xXCrowXx's game Reviews on Newgrounds

[Edge of Sanity]

I disagree with everything this stands for

I don't support giving flash games access to our newgrounds account data. It doesn't tend to make me feel safe.

Also, it's not a game.

Also, the music is really, really annoying, and it's obvious that that was intentional.

Most importantly, I don't appreciate works where the description is 100% inaccurate. When I look for a game on the portal, and I find something that looks promising, finding out that it's not what it says it is doesn't tend to make me want to go looking through Newgrounds' material any time soon; I'm surprised the powers that be want to actively promote encourage hurting their credibility in this way by frontpaging.

You get 1 star because my facial expression was confused for a full ten seconds before it was emphatically annoyed.

[The Tutorial Collab '08]

Incredibly useful, but without polish

This is probably the best source of information relevant to making flash games that exists. Unfortunately, there are some issues. Half the material is in AS2 and half of it in AS3, but not all the sections actually indicate which one is used where. These days, the AS2 articles should be updated to AS3. Also, some of the tutorials are much better than others, to the point where I often found the information I needed for one topic not within the section about that topic but instead in some random other article. Some of the demos were broken, with the images becoming invisible once they try to actually do anything.

I'm looking forward to improvements once the 2009 version of the tutorial comes out. In any case, thanks to everyone who put in time to help get people like me started much faster!

[Super Mario Defence]

Fun, but flawed

This game was good enough to bring me back again to play more levels, so it's certainly not bad. However, it's missing a lot of polish that is usually used to objectively call a game "good".

Balance of cost effectiveness of towers is terrible. Certain items are just way better than others, cost wise. This is especially a shame because a few of the "towers" that just aren't cost effective enough to use are some of the more unique ones: monty mole, volcano flower, spike ball, thwomp. I liked the stages where you had to use them because you weren't given anything else, but it would have been nice to be able to use them occasionally in a normal game.

One common solution to pricing towers is to have some more cost effective than others at smaller amounts of total investment and then have the more expensive ones peak much better than a lot of weaker ones for the same price.

A bigger concern in my mind was the lack of variation in the enemies. Some enemies run faster than others, but aside from that the enemies do not require you to adapt your defenses to their types at all. Some towers seemed better suited to target invaders on the ground or in the air, yet there were no aireal or randomly jumping or whatever enemies to plan special defenses around.

Again, the game is cool enough to get me to play it again, so it's not bad. It could, however, be made a lot better with a bit more planning and testing.

[You Have To Burn The Rope]

Um, what?

I was linked to this under the "year in flash" summary of significant contributions to the Flash world during this year. WTF?

The game was lame, which I guess was intentional. The song afterward was uninspired and boring, which I guess most people disagree with.

Well, good job getting an absurdly high score, I guess. I cannot, however, think of anyone I know who I would recommend this to.

[Andrew the Droid]

Been there, done that..

Pretty average, not too difficult or intriguing puzzle game, using mechanics which have been used in similar games many times in the past.

One suggestion: make it clear from the beginning that your ability to use abilities is reset upon touching the ground rather than restricted to being usable only when touching the ground. I was stuck for a while on a very simple level simply because I didn't know I could rotate mid-fall.

[Battle Gear]

Nice art, lousy game

Short version of review:
It is a shame that this game sucks as bad as it does because it is clear that a LOT of effort was put into making it. Simply relaxing a few of the restrictions, like the 16 active unit per side, the "one unit per type at a time" building restriction, and the dumb method of determining the game outcome based on "unit" losses, would make the game decent. Taking some time to give the game a proper strategic balancing would then turn it into a good game. Until such time as that happens, though, I do NOT recommend that people play this; there are far better time wasters out there, and this is nothing better than a pretty time waster.

Long version:
As designed, this game is trying to be either a strategy game or a resource management-centric game. Unfortunately, due to serious flaws in game design, it is neither.

In theory, the object of the game is to win a war. However, the game nearly always ends not when the opposing base is eliminated, but instead when one side's Unit count reaches zero. But the strongest units in the game count for no more "Units" than individual pistol toting infantry units. Meanwhile, you are only permitted to train one unit of a given type at a time. The result is that - as the game directly states in the tutorial - training anything other than your one strongest unit of each type is just stupid, as the weak units' deaths lead to your quick loss. This eliminates all interesting strategic decisions which the game could have required you to make during the battle, since the only significant control you have on the battle is what units you create. When the correct decision is obvious (and boring to execute), the strategy element of a game falls apart.

Some games get away with the above errors by introducing an interesting resource management system: though the battle might not require doing anything interesting to win, sometimes actually being able to do that action requires some interesting preparation. Not so in this game; you are awarded money faster than you can spend it, so that money might as well not exist, and the fastest way to gain experience is to simply start a battle, minimize the browser, and come back after you have been killed. If you lose a battle your performance in it is irrelevant to your experience award, and if you win, you are awarded experience in proportion to - wait for it - how BADLY you did. Gaining the extra bonuses necessary to win, then, becomes a matter of devoting time to the game rather than thinking about it.

[W & B : Deadly Strategies]

Amazing!

This is pretty much the best thing that's happened to flash RTSes, ever. This is a full fledged RTS, no bones about it. But no, it's not Starcraft; micromanaging unit actions is not even possible, much less a focus of the game. You instead focus on the strategy of the battle rather than the tactics.

The hallmark is a good game is one that keeps you coming back despite its flaws. It is a shame that the average Newgrounder has too little tolerance for an actual strategic dillema.

Defensive buildings are really, really good. Probably too good from a game design point of view, but for people struggling with the game, I suggest using a combination of defensive buildings and an excess of money generating buildings before worrying about going for the kill.

If you're into actual thinking, try out the WBAIC scripts. It essentially means that this is an ONLINE flash RTS, though all your decisions are made before the battle actually starts. Go to the forums on the webpage for this game; my WBAICs are there. Let's fight!

True, the game design has obvious balancing issues (hmm, should I make a ninja that does 1 dmg if it gets in range to shoot, or the longer range splash damage grenade dude?). The AI is not as bad as people seem to think it is; you just need to command your units properly to get them to do approximately what you want. No, you can't micromanage their motions, but let's face it: you can't micromanage individual troop movement in a real war, either. And your opponent has the same issues you do, so it is fair.

Animation and general production value is obviously top notch. I would prefer more control over the soundtrack, but that's a nitpick.

Please don't abandon this project. With a few tweaks, the rough edges that keep some people too frustrated to play can be smoothed, and the in depth WBAICs can be extended just a bit to both make the online part of the game a truly amazing feat and to make the single player battles more in depth.