WarpZone's game Reviews on Newgrounds

[Escape the Den]

"You don't have the screwdriver."

Escape-the-room. You know the drill by now. Perhaps you've even gotten burned enough times in the past that you automatically hunt for hidden buttons along the floor near chairs and bookshelves and such, just in case there's something hidden behind it and the game's standard interface doesn't include an obvious way of doing that. You write down every number you see, and you rub every two items in the known universe together every time you find one. It's force-of-habit by now, right?

Well, unfortunately, that won't help you here. You see, there's one particular item, the screwdriver, which is jammed behind the computer monitor. You might consider that a spoiler, but it's not really, since you can't see the friggin' thing even if you look right at it. It looks more like a black sharpie cap on a very dark grey background.

I could overlook (no pun intended) something like this in an Adventure Game like Sam & Max, where every wrong move equals another easter egg's worth of hilarious hidden content, or in a game like Submachine where the atmosphere keeps you constantly tense. But this is a sterile, lifeless escape-the-room, more like Boat House. Only, instead of being creepy and alien, it's just a regular room with some ridiculously advanced gadgets hidden in the desk and wall.

There's no real story, so bizarre objects like the vibrating orb, which should have been thought-provoking, just felt tacked-on. I think the choose-your-own-adventure-style story concept was to blame. If you'd left the protagonist completely silent, and maybe given us notes left behind by the last people who were in the room, then the control panel hidden in the desk would have been intriguing. As it is, the objects in the room serve no purpose at all, other than to be part of the escape-the-room puzzle.

And I guess it's not fair to criticize the game for that. There's nothing wrong with making liberal use of genre conventions. The problem comes when you build an entire game out of nothing BUT genre conventions, and the button-hunt becomes an end unto itself.

If the screwdriver and other clues were clearly visible before you clicked on them, the game would be a trivial but playable 5-minute Escape the Room. As it is, it's a frustrating button-hunt that serves no purpose other than to direct traffic to the walkthrough.

Better luck next time. Next time, give us some characters, at least in note/diary/email form. Give us a simple-looking room at first glance, and then gradually transform it into something greater and much more meaningful. Not by exposing hidden control panels and weird alien Magruffins, but by revealing the story, bit by bit, to the player. Gradually filling in the blanks and adding meaning and significance to the room and its contents.

Or I'd settle for a purely functional puzzle game where I can actually see all the stuff.

Kyjast responds:

Ah, the joys of being a noob. Thanks to you and everyone else, I know all the problems I made in this game. My next one will have a plot, everything needed to get will be actually visible (Gasp!), and I'll make it a little more interesting by adding background music too. More meaning, coming right up.

[Inquisitive Dave]

Simple mindless wandering fun.

Adventure Game purists won't like it because you don't have to think. But on the other hand, NG users will love it because you don't have to think!

Basically you just run around the maze-like 2D world, hitting the space bar whenever you're prompted to. Puzzles solve themselves if you have the right item -- they're really more like keys. So it's more of a content-revealing maze than a game. That's okay, though. The content is kinda funny and there's nothing wrong with the controls or anything, so it's a fun way to kill a few minutes. Once.

Eventually, I got stuck-- I'm sure I've missed some obscure tiny item somewhere or confused two prompts as one, I'll check an online strategy guide later if I have time for it.

"Thanks! Now I can dance all day!" :D

[DayTrader]

I don't really understand what I'm looking at.

It must be an authentic stock-market sim, because no matter what I do, I always come away from it with less money than when I started. Even if I buy low and sell high, I take a bath. Maybe the buttons mean the exact opposite of what I think they mean, or something. I don't know.

As a video game, it's boring because there's only one risk/reward schedule and the interface is ridiculously obfuscated (just like in real-life,) but who knows. Maybe a real day-trader could benefit from training in this way. It certainly sounds like the author did everything he could to create an authentic trading simulation. Though frankly, those trading websites that let you experiment with fake money before you take the plunge are probably better practice.

It's a novel idea and it seems well-implemented, I just don't think I'm the right target audience for it. Giving the author the benefit of the doubt since I'm far from an expert on day-trading, two points off for the boring (but functional) interface.

AKGameworks responds:

There is a small commission per trade, and market orders are sold at the best bid price and sold at the best ask price. Ask-Bid should never be more than $0.10, but that's enough to lose money and probably what you experienced?

Other than that thank you for a insightful review. You may not have been the target audience, but there is quite a lot of work I need to do to make the game accessable to a wider audience.

[Crazy CAT Scan]

Fun, original premise, but no long-term interest.

The problem lies with the way the game escalates the difficulty. Since the scan bar gets thinner and thinner each level, eventually it becomes impossible to see anything. In other words, it's only a matter of time before you lose.

I recommend a bigger, more elaborate campaign mode in the next game you make. Something with persistent stats you can level up, and unlockable levels. That might seem odd for a medical game like this one, but trust me, there's all kinds of ways you can add long-term interest to an otherwise simple game premise.

[Post War]

Sluggish, awkward control impedes fun factor.

I played as the robot and I felt a bit under-powered. Then I played as the gunner chick and felt invincible until I hit that damn whip boss who could actually hit me from a distance. Clearly speed is uber in this game. Unfortunately, once I had a character who wasn't a magnet for enemy punches, I didn't find the gameplay challenging. Just awkward.

Most of the difficulty came from the fact that your attacks come out ridiculously slow. Also, your attacks will often miss an enemy while theirs will always hit (when you're both apart from each other vertically by a slim margin.) In other words, it feels like most of the challenge is manufactured, a byproduct of poor control, sluggish response times, and not near enough food.

Most of my favorite beat 'em ups are all hybrids, so maybe I'm just not appreciating the classic Final Fight-y-ness of it. But I felt the gameplay was a little linear and repetitive. Circling the enemy is okay, but I would have liked to see some more advanced combat options that are really OPTIONS the player can use liberally at any time.

In my mind, the ultimate beat 'em up RPG would include the long-term character building of Legend of Mana, the sheer number of RPG items as Valkyrie Profile, the amazingly solid combat of Guardian Heroes, and probably a healthy dose the jump-kicking fun of TMNT and the other arcade brawlers that used that same engine.

This game just has you trying to put a little breathing room between your guy and the enemies by walking in circles, sneaking attacks in when you think you can get away with it. That's the only play mechanic, apart from the occasional special attack, and it's not really enough to carry the gameplay.

I did love the characters and backgrounds. They're all interesting and they fit into the setting perfectly. I especially liked the gunner chick's intro animation. The music was completely lifeless, but at least it wasn't loud and was easy to tune out after a while.

The RPG elements were welcome, but I felt like much more could have been done with them. But more to the point, it does no good to add strategic depth to a game if the basic interface is this clumsy. Faster player attacks, please. Maybe some sort of a saved game/continue system so we can keep our persistent character development.

Maybe I'm asking too much. Maybe this was just meant to be a simple Final Fight clone with a shop between the levels, and it's not fair for me to expect it to be more than that. But, heck, River City Ransom did a great job of marrying RPG stat-building with 2D brawler, and that was in the 80's. There's no reason why this game couldn't be at least that good. It just needs... I don't know, a little more finesse. A little more depth and a lot less cheese.

[Tombscape]

Awesome game! :) Takes full advantage of flash!

It may just be a button-hunt with a few shooting gallery scenes added, but that doesn't stop it from being a fun romp. This game does just about everything you can do with a mouse, gameplay-wise, and it does it all quite well.

I only have a few nitpicks:

-In the math puzzle, the 8s and 9s look too much alike.

-The numbers are hard to see in the drawing-in-the-sand puzzle.

-I often missed a dot in the sand puzzle, even though it looked like I should have hit it. I suggest using Point.distance(p1,p2) to calculate how close the mouse cursor is to the next target, and if it's less than like 16 pixels or so, count it as a touch.

-Same thing with the torches you need to light in the hallway. I kept clicking on the torches but they wouldn't light. It was only by accident (and after trying all KINDS of other item combinations) that I discovered you need to click the space ABOVE the torch. Awkward. Maybe change it so that either way works?

(IM me if you need any more info on how to code it, but I have a feeling you're a great coder.)

These are extremely minor gameplay issues. Everything else about the game is great. Great graphics, great ambiance, great puzzles. The story is a little thin, but it works nicely in a "choose-your-own-adventure" kind of way. It certainly makes more sense than a millionaire shooting dinosaurs in a mayan temple and pushing giant stone cubes around with her chest. (Which is also made out of giant stone cubes.)

Excellent game, all around. :)

Psionic3D responds:

Very in-depth review and thanks for the nit-picks, they are appreciated and I'll definately keep your words in mind when I make the sequel ;-)

Thanks!!

[Lone Defender]

Bally tenpenny ones dropping in the custard!

Whew. What a trip. Lone Defender is a surprisingly earnest turret defense game that single-handedly delivers on the promise of every cheesy over-produced war game ever released to the Xbox generation.

I'm amazed no other game has attempted this. Capturing authenticity is easy when you USE ACTUAL HISTORY. Instead of making up some bullshit one-man army superhero story with like a few elements borrowed from WWII and plugged in as set-pieces, Lone Defender just shows you a front page story from an actual newspaper from back then.

Click the words "continued on page 2," and you'll get a link to the actual web archive of the actual articles! I was just along for the ride, at first, but every now and some random article would really grip me. We humans are fantastic information-filtering machines. We tend to skip over stuff we're not personally interested in, but we're great at skimming. For me, it was moments like the clever "ducks and drakes" bombing runs against german dams, the descriptions of horrified allied troops liberating a german concentration camp, the Americans and Soviets making contact behind enemy lines, Winston Churchill losing to the Labor party depsite succeeding gloriously as a wartime leader. Little details like that meant the world to me, and you'd never get those in like Battlefield 47 or whatever.

I'm sure other players would filter out other key moments and identify with them, but the point is that the game just tosses a ton of information at you between levels, and you'll probably come away with a few moments that really mean something to you personally.

Best of all, you're not getting briefed by some commander or something, you're just reading it on the front page of the newspaper like every other working-class sod. It's a brilliant way to convey story, and I applaud the author for it.

The game itself is just a stock turret defense game with little connection to the events of the war. You start off flacking the enemy with a slow, inaccurate piece of crap, (just like in real life,) but don't worry. The first stage is just barely playable, and as long as you don't neglect damage and spread some points around a bit, you'll soon build a gun you're comfortable with.

I actually held off on reviewing it until I beat the game, because I was worried about how playable it would be without the tier 6 powerups. I like NG because the black background lets me focus on the game, and the ads shut off so Flash Player has more resources to use on driving the game. Free is free, but if the sponsor's corporate agenda to come between me and playing the game, forget it, I won't play the game. I'm out. Mercifully, LD slips you the tier 6 powerups under-the-table after you've exhausted all other upgrade options. Then the game becomes a more standard TDG, with gradually escalating challenge. In the last few levels, I had to let some planes through because the first wave sends like 5 advanced prop planes with stars all at once, so there's nothing you can do but kill one or two of them and let the rest through. I beat the last stage with 1 life left, which is why I'm giving this game a 10 and not cussing the author out over a lack of any saved game system.

I wish all Edutainment titles worked this way. Sure, it's hard to cover all the establishment's programming when you let the player merely skim the articles, but I think I learned more about WW2 by playing this game than I did throughout grade school and high school.

I didn't mind the British frame of reference, either. It was a nice change of pace, and it served as a humbling reminder that while we may have ponied up plenty of planes, bombs, infrastructure, and some invasion troops, the bulk of the fighting was done over there in Europe.

In fact, after playing this game, I'm not convinced you can really tell the story of WW2 from an American soldier's perspective. Not that that will stop EA, but it's good to know that indie game devs on Newgrounds will always be around to pick up the slack.

[Gemworks]

Not a game. A puzzle with only one right answer.

Largely unplayable in terms of a video game. This is like one of those really really old puzzle games you'd see for Windows 3.1. You know what I mean? Like one of those box-pushing games or a maze with keys and doors, and there's exactly ONE right way to clear the room? The (lone) risk/reward schedule is set up like one of those games.

In other words, it's boring. Even worse, the deceptively simple interface obfuscates the game's deliberately obtuse matching rules. The player has no agency whatsoever until they deduce which combos will cause a gem to form where, and since these rules are never explicitly stated in the tutorial, it means you'll need to lose a few games before you'll even have the foggiest idea how the game is played.

The final nail in the coffin is, when you realize you've inadvertently made a large gem in the wrong place, THE GAME WILL NOT LET YOU RESTART THE LEVEL. You need to start a New Game from the VERY FIRST LEVEL if you mess up. This is poor form and very unfair.

Labeling this title a "gem matching game" is false advertising. People hear "gem-matching game," and they think of classical puzzle games where you match small gems, the small gems disappear, and you keep doing it ad infinitum. You know, "easy to learn, difficult to master?"

Well, this game plays more like a cross between a button-hunt and a combination lock. It's a pain in the ass to learn, and if you put up with its bullshit long enough to get the hang of it, it just adds more ways you can fail so you need to start over more often, and random chance means it's more likely you'll end up in an unwinnable state than you'll solve it, even if you work the system right. Just bad game design, all around.

Candystand knows how to code and they have good art, but it's clear they don't know the first thing about game design. Gameplay should be simple and intuitive at the most basic level, and additional complexity should emerge as new risk/reward schedules are added to the game. Overall success or failure should be a long-term thing. It should NEVER hinge on the first move.

And if your game MUST have a ton of opening moves that lead to inevitable dead-ends, the player needs to be able to reset the game at any time, so they can re-do that first move over and over again until they figure out how to frigging play.

Yes, if we took the time to learn the bizarre vertical/horizontal system, we'd be able to play as well as the game's creators, but when the game's on a portal and we have hundreds of other games to choose from, we'll quit a confusing game and keep coming back to a game that's fun. This game was confusing, not fun.

I'm all for games that make you learn, but the learning can only occur in the space of experimentation. If the first wrong move screws your entire campaign, or requires you to make a dozen other moves for the game to say "NO MORE MOVES" and start you over, that game makes you waste a minute or two between learning events. Nobody's going to put up with confusion for that long.

The difference between novelty and confusion is subjective, so I can't prove I'm right. But assuming you want people to actually enjoy playing your game, you want it to be easier and more intuitive at the micro level, and complex in ways that can be addressed gradually over several (successful!) playing sessions.

It's possible this is a "thinking-man's game" and I'm just not the right audience for it. But if that's the case, neither is most of Newgrounds, I suspect. I recommend some serious introspection on the part of the authors, if their goal is to create a fun game that many people will enjoy playing.

If the goal was just to pad Candystand with as much content as possible, congratulations. Mission accomplished. Nothing me or anyone else says about the game can take that away. Maybe there's a big market for boring games with bad gameplay, I dunno. But it's surely not for the Newgrounds crowd.

[Bomb Detonator]

Great gameplay! Make it longer! Here's how:

Here's how you take a quick mini-game like this one and turn it into a full-fledged Casual Game:

-Separate the gameplay into discreet stages. (Each stage should have vastly different backgrounds, and one slightly unique twist on gameplay, such as motorcycles instead of cars, or stationary buildings you have to drive around.)

-Make some kinda map screen so the player can replay old stages and unlock new stages.

-Keep a local "top score" for each stage, that represents the player's personal best.

-Add a level-up system that the player can use to "spend" points to improve the capabilities of his vehicle.

-Save these per-stage top scores (and other persistent player stats) to the user's hard drive as a saved game file.

Once you've implemented all of those features, you'll need to balance the game:

-Give the player a way to be a daredevil. That is, let him take on more challenges if he thinks he's powerful enough to get away with it. Let the player up the ante at any time, making the game harder but also increasing the potential rewards.

-In order to beat the last stage, the player will almost NEED to buy all the persistent powerups.

-Achieving the highest possible score in all the stages should give the player PLENTY of points to buy most of the powerups.

-You should be able to beat most of the earlier stages even if you have only minimal powerups.

-A high-level character should be able to replay the earlier stages and, because he's so strong now, be able to take on more challenges and therefore achieve a MUCH higher score than before.

And yes, I stole all of these ideas from GemCraft. :) It's a tower defense game, not a driving game, but it uses a lot of game design ideas that are just good sense for any casual game with quick, simple gameplay.

If you implement all of the ideas above, you'll end up with a long game with plenty of challenges all the way through, wherein the player has total control over his actions, but he gains a slight advantage after every stage, and over time he can be more and more of a daredevil, constantly improving on his previous best scores and learning new obscure tricks towards getting the best scores. And, yes, in this case the scores would actually mean something tangible then just competing with the 20 most hardcore players on the internets, it would be how you level-up over time. :)

You can get away with just a fraction of these things, of course. Just make the game end not when the player finally can't keep up with the escalation and runs out of time, but when the player finally beats the last stage. That alone makes the game more rewarding. "Can I beat the game" is just psychologically much more fun than "How long can I last?" That and some kinda persistent level-up system instead of an oldschool collectable powerup system. Those two things will lend any decent mini-game considerable replay value. You don't necessarily need to copy GemCraft, it's just that GemCraft did a lot of things really well.

[The quarry]

Nonstandard interface makes it pretty clumsy.

It's not very approachable because of the strange interface and layout. The dotted line triangles were strange, but at least they were consistent. The less consistent part of the interface just made the game confusing, though:

-Apparently you can't pick up a small rock. Because of this, I assumed I couldn't pick up anything else until I found a bag or something. Later, it turned out I was wrong.

-The scythe as seen from far away turns into a battleaxe when you get closer.

-I don't have a very good sense of how the cavern is laid out, because no matter what room I came from, I always appear in between the various dotted line triangles.

-"I could climb into this tube!" Okay. So do it. Click. Click. "I could climb into this tube!"

-And then you enter the maze carrying a torch AND a weapon, and you see something that looks kinda like a brazier where you could light it, but instead you die. You don't see what killed you, you just randomly die. I guess it was a monster or something. Whatever.

That's as far as I got before giving up on it. I'm not about to load it again because you have the most pretentiously long splash screen in the known universe. I realize it must have taken a long time to draw, but seriously, it's not worth 45 unskippable seconds of my life.

I didn't say anything about the graphics, because I think the gameplay is more important. It's an adventure game, after all, and those have never had good graphics.

Overall, it's a decent first effort, but I feel it would benefit greatly from a more unified interface, and generally just a little bit more detail about the world, so you know what you're looking at and what's going on. I definitely look forward to more games by euopun. The world always needs more adventure games. :)

euopun responds:

Thanks alot of those questions are good points... let me try and evaluate

1 this is an easter egg

2 there is a map somewhere in the cavern... you just have to find your way there first

3 uhhh... you should use spacebar for action.

4 yeah this maze is a bit tedious... the map might help you navigate.... and omg that was a spoiler!?!?!?!?!?111

Thanks alot for the response btw