PoisonHeart's game Reviews on Newgrounds

[Cab In The Woods]

Hmm....I dunno, probably just my PC but I can't even play the Slender level without terrible lag. Sorry, but just not enough here to hold my interest for long...the yeti level was probably the best, as the water taxi just ended up getting stuck on EVERYTHING and the Slender level lagged massively. I think this was done in great spirit and you should definitely cheer, however! I like that for the Yeti level, he says "no time to explain" and turns out it was because of an avalanche, haha.
I liked the spooky lighting in Slender, hated the lag and weak music.
Swampthing is the funniest, but I didn't like that the cab stuck to everything.
I liked the gamplay in Yeti, but not the repetitive aspects of it.

out of 10...
gfx - 6.5 (not bad, needs anti-aliasing bad tho)
sfx - 6 (kinda boring background ambiance)
design - 7 (very funny, but lacks 'quality' toggle)
gameplay - 5.5 (things get "stuck", bad lag)

overall, this truly defines the spirit of gamejam and deserves to have won based on that alone. Looking forward to future games!

Seppyb63 responds:

Wow, Thank you for that :D.
Sorry about the issues, the slender level ran fine here, and on any machine we ran it on in tests (even ran fantastic on a mac :D ), it did lag a small bit on some machines(like my laptop), but never too noticeable.
The "getting stuck" issue is usually when a sloped block meets a solid block, and that's a bug we couldn't resolve.We managed to lessen it, but it remained regardless of how many fixes we tried.
Yeti is my favorite too :D, think there might be plans to expand it into a full game on its own, but I'm not too sure really.

[Venusian Vengeance [Demo]]

For what this is, it's not all that. The graphics are in that cheap, psuedo-8bit style. Music isn't great. Once you get past the initially interesting introduction about the pinko's winning the spacerace, this turns out to be a really generic SHMUP that brings nothing new to the table. i don't know if you want a dollar, or five. But either way, this is not the way to get it. You'll make about as much as you would have standing on the street-corner with a sign that read "will eat for food". Is this even mobile-ready?
I think you've adopted an antiquated sales strategy. You're very good at writing games, but the golden age of Shareware is dead, man.

No review. Game should be free. Support it with ads, but nobody's going to buy this when they can torrent the latest multi-million dollar smash-hit...or use three clicks to be playing a free game that's more fun.

Sorry to be so harsh, but this is all kind of true.

[30 FPS vs 60 FPS]

Yes yes, we have computers too. And yes, if we're playing this 'game' then we also probably give a shit about FPS and therefor probably have Flash and can tell the difference by motion-tweening squiggly lines and comparing them in Flash.

Of COURSE there is a difference. If there wasn't, people like Peter Jackson wouldn't shoot at 60+. Your point is scientific, but redundant. That would be like "yes, here we are on television to test Newton's ancient gravity test by dropping a ball of paper and a bowling ball'. I can do that, too.
By approaching very basic animation techniques in this way, you come across as anal.

out of 10...
gfx - 8 (interesting renders)
sfx - 5 (funky song, but annoying)
design (redundant and anal)
gameplay - 3 (not much "game" here to "play')

overall, I think this is very pointless and shouldn't be debated upon at all. Yes, there's a difference. If you can't tell as an artist or developer, then it's time to relearn some basics. Yes, that difference matters...assuming you're playing the same game twice at both speeds. A machines clock speed, what you're rendering, your program's garbage collection routines, and overall developer competency will all factor in.

And yes, thank you for taking the effort to prove it. However, you provide no opinions of your own. We aren't lab monkeys, and you don't stand alone. Furthermore, the content must be accounted for. If not, then we'll end up with Terminator: Salvation syndrome, where it looks pretty but actually sucks pretty bad.

It's all about HOW you use that speed, not simply the speed itself. Flash-native FPS isn't the holy grail of game development...also, that comment about "i only play 60fps games" is really uppity. Who gives a shit what speed the micro-seizures in your brain are induced, as long as you're having fun?

PS: you smell.

[Parking in the Hamptons]

This game lacks depth. you went so far as to build a worldmap system, but it's implementation was pretty weak.

out of 10...

gfx - 6 (ugly vectors without great color)
sfx - 6 (decent song, ok sounds)
design - 6 (pretty to look at, straightforward)
gameplay - 4 (decent car controls, lack of depth)

overall, this COULD be very interesting and set itself apart from the hundreds of games just like it if only there was more to it than just "connect point a to point b", like every other game just like it.

[Cartoon Taxi Jigsaw]

Nice idea, poorly executed. I think that not working out locking tiles really breaks the value herein. Also, it is a mess to have the pieces scattered over the "working area" as you have to move each one out of the way. Maybe you wanted to make people feel like they were just opening a puzzle and threw it on a table or something, but I think in a computer game it will just annoy people.

out of 10...
gfx - 6 (needs more pictures)
sfx - 7.5 (good song, should have clicking sounds for tiles)
design - 5.5 (needs locking tiles and designated workspace i.e. larger flash document)
gameplay - 4 (honestly...just not that fun)

[Walkbot]

Very cute characters, love the song, interesting attempt at innovative menu's. I dislike certain aspects of the graphics, like the mouth of the robots...just looks bad. I also don't understand the scrolling "actions" pane. Why does it have to scroll like that? While it's an interesting idea, it sort of adds unneeded confusion.
I really like the backgrounds for the levels.

out of 10...

gfx - 7.5 (pretty good, but could use some work)
sfx - 8.5 (cool song, but game also needs sfx)
design - 6.5 (scrolling actions menu seems pointless)
gameplay - 5.5 (hindered by annoying "actions" menu)

overall, I think this is a good attempt at an original idea, but the execution and explanation involved are rather lacking.

[Demon Destroyer]

Definitely needs a "quality" toggle. Also, it is very basic in its approach. Would have liked to see more intricate design in terms of interacting with the levels.

out of 10...

gfx - 5 (getting tired of seeing this style)
sfx - NA (i have no soundcard)
design - 6 (interesting idea, but just not enough)
gameplay - 7 (solid fun, but lacks moxie)

overall, this is a successful idea that may go largely unnoticed due to its fairly generic stamping and general lack of innovation. These are becoming common problems in games, not just Flash games.

[Nature Adventure]

Didn't expect such depth for this game. Needs more cars, faster speeds, and more upgrades! I Y'see, when I'm travelling 100mph in a game, it should feel like it! Love the upgrades system, and the title of this game. Suffers from poor controls, potentially misleading name, and a sluggish feeling.

out of 10...

gfx - 7 (workable, but not the best)
sfx - N/A (i have no soundcard)
design - 7.5 (nice upgrades, may be too expensive)
gameplay - 5 (very slow feeling for travelling so fast)

overall this could be a very solid, if not simple, game. yet it suffers from the same problems as many games in it's caliber: IT'S TOO SLOW.

[Frozy and Fred]

Standing on the hair follicles of giants, this game does absolutely nothing I haven't seen before. In fact, it tries to do everything I've already seen...again. Everything in this game is sort of a "guess that game" reference. The worst part is that this game doesn't do these things particularly WELL. What is does do well is try to establish a cute scene, which i think it does. Very cute characters.

Storyline? Skipped it.
Boss battles? Not interested.
Secrets? Too hard.
Achievements? Pointless.
Intuitive controls? Hardly!
Great challenge? Not really.
Two friends? Probably.

out of 10....
gfx - 6.5 (sub-par, very faded look)
sfx - N/A (i have no soundcard)
design - 4 (absolutely nothing new and exciting, unrewarding achievements system)
gameplay (sluggish controls, long levels)

overall, this game is ambitious. It's cute! It's definitely got a lot of work put into it, with some really great elements. However, between the unresponsive gameplay, bland graphics, typical design...this just doesn't cut it these days. However, I love the effort and the goals you set out to achieve with this. Quite a wide scope in terms of what it does as a game, so impressive in that respect.

BUT! It basically suffers from three things: typical design, sluggish gameplay, lack of innovation.

[Protect Tommy]

Pretty cool twist on these sort of puzzle games. I like the simple graphics, they don't take away from the logic...which isn't bad.Very much enjoyed trying to fit shapes and protect tommy from the bad red dudes. However, the timer runs too fast for ANYONE to get 3-stars. Furthermore, why should they? Maybe if there were incentives for getting a perfect score...

anyway....
out of 10...
gfx - 7 (nothing to special, but they work well)
sfx - N/A (I have no soundcard)
design - 7 (very solid, perhaps a bit unfair)
gameplay - 6 (the physics are decent, but perhaps the levels become too difficult)

overall, there is a lot of replay value in this game. However, the features that make it unique are overshadowed by the graphics typical of this genre and physics that don't particularly "wow" us...these two things may combine to encourage a lack of interest in "Protect Tommy". I do think the reviews thus far are somewhat unfair, however.