Foon → Ludum Dare Explorer → LD55 → Feedback comment stats → Paul-Maxime
Feedback comments for LD55
Paul-Maxime's games and stats for all events →
| Timestamp | Since previous | Game | Paul-Maxime's comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 18 23:15:06 | Etsa Djavul | ♥ 1 | Amazing game, just finished the 34 levels after about 90 minutes playing. The algorithm is pretty lenient, we just need to make sure to never overlap figures together, ever, as specified in the description. However, it's also TOO lenient sometimes, and I'm pretty sure I did some levels incorrectly (especially ONYO or the final DESONKOEVS) firefox_4b1olGfKAT.png Definitely the most fun I've had playing a game this year, good job! | |
| Apr 19 00:28:28 | 1h 13m | Spirit Stone's Summon | ♥ 2 | Took me a while to understand that we could either gather the orbs ourselves to get mana or let them flow to the spirit stone to get experience! Yeah, it's written in the description but I expected both to do the same thing. :D I feel like the summons are too weak compared to our basic projectile spell that can be used to kill everything for the first 8 waves at least, especially when they are VERY expensive. Being able to win without summoning anything is sad! The levelup choices should probably be less random, being able to select a 2000 energy summon at level 1 is useless! I only unlocked the rabbit after my 3rd game, I had no idea it existed before. It's also possible to unlock the tree before the mushroom, which is weird. Instead of having 3 random choices, we could select between unlocking the next summon (rabbit -> fox -> ...), unlocking the next gathering plant (mushroom -> tree -> ...) or a random upgrade (move speed, less cooldowns...). Overall a good game, just not very balanced or polished yet! (I love that the executable is called "New Unity Project (3)" :'D) |
| Apr 19 02:25:23 | 1h 56m | Overrun | ♥ 1 | A very addictive game! Well, to be fair, all TD games tend to be addictive :) The game might be a bit too easy, it's difficult to lose once we built 10+ towers! And the levels 2 and 3 are too similar to the first one since the enemies can't reach the middle of the map anyway. I would have loved the opposite: multiple entries but one exit. The graphics are great! Love the cards design and the animations, like rocks breaking. |
| Apr 26 00:10:18 | 165h 44m | And Don't Open Your Mouth Again | ♥ 2 | I played this game with a friend on discord for about two hours and it was really fun! The interface takes a few minutes to get used to, but once we're into it, it's very usable. Maybe `[tab]` to autocomplete names would improve it but that's the only thing I would change. We really enjoyed the first part, where we had to interview all the jurors and read information about the case. It feels a bit like the investigation phases of _Ace Attorney_, more or less? Even if they are a bit cliché, every juror having their own personality, color and sound effect is great. We grow attached to them, either by liking or disliking them (love you Henry; fuck you Alice; what the fuck are you doing here Mason). The second part, after selecting four jurors, felt amazing at first: they were talking to each other, arguing about the facts, the motive and everything! However, after two or three guilty verdicts, this is where the game came short for us. We quickly realized that re-reading the interviews from part 1 was useless, we HAD to try various combinations if we wanted to win. The jurors were saying things during part 2 that they weren't saying during part 1. Or the opposite, not saying things during part 2 that they knew in part 1. Or even worse, sometimes they say the opposite. Some examples from Henry, the worst offender: - He claims that the real killer could have used gloves to use someone else's gun during part 1, then during part 2 claims that nobody else's prints were found on the gun. - He claims that the motive doesn't make any sense since they weren't married during part 1, then during part 2 answers that stealing the inheritance is a valid motive. It wasn't very clear that we needed two kinds of jurors: jurors asking the good questions and jurors answering those questions. So even if Susan wants to burn people alive and has nothing interesting to say at all, we need to take her just because she can ask a question to Clive about the gun. We expected the jurors with the answers to introduce the inconsistencies themselves. Why doesn't Clive talk about the gun unless asked to? You said in a comment above that "trying out different combinations is an intended part of the experience". However, we don't agree with that. It felt like our entire work from part 1 was nearly useless since we had to see how each juror was going to react anyway, and swap them based on that. It felt like this game could be split into two different games that would work better when separated: - One where we have to spend a lot of time understanding a mystery, taking notes then selecting the best jurors, while avoiding obvious and less obvious traps (like Mason), and where everything we need is available right from part 1. - Then another game where part 1 doesn't exist. We know nothing about the jurors and we have to try multiple times to see how jurors react to each other, understand what are the best combinations then find the perfect one. Well, we still managed to win using Clive, Susan, Lynne and Henry and we had fun overall, so great job and great approach to the theme! |
