Bezman's game Reviews on Newgrounds

[Pixel Platformer]

I hope the funding idea works out.

My play experience
================

Played. Clicked on blocks, but none worked as links. played the game. Checked the high scores. Completed game. Played around trying to work out how far I could jump. Got a decent score. Closed the window.

Aspects (rated from ----- to +++++)
============================

+++++: Funding like this could help game developers like me...
++++: movement seems good
-: I wasn't too keen on the way you die having fallen an arbitrary height, but not 1 pixel less.
---: only one level
-----: none of the pixel-links seem to work.
-: no option to turn sound off

overall
=======

I saw on your website something suggesting you may be aware that the links didn't work. If so, to release it in this state seems suicidal.

Also, reviewing your own game just isn't kosher. And if you wanna thank folk for reviewing, respond to their reviews.

[Gravoor 5]

Levels take absure timeframes to load.

my play
======

Loaded. Played levels, game over at #8. Clicked around the menu. Realised I'd have to start again. Decided I didn't want to.

aspects (rated from ----- to +++++)
===========================

------: it takes WAY too long to load each level. Is it loading it from your server or something? In any case, it took a ridiculous amount of time and that, combined with the fact that we need to listen to the music, is a large part of what made me not play again.
----: we can't turn off the music. (Not while the level's loading anyway)
-: I'm not too keen on the way the beasts move so slow when the mouse is close and to get them to move at a decent speed you need to be far away...

++: It's somewhat different from a typical mousegame.
+: the music could be worse.
+++: the toys you introduced had real potential to be made into some fiendish puzzles.

-: but it seemed to be mainly about navigating small tunnels quickly.
-: All the levels were almost overly simple (in terms of working out what you were meant to do) with the number of things you'd introduced seeming almost redundant when you didn't explore their usage...
--: having to wait to shrink after collecting the enlarger was no fun.
-----: I hate having to re-play it. We've done it once. Why must we do it again? Being forced to repeat things isn't much fun. Take a leaf out of the book of most mouse-games and have infinite lives.

++: I like some aspects of the art.

overall
=======

I have no idea what the last 7 levels are like. I might have quite enjoyed them.

But they really would have to be amazing to be worth trudging through the process of waiting for each level to load. (each taking maybe a minute.)

There's something functionally wrong here.

But obviously you've been working at this series, and I can admire that.

Hopefully you'll consider my criticisms and make the Gravoor game to blow all previous efforts out the water.

Stay funky,
- Bez

[Future Skys (demo)]

Not fun.

my play
----------------

Loaded, closed to check that music was coming from it, started again, died maybe 5x, got to the bit where half the thing in the right has gone off the top screen. Then when I died I gave up.

aspects (rated +/-)
-----------------------

------: Music starts when loaded. DON'T DO THAT! It's annoying for anyone who loads flash whilst doing something else.

+++: It is a good song

-: it doesn't fit well with the theme of the game you've chosen (spaceships, missiles and whatnot)

----: we die if we go off the top of the screen. It's not mentioned in the instructions.

+: Some of the objects look quite interesting.
++: I like the fact that you have background detail.

-: Although that background thing really looked like it should have been an obstacle
----: the collision detection seems 'fudgy' - i.e. it doesn't always seem like the pixels have collided when we 'die'.
-----: the enemy patterns seem to have to be 'learnt' rather than reacted to. It's more a memory test than anything.
--: no gameoverscreen.

++ this is a demo - might get better.

----: I really don't like the way that moving off the screen can lose the game. So basically we're moving 'forward' at some constant rate, whenever we press up.... it just seems silly.

overall
---------

I actually think you should abstract your game further and divorce it from any real-world aspects, then take a look at it and just focus on making it fun.

It's still possible, but it's heading in the wrong direction.

With better collision detection and enemies you can REACT to rather than just USE MEMORY against (e.g. give them some simple AI, reacting to player position) it might be quite fun.

Keep at it. Stay funky.
- Bez

[Box Ball: Multi Play]

I doubt it'll be played multiplayer much at all.

my experience
------------------

Opened, worked out only some controls, died (though no message showed up - the game just paused a few seconds later). Read your comments, played 1st game, played and reviewed, returned to this. Played controlling both at same time. Found they have different jump-dynamics. Best way to get through was to line them up then press both keys at the same time. It's actually kind of interesting in a way.

I died maybe 12 times, got about 15s into the level on my best go (as far as the mirrored 'L' .

aspects
-------------

-----: terrible hitbox on the 'replay' button'.
---: the first time I played, death wasn't properly recognised.
--: no instructions. I know you say it's part of the other game, but given that it'sa seperate submission, it should have instructions. Anwyay, the other game doesn't have full instructions for this. I mean that it should technically instruct us that the winner is the one to stay alive the longest. And what happens if we both stay alive?
-: Most folk tend to browse NG alone. And if you're browsing with a pal, you watch movies. I'm just saying that multiplayer stuff isn't gonna be played multiplayer unless it's amazingly good.
---: The single-player levels were too easy. I think you should have made new multiplayer levels, maybe partially randomly generated (since the RNG affects both the same way, I'll condone randomness here).

-: should keep a count of wins/losses

+++: apart from the one glitch, it worked well.

+++: simple to pick up.

overall
--------
Multiplayer games need to be awesome to be played as intended. But this game does have potential to be awesome. Shorter stages, increasingly speedy, getting stupidly hard at the top... somewhat better control, maybe stretch and squash implemented when bouncing...

I think you should lay off for a while though. I get the impression that your AS isn't yet up to scratch.

But keep at it. Do other things. And you'll continue to learn and improve.

Stay funky,
- Bez

[Box Ball]

The potential wasn't realised.

My experience
----------------
Played. Glitch after L1.1. Then I died on purpose on l1, right-click played to see what would happen. Played l2.1, fell off at a tricky bit, but the screen kept going - not recognising my failure.

Aspects (rated +/-)
------------------

------: After I completed L1.1, it went back to the menu.
--: 1st level is way slow and boring.
---: I think the bit I died on at level 2.1 was disproportionately hard, compared to the rest of the level
-: I'd like to see the ability to jump at different heights, to not whack off the top.
-: it seems wierd that if you 'walk off' a ledge, you fall so slowly compared to when you jump.

+++: The interactive pre-loader was a really thoughtful touch.

++: The idea has more potential than you've realised. I was looking forward to seeing the horizontal stages and bonus stages...

overall
---------

The game had potential but wasn't fun for me.

I think you should sort the game out, maybe make another version. Or persue another idea if you like and come back to this when you know more AS.

Keep at it.

Stay funky,
- Bez

dreamers responds:

thx, question tho... howd u play lvl 2.1? i didnt think it was on this version... i thought i split the lvls up, any way all ur point have been taken in to consideration and i acctualy changed them b4 u posted this reply;

lvl 1 is posta be slow as it is... well lvl 1

lvl 2.1 will be changed, that is why i havent uploaded it

i can't yet make it so u can jump at diff hights, ill look into it

the level moves, not the ball so when u jump u get an added boost, compared to when you fall. ill look into it and change if possible.

ive only just got to a point with lvl 1.1 in which i think im ready to continue to lvl 1.2 so if u play any lvls beond lvl 1.1 then at the moment they will have non of the new attributes lvl 1.1 has,

thanks for the honest review though bez,

i hope when its finished you'll be more pleased with it

["24 seconds" episode 2]

Brilliant idea.

+
--------------

I like the idea. Funny. Actually made me care. Great music.

The bad graphics arguable work well.

Tweened colours in '24 seconds' title screen work well.

-
------------

IT'S NOT A GAME! I was honestly hoping for some ingenous form of interactivity lasting only 5 seconds. Or at least some game. You labelled it wrongly and should edit your submission.

Bad graphics. The pause at the start of the episode was WAY too long considering we were coming in mid-sentence. Pause at end seemed too long also. Maybe he could have started his next sentence? Or gone 'um... er...'

overall
-----------
I really enjoyed it. But it's not as good as #1 or #4.

==============================================

Looking forward to #5. WHAT CAN THEY DO? Let him die? Kill him? Nothing? Give him some medicine? Amputate? Do surgery?

[The Dead Case]

Great story.

I felt the gameplay was slightly weak. Whilst I understand your need to ensure linear progression through the game, the number of times (I think) the librarian was used a a key to 'unlock' the next event was slightly irritating.

A lot of his speeches were just reiterations of what had already been said and that made me not really enjoy listening to him so much. Also, on a couple of occassions, I felt we were being asked to visit him at an alarmingly high frequency.

I spent some of the game systematically clicking everything to unlock the next event, until I realised the librarian was usually the key. Maybe that could have been made even clearer at the start. For all the things he reiterated, he never reiterated that he was meant to act as our guide, and never explicitly mentioned that we should re-visit him if we were ever unsure of anything.

The various ghosts all had interesting histories and their design and art was lovely - the flickering flames on the fireghost and the sexy silhouette really stuck in my mind.

Art generally was great.

The music was pretty atmospheric (even though - yes - it did finally become repetitive. Maybe there should be 2 or 3 main tunes as you progress through the game, rather than just 1? Slight variations... and it'd keep it more interesting.) and the sfx were good.

==================================================
WARNING FOR ANYONE READING BEFORE COMPLETING THE GAME - POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD.
==================================================
==================================================

The story was obviously the strongest point, and I when I found out my relationship to the killer of the fireghost, I was filled with rage and determination to bring him down.

I specially enjoyed looking up all the names at the graveyard and finding out the connections between various characters.

I enjoyed the multiple endings and having gotten the 'better' ending first, I then went and nodded gravely at the alternative.

A minor criticism is that the librarian's dialogue is a bit dry. I understand the dryness of some of the facts, but he never really showed himself as a character I felt I would trust as a mentor in the afterlife. He seemed too uptight and maybe a little humour or adding more depth to his character earlier on would have been a good move.

Thinking about it, it's maybe his over-zealous reluctance to part with his own history and the fact that he seems to be pushing us in the wrong directions (re: 'Don't worry about your past' or whatever he says) that help to discourage repeated visits.

He's just not that likeable a character.

The hospital ghost wasn't particularly likeable either, but I didn't mind helping him for obvious reasons.

I don't understand why it was 'the hospital that killed him'. Nor do I fully understand what difference it makes if the hospital knows a victim's family... is this something to do with hospital insurance? Are you from the US?

Blue ghost and fireghost were both ghosts I felt I could relate to.
==================================================
==================================================
==================================================
==================================================

In conclusion, it was a game with a story I enjoyed exploring. It offers qualities unfound in most other games and offers a tasty cocktail.

The script and gameplay could have been refined somewhat, but I compare this to an un-cut saphire in a field of gold, with an overabundance of rubies and emeralds.

We really don't have enough games like this available on the internet and I really hope you use your obvious talents and create another game in this style someday.

Stay funky,
- Bez

[CUBES, the Platformer]

Had some fun.

I don't mind the abstraction. Abstraction always has the potential advantage of opening up more freedom in design.

I thought the red power-up was nicely used when it was necessary to reach a higher point, but in the underwater level, its presence simply formed an irritation, forcing unlucky players to face a real-world time penalty to continue playing.

Also, the one in the bottom right is SO yellow, not red. We shouldn't grow with that...

The scoring was stupid. Mainly because it's possibly to get a greater nmber of points than you will lose by dying, die, then gather the same coins for continually increasing points.

Either record each level's score individually, only adding it to the totaly when you've finished, or ensure coins and anything else which adds to your point total can only be collected once.

I liked the idea of the green sticky stuff. I felt there was some potential here and you seemed to be on the verge of making some crazily inventive levels. Keep going with this engine and see if you can pull it off.

I think the jumping speed and gravity need to be made somewhat faster.

In the opening menu, the expo for the up arrow was obscured.

I vote you keep going.

Maybe explore the whole multiple dimensions thing you had going on at the start... maybe in alternate dimensions you could have alternate gravity? Like one would pull you right, one left, one up, one down?

I suppose that's another whole game mebbe... but anyways, keep going. I had fun for some of it. Just hated the underwater time-wasting expansion.

[GameCraze]

I challenge you to develop one of these properly.

Shadow - The fact that you had a fire button for each direction was an interesting move. Given that you can just hold down both of them though, you miss any potential for strategy that fact might hold and the presence of 2 buttons becomes redundant.

Maybe you could have had limited ammo or something?

I do really like the design of the shadow, a gaseous creature morphing into bunnies. It could have been developed further, maybe with either more bunnies (bunnies being used as a projectile... bunnies reproducing, swarming the screen...) or maybe the thing morphing into various creatures.

I really disliked the fact that the attacks were always the same, making the game more about a memory test than anything approaching a strategy. Also, I hated the way the attack from the 2 simultaneous bunnies seemed to approach too fast to preempt unless you know it's coming.

Cars - I'll just point out the fact that you can make this game a lot easier by getting the dots to run into each other (as they all have the same AI, once they are close you can treat them as one enemy).

Maybe you could have given them varying top speeds/ acceleration?

The 'car' seemed to turn quite nicely though. Nice coding.

Bounce - was a nice idea and though it's an old one, your 'multiball' feature and the changing of objects had some potential.

The way the objects will respond to each click is fairly easy to work out though and there's really no reason to lose after that, thanks to a lack of increasing speed and the overly simplistic responses.

Cop - first time I played this, I felt that a) it was freakishly hard and b) it really needed some sfx. Replaying it though, I realised the way you seem to deliberately increase the number of enemies on an increasing gradient and the way your bullets pass through infinite enemies.

It is possible to survive infinitely long, probably. Again, no perceptible speed increase.

I got to about 890 kills, but didn't bother going on.

Overall, though you say minigames are great ways to have a lot of experiences in a little time (and this is true to some extent - witness Warioware for a supreme example), it doesn't really seem entirely applicable to your game.

The games neither posess a self-imposed time limit to ensure they aren't overplayed, nor seem to change in any way for those who carry on playing them.

Though the aforementioned Warioware limits each 'microgame' to around 10 seconds or less, the games chosen are all ones with the potential to entertain long after that, with high score modes involving a speeding to ridiculous limit.

In a decent shooter, folk will work out ingenious ways of using the present elements in multiple ways, suprising the player with new combinations.

In my mind, the label of minigames is merely given to cover the fact that you haven't yet commited to developing these nearly to the extent that you could.

[Button Clicker]

Requires little thought but a lot of 'drone-work'.

There's a problem in many games, regarding what I'm gonna call 'drone-work'. I'm using this term to refer to all the things you do in games that don't present any new material, don't give any new experiences, don't require any new thoughts or skills (or refiments of skill) on the part of the player, but simply need to be done, because the game states it must be so.

I'm referring to turn-based battles which have been fought before and you are certain of winning. Games which require staring at the screen while a character slowly moves from A to B whilst you look at scenery you've seen before. Having to replay levels you've already mastered in older games, when you die. Or in games which don't offer a save or passwords or level skips when you restart them. There are many other examples, I'm sure, but I can't think of them just now.

Anyway, this almost epitomises what I think of this game. For the most part, it seems like 'drone work'. For the majority of the levels, a large number of buttons are presented, with nothing to distinguish them, and the 'interactive' part simply consists of trying them one by one until you're lucky. No clues to suggest which one will be correct. No way of us 'beating' the level other than by simply trial and error.

(for the record, I right-click-forwarded most of these kind of levels after playing a couple of them)

There are a few nice parts. I like the introduction. Though it did make me think it was gonna spin off into even more directions.

I did like the semi-visible buttons, though maybe the alpha value is a tad too low?

I also liked the way you brought in multiple choice questions. It almost made me take a step back and realise how so many games can be turned into another with a few changes in the 'wrapper', whilst keeping the toys and rules unchanged.

I also liked the fact that in the level with a grid of circles, it played tricks with your eyes.

For the most part though, it seemed like a lot of drone work. If you had perhaps made the false buttons slightly different, or put in different clues in each part (maybe in the text, or maybe have the end dot in an arrow be the one, or something like that...

I notice you've asked people to submit levels. I can only hope you try and weed out the ones that require such 'drone work' from the player.

I suggest you get your however many levels, then throw out half of them.

Not that I expect you to pay attention to me...