In times like this I feel that people have been mindlessly brainwashed to eat the bird shat pie that is put in front of them, and then they can never tell the difference between that bird shat and a real pie. My first point of this is Tower Defense games, which yes I am a notorious hater of. Only Cursed Gems and Bloons Tower Defense seem to have it right, you want to make your tower defense simple, fast, and fun. If you draw it out with slow moving enemies and huge Diablo type upgrade menus, you might as well cut your balls off and sell them to a hobo, if he'll buy them. Looking at Bloons, you remove the element of "this tower kills this enemy" (except for a few VERY minor cases) and instead you just get "all of these towers will kill ALL of the enemy and you can add in a few to help you". And with Cursed Gems, you find very simple upgrade systems that are still very effective. I don't want to spend two-thirds of my game-play deciding which upgrades I want, I want to play the game, isn't that why the game was made? So it could be played? Apparently not now a days, especially with another element ported from platform games to flash games, MICRO-MANAGEMENT. I have played Mass Effect, and yes I too had some complaints about the menu system, but micro-management works in a large game like that. When you add micro-management to a flash game, it is just like putting whipped cream on your pie only to find out that the cream was replaced with bird shat. Plus, reviewers have lost their actual credibility as reviewers. If you dismiss a game just because it looks bad then go put hang yourself, please. Many good concept games get left to die because everyone has to be knit-picky. Yes admittedly bad graphics can be a major let down for a game, but sometimes the complaint is made when the game wasn't intended to have good graphics. We as reviewers need to stop and say "Hey, is this concept good? Is fun? Is it playable? Is it new?" instead of the common tendency to rule it out on just a few elements.
Eddy I never said micro-management was an element of TD's... lol.
mwn3d everyone has a different taste and I understand your point. Some people like to get immersed in a good story, some people want to see a lot of crap flying and blood on the walls, and some want a good balance of both, a little background story in between good segments of action. Finn would be one of those balanced tastes, I'm more of a fence jumper, sometimes I want a story, sometimes I want to spill blood like I'm an army of Freddy Kruegers.
Mardek has so much depth that comparing any flash game to Mardek is like comparing the responsibilities of a small town mayor to the responsibilities of the POTUS. It makes Sonny look like a children's bedtime story. The depth and freedom are unbelievable, especially when figuring only one guy is working on this and fitting in seamlessly multiple subplots in the Mardek/Rohoph story with bonus gameplay that requires more than just figuring out the what skills and kit is best for beating what. (Sure, one could play it that way but miss out on the story.) However, I think the discussion "morality" and "ethics" which follow into Mardek 3 (and Mardek is far far far greater in breadth than Mardek 2) if compared to games will appear novel but compared to storytelling? It's nothing new. In fact, in Mardek 3, the discussion of ethics and morality literally gets to the point of self-parody in more than one regard and specifically addresses the issue with killing monsters. It also goes over duty, but I'm not certain to what degree. What's really surprising about Mardek is the amount of immersion the player experiences in a fleshed out story and world that will only expand until the climactic battle and we are left wondering if there will ever be another game with such depth.
Guuuh... Umm.... *clap clap clap*
I am quite surprised at the amount of people who prefer a story between a simple game and a good story.
By simple, what do you mean O.o I'd really like to know as I am unsure how exactly you are putting it in context and I don't want to misunderstand anything before stating my opinion.
What I think you mean is that it's easy to follow, easy to use and easy to play altogether. I like that, I don't like it when they have alot to put together but the levels are easy, I prefer have a simple mechanic but hard levels, as it is harder to "master" each unique ability you may have. It drives more immersion for competitive people but it also drives away those casuals. A complex story however usually has something for everything and it's a pain having to "<ESC> <INVENTORY> <ANTI-DOOR SHOTGUN>" or something, just to break in. If it were as if you had little, you would actually play even smarter and find the fire exit, climb up, your friend hit the door open, taking cover, they get distracted and you shoot. Done.
A good flash game: Needs to suck you into it, great immersion. Needs to have an effective storyline (for those who want it). Needs to be playable with or without a story, but have "more in store" for the person reading it. Needs to (if it's 3rd installment of a series, usually) bring in new or different mechanics not previously used in the creators games. Needs to have a solid, enjoyable and understandable gameplay experiance.
Pretty much that. Oh and after looking at Gandits latest post I forgot to add: Not repeating and no need to grind. Fixed
Okay now I'm off to play Echoes - Operation Stranglehold and give it a shot, I'll tell you how it goes
By simple, what do you mean O.o I'd really like to know as I am unsure how exactly you are putting it in context and I don't want to misunderstand anything before stating my opinion.
What I think you mean is that it's easy to follow, easy to use and easy to play altogether.
Yes, that is what I mean. Complexity should arise from simplicity, not the other way around and especially not from complexity. This is especially true with respect to puzzle games where levels may gain considerable complexity by introducing simple new concepts. With respect to Fancy Pants, you can jump, slide, roll, wall-jump, etc. and all you need are the arrow keys and jump. You don't need to know if you have the amount of agility/dexterity or enough strength in your left hand pinkie to make the jump or make your way across by hanging onto a rope.
It may seem like I only like "casual" games but that is not true. I don't mind harder, badder, faster, and ten times the explosive awesomeness because I just love to blow stuff up in vert shooters. Even then, in those, the game is simple. All you need are movement keys and shooting and maybe a secondary weapon. You don't have X weapon super effective against Y and less effective against Z nonsense that is built into elemental magic or certain sword-and-sorcery games. To be honest, I'm not a fan of the battles in Mardek or other games like that (Pokemon comes as a famous example), but I put up with such battles for two reasons: (a) It's the way the game was built and the hero/protagonist should always be prepared (even one as dense as Mardek) so complaining just about that is ridiculous unless it absolutely requires the player to pull off a completely convoluted scheme. (b) There are more to those games than just advanced rock-paper-scissors. I find the storyline (as well as the world) of Mardek rewarding and the humor enjoyable.
What are you doing reading? Aren't the games supposed to be played? When the story comes up I'm usually frantically searching for the skip button. I don't care what princess needs to be saved or what gem needs to be retrieved. I just want to play a freaking game. I really like Sonny 2, but I didn't read a single word of the story. Most of the time when I hate a game it's because it's unplayable (controls play a big part in that) or it just takes too long to feel like any progress is being made (Epic War 4).
I actually find that the best part of a game is the storyline the first time around I play it.
Take Mardek, I play it because I want to see how the storyline goes. Unfortunately, games where there's usually really good storylines lack replay value.
Take Mardek, I play it because I want to see how the storyline goes. Unfortunately, games where there's usually really good storylines lack replay value.
True, but this is why I like the Fable Series, because it has a high replayability rate (were it not for my brother-in-law getting it broken) and yet it has an engaging story. But depending on your actions in the World it can change alot of things of what happens next, how people react and what rewards you can get from it in the end. There are supposed to be roughly 32 combinations (extreme ones I believe) for your hero in Fable 2, that's great! It has an unbelieveable amount of Roleplay oppurtunities and I also really like where you don't have to max out every skill to be able to beat the last enemies, alot of people say it's too easy because:
They didn't try making their own "classes", maybe like WoW, try making a Necromancer (Fireblast + Summon Undead with a spark of lightning and minor crossbow skill). Or you could try making a mage (do I really need to say?), a knight (any spell that looks absolutely divine, possibly lightning, a warhammer with an augmentation making it look gold I suppose, and of course a crossbow.), the possibilities are quite endless really.
Complexity should arise from simplicity, not the other way around
Yes, which was (what I think) I was saying, I don't mind games where simplistic controls need complex actions to pull it off properly. It also takes more skill than other games despite having less in it (Worlds hardest Game lol), but still has the ability to be interesting at the same time. Where simplicity arises from complexity it is incredibly annoying as you have all this stuff in which you barely know how to use, and all it takes is the right one or 2 to get the jok done. It needs to be a mix of both really. Because that's how you mix intellectual skill with the combat skill (I always talk about shooters / strategies / puzzles when I talk about games sorry , oh and RPG's) in a game. You need the right thing to make your job easier, but you need the skill to do it right.
I totally agree, tower games should be simple like "Bloons" and the "Gemcraft" series, where you don't get bogged down in upgrades.
Games like bubble tank defense are terrible as they remove the simple concept of "here is the path, defend it", and change it to " make your own path, the enemies can go wherever".
These games have got it wrong, and i would like to see some truly good TDG's in the near future.
