While playing the two latest games I saw that they are part of "Summer Sizzle 2010 Challenge" where developers make 4 games in 4 weeks. Judging by the comments it looks like people didn't like these short games. I personally enjoy playing small simple games , if they are based on an idea which provides "replaying value". What do you think? Is it quantity over quality or not?
I was just about to start a topic asking the same thing. I think that considering they were developed in such a short amount of time they're well made. The saw game is the better of the two in my opinion, but it just depends which one you prefer.
I don't understand why people are rating them so low and saying they're bad games when they were made in a rush, hopefully they read the description for the next few..
A lot of the low ratings are because they are made in a short time frame. This isn't because the games are necessarily poorly made, but there are a lot of little glitches when you rush to get a game made. There are also many simple features which would make a game much better that are easily overlooked when you are on such a tight timeframe. Realistically people don't take into account how long the game was in development when they rate it, they purely go off of gameplay and if it isn't up to par then it will get a lower rating.
Really I actually liked the pool game better myself. The saw game had some issues with the mouse movement and I also ran into a few times when the 'wall' coding for the metal objects didn't seem on. Sometimes my saw would cross the metal plates and go right through, other times it wouldn't even touch them and it would register that it did, which was frustrating.
With the pool game I found that my highest scores were from just hitting the balls as fast as I could with little regard to proper aim and power. This detracted from it quite a bit in my opinion because it removed any skill or strategy from the gameplay.
That being said, yes they were both good games when you take into consideration time in development and the fact that I'm sure both developers had other constraints on their time, but the fact remains that I found neither one particularly noteworthy or a game I would return to play again.
well i agree quality is always going to be better than quantity this games are not that good but you have to at least give them a little credit for coming up with a working game in a week
I don't understand why people are rating them so low and saying they're bad games when they were made in a rush, hopefully they read the description for the next few..
That is because people don't like low quality games...
also most people dont take in what it takes to make a game most of the summer sizzle 2010 games have decent graphics they just dont take enough time to thoroughly play the game
