Clever animations but AI could use work
I really liked the animations. They were colorful, original, and humorous.
On the other hand the AI isn't so strong. It seems really aggressive and places way too much emphasis on putting my king in check. Sometimes the AI just throws away its own queen for no apparent reason. Most of the time, though, the AI presents a reasonable challenge, which is good enough for the casual chess player.
I've seen quite a bit of flash and have played many games, and this game really gets almost everything right. The balance between plot and game play is sensible, and there is a good compromise made between the gritty aspects of the environment and the cartoon-like aspects.
Maybe I'm biased towards this game since I'm a little bit of a WW2 buff, but I think others will like your historical approach the way I did. You didn't try to be too dramatic or serious, but you also didn't treat the battle of Stalingrad like a joke. What could've made it better would've been an initial cut scene describing the dire state of Soviet Russia, and the bitter savagery of the German invasion.
That said, this game isn't perfect. There is too little mercy for failiure, which I realise is a design choice, but its simply frustrating to have no chance after the smg guy crosses a certain line. My suggestion would be to give your player a small amount of life. Not so much life that the realism and gritiness is lost (I actually really like how you don't make the player invincible, and have them react believably to being in the line of fire), but also make it so that it is possible to kill the smg guy.
In my experience, the difficult game done right is a game where it is hard, but not impossible to succeed when the odds turn against your favor. When a hard game is done improperly, its literally impossible to turn the game around. Rather than being stimulating, this scenario is frustrating.
So, in conclusion, this game has a laudable sense of style, game play, and originality, but still does not achieve perfection.
Nice graphics but bad organization and bad grammar
Whilst the graphics in the spinning 3D cubes and other nice little effects was nice, it didn't save the tutorial from all of the poor grammar and sentince structure.
This tutorial was hard to read. Sentinces had dangling modifiers, plural verbs were used in place of singular ones. Although I'm not senselessly strict about small grammar mistakes, the grammar errors here inhibited effective understanding of the text.
So, when making a tutorial. Remember to proof-read your writing so its understandible. Good luck in the future.
Ok i understand thanks man
A decent remake of an old idea, needs some work
Although this game succeded in bringing an original graphic style to an old game idea, there were a few issues that makes this Fishey worse than XGen studios.
The first is the gameplay. It simply lacks the tightness that Xgen studios's version had. In their version it was difficult to catch a fish at the beginning, but the prospect of getting bigger made the game impossible to stop playing. Here it just feels less balanced.
The Mario addition was a nice little thing to tack on. Overall, nice job.
A nice new spin on an old idea
Although the defense game where the user scrambles to click on each member of a massive hoard heading towards the base is nothing new, this game goes off the beaten path to some extent.
The graphics were predominantly API (that's what it looks like to me) and it made the whole appearence of the project very smooth and stylish. The explosions were very nice with the fading API lines being emitted.
Although oftentimes defense games are benefited by their own simplicity, I felt that this game could have been improved with the addition of power-ups, and more gameplay elements tacked on.
Overall, nice take on an old idea. Good job, and good luck.
Put some time into these tutorials
Don't just make one every day. Although they do a decent job for what they are, they're only a few pages long. Its just not enough to cover a few lines of code in an entire flash.
Its like making a movie put making each symbol in the animation its own submission. You need to make something a little bit deeper and more comprehensive.
But your tutorial was defintly above average for Newgrounds and did a decent (although it could be better) job of explaining the code.
Thanks, actually I tried to make this one deeper, that's why I included limits, walls, and objects.
Nice idea, but could be improved
Your explinations of the code could be a little more thorough. And the other thing I'm wondering is why your code involved making a slot true or false.
What would have made more sense is using an array for the slots and such. I'm not sure I really understand quite how your code works. Although I'm guess if you hit the object found becomes true and its _x and _y change so that they are in the box. The method seem counter-intuitive to me.
Well, when I first saw this in judgement, I was rather shocked. This tutorial was very good. I myself am making a tutorial, so I try to look around tutorials so I can see what to expect in my own tutorial score wise.
My friend also saw it, and he thought it was very good.
He guessed that this tutorial would be 4.06 out of judgement, I predicted 4.16
And when this tutorial finally escaped judgement, I was pretty shocked that it was a 3.58. I was honestly expecting 4.2 or something in that range, since scores for clearly well made flashs tend to be very high right out of judgement.
One reason I think you did a little poorly out of judgement was that you named your tutorial "The Basics". Generally that's a rather bad name, as a lot of tutorials are named that way, and are about making buttons and feature poor and sparse explinations.
But really, nice job here. This has really got me thinking about ways I can make my own tutorial more comprehensive, as this really sets the bar very highly (although my tutorial is Actionscript oriented and thus fills a diffrent niche) for people wishing to make a tutorial.
Wow, thank you very much. I was thinking the same thing. I thought this would score much higher than it did, It was really disappointing to see it leave with a 3.5 :( I was watching the score while it was under judgement and it peaked out at 4.26. I was wway excited, but then it just fell... a lot. Well, you can't win them all, and unfortuantely, I didn't win this one. You may be right about the name though, but it really is the best fitting name. It's just that silly n00bs submit their crap under a variant name to this making this correct name a misnomer, go figure. Well, I wish you good luck on your own tutorial and thanks again for the high hopes!
Pretty good, I saw a few places for improvement
Really nice game, really fun gameplay and nice graphics.
I have a few suggested improvements though:
1. The EMP(Space bar) code is better set up as part of a set Interval event as opposed to an EnterFrame event so that the user can only activate one emp every couple of seconds.
2. A slick semi-transparent HUD could add alot to the gameplay
3. The game's upgrade tree should be a little clearer as to what you have and should probably be based around the idea of letting you get as many upgrades as you want, but having the price double every time.
4. A load/save function would be a nice touch
5. Maybe it would be cool to give the enemy helicoptors their own weaponary, as well as giving the ground soldiers more sophisticated behavior. Also, the AI didn't feel "aggressive" enough. I know that's a little vague, but its kind of hard to explain. When one plays a defense game, one wants to kinda get angry at the oncoming hoard. The hoard has to be very zealous in behavior, and constantly attacking!
Overall however, this is an excellent game. It looks like its been a month or more in the works, so its good you had the resolve to finish it. I noticed this is in Armorgames, so good luck :)
Not the best Content, but Pong pwns!
This tutorial's content is flawed in a few ways. First: you couldn't make the snow stop, which is a big bug that you should have discovered. Secondly, you never explain the actionscript, why its there, and what it means, although just giving out actionscript to n00bs can help, because they can play around with it and get a feel for the language. But just giving out AS can't make a good tutorial, because it doesn't seperate you from the other tutorials giving out the same code.
But, that Pong thing is so cool that I have decided to protect this.
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.