you. If you have friends, they can play too. I don't, so I just used the computer. The flow of events is very natural. You start off flinging rocks haphazardly at trees to collect resources and get a feel for the control and soon enough you've locked onto your enemy and are bombarding them with rocks of different shapes and sizes.
You have a variety of different rocks to choose from, but honestly, I didn't find much of a difference in any of them. Some do more damage than others, so the only strategy this particular design choice allows for is "pick the strongest one that you have enough resources to use." To be honest, I'm glad they didn't design the game around different strategies, because I tihnk the beauty of this game lies in its simplicity.
To be honest, that's really all I got in terms of a review, and it wasn't even a review. More of a summary. I'm glad I don't get graded on these blogs, because any critical writing professor would tear me apart. Since I'm not trying to get into Harvard with this or anything, I feel comfortable in leaving my final thoughts at this:
Fling is a fun game with a very simple control scheme, decent graphical style and rewarding feel. It's kind of like Bontago in reverse. Instead of trying to build stuff from a distance, you're trying to destroy stuff from a distance. Fling is much simpler than Bontago, sure, but if you've played both games, you know what I'm talking about.
That's all I got for now. Until next time, stay on target.
Links
the broken one: https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=596
The real one: https://sites.google.com/site/habibloew/games
PS- the soundtrack for this game is the Lord of the Rings soundtrack...huh.
Well I'm glad to say Fling is a bit more complex than Bossinabox...a bit. The basic gist of the game is that you control a catapult and your goal is to destroy the other catapults that are trying to destroy you. If you have friends, they can play too. I don't, so I just used the computer. The flow of events is very natural. You start off flinging rocks haphazardly at trees to collect resources and get a feel for the control and soon enough you've locked onto your enemy and are bombarding them with rocks of different shapes and sizes.
You have a variety of different rocks to choose from, but honestly, I didn't find much of a difference in any of them. Some do more damage than others, so the only strategy this particular design choice allows for is "pick the strongest one that you have enough resources to use." To be honest, I'm glad they didn't design the game around different strategies, because I tihnk the beauty of this game lies in its simplicity.
To be honest, that's really all I got in terms of a review, and it wasn't even a review. More of a summary. I'm glad I don't get graded on these blogs, because any critical writing professor would tear me apart. Since I'm not trying to get into Harvard with this or anything, I feel comfortable in leaving my final thoughts at this:
Fling is a fun game with a very simple control scheme, decent graphical style and rewarding feel. It's kind of like Bontago in reverse. Instead of trying to build stuff from a distance, you're trying to destroy stuff from a distance. Fling is much simpler than Bontago, sure, but if you've played both games, you know what I'm talking about.
That's all I got for now. Until next time, stay on target.
Links
the broken one: https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=596
The real one: https://sites.google.com/site/habibloew/games
PS- the soundtrack for this game is the Lord of the Rings soundtrack...huh.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Flight
Flight is one of those "give me an A- and get out of my face" kinds of games. At least it was for me. If might not be that way for everybody, and I'll explain why later.
First off, though, let me do a quick overview. There are 2 game modes, "survive" and "destroy the targets" "Survive" is a bit broken because the only shots that have a chance of hitting you are the green homing ones and even those stand no chance against a simple circle-straffe maneuver. Yes, you will die eventually, but the process of getting there is just a bit lackluster. A bit more variety would have helped.
"Destroy the Targets" is a bit more fun in my opinion. The targeting reticule is a bit wonky but very helpful once you get used to it. I like the fact that the only challenge is personal alone, meaning there's no way to be beaten. This, of course, is not something to strive for in all games, but it certainly makes games a lot less stressful.
After that, my experience with the game was over. Some would call it anemic, some would call it neatly wrapped. Personally, I think it's both.
I feel like I'm being a bit too harsh with this game because I'm bitter about one minor design choice. Maybe it was required given the materials DigiPen students can work with, but why is the only way for me to play multiplayer to own an Xbox 360 controller? It's hard to explain, but I get the feeling that multiplayer is the crux of the game. After all, the levels that you create in the level editor aren't accessible in single player. Why, then, does my choice to buy a Logitech Dual Action controller somehow make me unworthy to play the game in its entirety?
Oh well. If the game doesn't let me play it, then I don't review it. This game is no exception, so it only gets half a review.
That's all I got for now. Until next time, stay complete
Links
Squawk: https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=18593
First off, though, let me do a quick overview. There are 2 game modes, "survive" and "destroy the targets" "Survive" is a bit broken because the only shots that have a chance of hitting you are the green homing ones and even those stand no chance against a simple circle-straffe maneuver. Yes, you will die eventually, but the process of getting there is just a bit lackluster. A bit more variety would have helped.
"Destroy the Targets" is a bit more fun in my opinion. The targeting reticule is a bit wonky but very helpful once you get used to it. I like the fact that the only challenge is personal alone, meaning there's no way to be beaten. This, of course, is not something to strive for in all games, but it certainly makes games a lot less stressful.
After that, my experience with the game was over. Some would call it anemic, some would call it neatly wrapped. Personally, I think it's both.
I feel like I'm being a bit too harsh with this game because I'm bitter about one minor design choice. Maybe it was required given the materials DigiPen students can work with, but why is the only way for me to play multiplayer to own an Xbox 360 controller? It's hard to explain, but I get the feeling that multiplayer is the crux of the game. After all, the levels that you create in the level editor aren't accessible in single player. Why, then, does my choice to buy a Logitech Dual Action controller somehow make me unworthy to play the game in its entirety?
Oh well. If the game doesn't let me play it, then I don't review it. This game is no exception, so it only gets half a review.
That's all I got for now. Until next time, stay complete
Links
Squawk: https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=18593
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Firestorm
For a lot of reasons, time actually not being one of them for a change, this is going to be my only post today, and it's going to be a short one.
I try very hard not to swear in these blogs in part as a personal challenge to myself. I must say no game has made that harder yet than Firestorm.
Anyone who's heard me talk about video games probably knows how valuable I think customization can be in a game. Just like any game mechanic, though, when executed poorly, it has the ability to completely destroy the gameplay experience. Such is the case in Firestorm.
You're given a crapload of credits and an overly confusing series of shop screens to customize the ship that you will throw into battle. Suffice it to say that it's simply much more efficient to use one of the premade (however terrible) ships for a deathmatch that lasts a maximum of maybe 2 minutes.
this game is roughly 90% customization and 10% battle. Unintuitive design and poor conveyance ruin the customization. Sticky, frustrating controls and direct interference from the customization aspects ruin the battle. All-in-all, not a very good game in my opinion.
Links
it hurts my brain: https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=427
I try very hard not to swear in these blogs in part as a personal challenge to myself. I must say no game has made that harder yet than Firestorm.
Anyone who's heard me talk about video games probably knows how valuable I think customization can be in a game. Just like any game mechanic, though, when executed poorly, it has the ability to completely destroy the gameplay experience. Such is the case in Firestorm.
You're given a crapload of credits and an overly confusing series of shop screens to customize the ship that you will throw into battle. Suffice it to say that it's simply much more efficient to use one of the premade (however terrible) ships for a deathmatch that lasts a maximum of maybe 2 minutes.
this game is roughly 90% customization and 10% battle. Unintuitive design and poor conveyance ruin the customization. Sticky, frustrating controls and direct interference from the customization aspects ruin the battle. All-in-all, not a very good game in my opinion.
Links
it hurts my brain: https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=427
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Fight Zone
It's late...I'm tired...time for a short review
Fight Zone is the first *competent* FPS game on this list. It's an arcadey free-for all deal similar to Unreal Tournament. Of course, the major emphasis is on customization, which makes this feel more like Eliminate Pro, but I digress.
If you've played any FPS against bots, you've played Fight Zone. There's just one thing slightly different: the customization. Before the round and every time you die, you get to choose which of your weapons will be most effective, how much ammo you have, how high you can jump, etc. Everyone has 100 points to divy up among these attributes as they please.
This mechanic is really what makes this game engaging. There are enough different strategies to keep this game from getting stale for quite a while. I think the thing that makes the mechanic most engaging is that leveling up one particular attribute could serve a variety of strategies. For example, leveling up jump height not only works for sniping because it allows you to get to high places, but also can be employed much differently for a rocket-jumping strategy. There's a lot of overlap between the strategies. Lots of room for tweaking. It's a very basic mechanic, but it works very well. I may be misusing this game design term, but it allows for a lot of depth with very little complexity (don't worry, I'll link the Extra Credits on it so you know what I'm talking about).
Over all else, though, I think the thing I like most about this game is that it's just fun. Look, I hate the new Call of Duty games as much as the next pretentious game analyst, but there's a reason FPS games are generally considered the most fun in the medium. There's just something about them that plays so well to the innate desire to conquer. That said, Fight Zone is the most fun I've had with a DigiPen game yet.
The game is fun, the mechanics are solid, and it's a potentially useful teaching tool for game design students. These three qualities give me no trouble at all in giving this game my seal of approval.
Links
bang pew kaboom: https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=532
Extra Crediiit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU
Fight Zone is the first *competent* FPS game on this list. It's an arcadey free-for all deal similar to Unreal Tournament. Of course, the major emphasis is on customization, which makes this feel more like Eliminate Pro, but I digress.
If you've played any FPS against bots, you've played Fight Zone. There's just one thing slightly different: the customization. Before the round and every time you die, you get to choose which of your weapons will be most effective, how much ammo you have, how high you can jump, etc. Everyone has 100 points to divy up among these attributes as they please.
This mechanic is really what makes this game engaging. There are enough different strategies to keep this game from getting stale for quite a while. I think the thing that makes the mechanic most engaging is that leveling up one particular attribute could serve a variety of strategies. For example, leveling up jump height not only works for sniping because it allows you to get to high places, but also can be employed much differently for a rocket-jumping strategy. There's a lot of overlap between the strategies. Lots of room for tweaking. It's a very basic mechanic, but it works very well. I may be misusing this game design term, but it allows for a lot of depth with very little complexity (don't worry, I'll link the Extra Credits on it so you know what I'm talking about).
Over all else, though, I think the thing I like most about this game is that it's just fun. Look, I hate the new Call of Duty games as much as the next pretentious game analyst, but there's a reason FPS games are generally considered the most fun in the medium. There's just something about them that plays so well to the innate desire to conquer. That said, Fight Zone is the most fun I've had with a DigiPen game yet.
The game is fun, the mechanics are solid, and it's a potentially useful teaching tool for game design students. These three qualities give me no trouble at all in giving this game my seal of approval.
Links
bang pew kaboom: https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=532
Extra Crediiit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Fate
The first thing that struck me about this game is that it was made by Andrew Nack. The very same Andrew Nack who made Ethereal, a game that I found enjoyable but unfortunately had to compare to bLight, which had a bigger team behind it (meaning more than one person), due to the massive similarities in the playstyles of the two games. I'm not sure what else Mr. Nack did in his sophomore year, but creating two fully functional games all my yourself in the span of one schoolyear is definitely enough to earn my respect. That said, let's see what Fate can do.
This game is about bunnies. You must save the bunnies from drowning by getting rid of the coral obstructing their paths. Be careful, though, as the journey to the surface is a treacherous one. You are ranked by how many bunnies you manage to save, though if you get tired of trying to figure out a level and have already saved enough bunnies to move on, you can murder the rest of the fluffy little guys with the click of a button. Uh, hey...Watership Down called...
From a gameplay perspective, this is a solid puzzle game. It's not too long, has a reasonable difficulty curve, intuitive mechanics, etc etc. It's clear this Nack guy knows what he's doing. It Fate an incredibly engaging experience? no. Does it show potential to revolutionize the gaming medium any time soon? no. I don't think that's what this game was about. This game seems like an opportunity for a lone developer-in-training to show off his skills in programming and art direction, and in that case, it succeeds.
I did a bit of research and it turns out Andrew Nack has a grand total of 6 projects under his belt. You can bet I'm going to review them in sort of their own separate category, because my theory is that they are all attempts to push the skills of the individual rather than attempts to further the medium as a whole. And you know what? I respect that. Something hits close to home about a guy who deliberately chooses to engage himself with difficult and time consuming projects as a test of his own will before he can think about moving into really big projects (did I mention this is a blog?)
Well, if my theory is correct and all 6 of Mr. Nack's games show off this level of mastery in different sectors of game design and art direction, as Fate and Ethereal differed, then I'll be really excited to witness Mr. Nack's work in the future.
That's all I got for now. Until next time, stay inspired.
Links
Glub: https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=26416
This game is about bunnies. You must save the bunnies from drowning by getting rid of the coral obstructing their paths. Be careful, though, as the journey to the surface is a treacherous one. You are ranked by how many bunnies you manage to save, though if you get tired of trying to figure out a level and have already saved enough bunnies to move on, you can murder the rest of the fluffy little guys with the click of a button. Uh, hey...Watership Down called...
From a gameplay perspective, this is a solid puzzle game. It's not too long, has a reasonable difficulty curve, intuitive mechanics, etc etc. It's clear this Nack guy knows what he's doing. It Fate an incredibly engaging experience? no. Does it show potential to revolutionize the gaming medium any time soon? no. I don't think that's what this game was about. This game seems like an opportunity for a lone developer-in-training to show off his skills in programming and art direction, and in that case, it succeeds.
I did a bit of research and it turns out Andrew Nack has a grand total of 6 projects under his belt. You can bet I'm going to review them in sort of their own separate category, because my theory is that they are all attempts to push the skills of the individual rather than attempts to further the medium as a whole. And you know what? I respect that. Something hits close to home about a guy who deliberately chooses to engage himself with difficult and time consuming projects as a test of his own will before he can think about moving into really big projects (did I mention this is a blog?)
Well, if my theory is correct and all 6 of Mr. Nack's games show off this level of mastery in different sectors of game design and art direction, as Fate and Ethereal differed, then I'll be really excited to witness Mr. Nack's work in the future.
That's all I got for now. Until next time, stay inspired.
Links
Glub: https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=26416
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)