Okay. I kind of think interactive novels should have a category of their own, though. If the main part of the game is reading and making choices, especially multiple choices, it's closer to those old choose-your-own-adventure things, which used to be physical books with several endings. Comparing that to a board game or video game seems a bit odd, even unfair. At least with text-based adventures like Zork, you type in commands and there's a reaction instead of a great length of text to read AFTER spending seemingly a lot of time considering a character's look and abilities. I'm not used to them and my biggest disappointment with any game is that the tutorial and setup sap all my enthusiasm before I even get to play or a chance to enjoy any forthcoming game. Good luck to the dev. I'm sure it took a lot of effort to do this, but there's a much greater burden on the quality of writing and, in my experience, great writing is much rarer than decent video games.
discowriter
Recent community posts
I've never "played" an interactive novel, but I didn't think this "game" qualifies as a game if I don't get to play it. Reading someone else's writing when it's not very good isn't worth creating a character for, is it? Perhaps the creator is so high on their opinion of themselves and their writing that spending so long to "create" a character that's invisible or only appears in words on a page isn't really worth it. They're self-deceived and think others should spend extra time filling out a questionnaire only to make them read and read and read some more. I'm done. If I want to read, I'll find a book or a reputable publication. I wanted a turn-based game with a good story, not a bunch of text with a basic background and a bunch of questions to answer about a character that's invisible.
I didn't unlock any characters. I think the time in rounds it takes to upgrade "new" upgrade options makes it not worth it. I can imagine Assassin being eventually useful, but given you made upgrading targeting/accuracy a liability, I don't trust you to be considerate enough and it's too much effort and focus to try to figure out a simple tower defense game. I only came to check out the comments one last time to see if anyone had gotten so much further than me and to perhaps find out how. I'm not interested anymore. I don't understand why a dev would make a game that was so difficult and unrewarding to play that it actually turned into a bit of a bummer once I'd invested enough time and energy into it.
This game feels stupid. If I focus on targeting, I won't have enough power or speed to hit anything and prevent being destroyed in the meantime. It's a bit stupid because if it takes five or six upgrades to get 100% accuracy, I have little speed or power or anything else. I did choose the multicaster instead of regeneration to start this time but because I was so concerned about survival, I didn't take any upgrades after that. Think about it: If you were a marksman with a bow and arrow or a gun, would accuracy be more important than power and speed? YES. By starting with such terribly accuracy (an unbelievable 0%), you've really crippled the game from the start, giving new and experienced players alike a handicap to work against, and it turns out this handicap at the start keeps them handicapped for the rest of the game, since if they do upgrade accuracy, they're not upgrading anything else that actually kills enemies! And you've made it SO BAD that if a player chooses targeting/accuracy whenever presented with the option, they'll die because they're not shooting enough weak fireballs or the few fireballs they do shoot are too weak!
To make a game challenging, you shouldn't just give players exactly what they want so they don't even have to try. But there is a difference between making a game challenging and taking all the fun out of it by making it an exercise in nonsensical desperation, which YOU set up. I think you may have made this game so "challenging" that you've almost begun to border an antagonistic with a hint of sadism. You do understand that this is a game, right? Did you want this game to be fun and enjoyable? Did you want players to want to play your game? Do you want them to get any positive feedback or sense of accomplishment in playing? Then maybe allow them to progress in the game without repeating the same stupid steps that you made necessary only to find that they weren't balancing out more relevant steps because you'd started them off with 0% accuracy/targeting and dealing with that crap seemed compelling enough not to yet worry about stuff like attack speed and power.
This is even before concerning myself with any of the "extra" upgrades available to my IF I earn enough "embers" to purchase them, their differing levels, and the subsequent upgrades made available. How useful and "fun" is any game where such a large part of the strategy is to cut out 80% of the upgrades and control things so what I'm doing is simplified enough that I might actually be able to focus on KILLING the enemies?
Maybe you haven't focused enough on making the game fun and focused too much on making the game difficult. Personally, I hate modern Mario games for being cartoonish and for making it too easy to play and win. Classic Super Mario gave you a finite number of lives and you had to discover how to get a much larger number. You also had to learn how to take shortcuts if you wanted to win the game quickly, but if you went through all the levels, there were only pauses and timing to worry about, and if you died once, you didn't start over completely because you had more than one life.
If I die in your game, I have to start over, crippled again, and up for the same disappointing, time-consuming, slow action that's like a never-ending preamble to something that never happens. Losing this game should be my fault because I actually made bad choices, not because your choices as the game developer were so restrictive and so counter to the interests of players, that you've actually set up a greater way to make the game more difficult and less fun with UPGRADES that are worth less than the upgrades available by default, crowding out more useful options!
Why don't you figure out what kind of game you WANT this to be? Is this game at least fun for you? If I'm not mistaken, Mario Maker makes creators complete their levels before they're allowed to upload them for others. If playing your game is nearly as unpleasant for you as it is for me, maybe you should consider changing it so that I'm not sent back to grade 1 because the sex ed aspect of Physical Education turned out to be a written exam instead of a hands on one. That's one metaphor for what you've done with your game. You've made me think and try so hard for so little reward that I'm actually a bit angry with you for turning a game I found addicting into one filled with the less pleasurable kind of dick moves.
I'd like to point out that, after going through all possible upgrades (or as close as I got to finding all of them through resetting then exploring each thread with 27000 embers) that regeneration, multicaster (and its connected upgrades), and possibly critical strike are the only ones that seem worth investing in at this point. At least that will give me three good options to choose from at the outset of a new game, and I can choose regeneration to start and the others later. While strategy might be part of any good game, in a tower defense game, it seems just a little out of place to be able to buy so many different upgrades that might interfere with getting useful upgrades, making the game LESS playable and LESS enjoyable.
Not trying to sound mean or ungrateful. I'm still playing because I see a way to do better, get further, and gain the sense of accomplishment playing video games gives me :-)
Yeah, you know, I don't like that buying these upgrades on a webbed map crowds my options so much. Ever play Endless Waves Survival? You can actually choose in that game what potential upgrades you'll have for each of Rogue, Sorceror, and all the other options. For me, I chose to reduce which upgrades were available as a strategy to ensure I had access to the best upgrades and that they weren't crowded out by upgrades that weren't very good. In the experimental version of Wildfire, you actually make me earn embers to pay for upgrades that lead to upgrades that are unknown to me and then, when I have my first chance to choose just ONE of these, you give me an ever-unpredictable (depending on the number of upgrades I've bought beforehand) selection of only three of them AND have removed the ability to refresh them to get other options. If I do choose one of them, it's going to be in the upgrades for the rest of the game, crowding out potentially more useful upgrades. I might be forced to choose an upgrade I didn't really want that will follow me around with more options. For example, I chose Assassin in my most recent game, but it turns out it only comes into play when an enemy has 2% or less of their energy left! How useless is that? If I have an enemy with 200 HP to start, they'd have to have 4HP or less for Assassin to be "executed". If they started with 600HP, it would only help with 12HP or less! Did I just blow a PINK upgrade that could have been used for Regeneration that gives me 5HP per second (and much more when the game's sped up) for a measly 12HP attack advantage when a silver upgrade could have gotten me a greater attack of 10HP that would be repeated many times depending on attack speed? And how many upgrades of Assassin or its associated upgrades would it take for it to be useful? Does an additional pink upgrade mean enemies can be executed if they have an additional 20% of their HP for a total of 22% HP? And this is after spending embers to upgrade assassin to allow it the potential to execute enemies when they have 50% or less of their HP. Maybe Assassin does have some useful advantage in the game, especially the later levels, but this is only one of many upgrades that can crowd each other out of the options/upgrades instead of actually enhancing the gameplay for those who've PAID for them ahead of time!
If you're making me pay for upgrades, I want them when I start, not just offered as options as I go that replace the options I didn't pay for but still need every bit as much. Assassin, for example, doesn't properly replace attack, attack speed, or bullet, yet I have to choose it INSTEAD OF them as I go. It's mildly infuriating to spend so much time and focus on getting these upgrades if all they're such inadequate replacements for the core options of the game, which I still need to succeed!
So... I'm glad you allow a reset option. I'm probably just going to choose Regenerate or the most direct path to it, and avoid Assassin until, in playing many matches, I can see that I actually have use for it. When I have to put this much time and attention into sort of carefully playing a game that is basically tower defense, it takes a lot of fun out of it. I think you're the one who should be putting in this kind of effort to ensure those who want to take the game seriously and get into doing their best in it don't find good reason to take it so seriously that they have to kind of work against the way you've set it up, like you're opponents.
You get my drift. I'm going to play one more game, but I'm resetting the options and carefully selecting which ones I want, anticipating how all the other options and upgrades might interfere with my ABILITY to do well in the game later.
I think I'm going to reset my upgrades and carefully choose three ones that I actually want to appear at the beginning and throughout the game, because it seems that some of those upgrades, which I'm seemingly obligated to activate to gain access to further upgrades, are less useful and actually narrow the selection of useful upgrades I might have access to between rounds, even if I refresh each one (which by the way was a great thing to include, a no-cost, single refresh for each option). I'll try something different this time, but since using Vampire last time was far less useful that Regeneration would have been and was the previous game, and I died probably less than 10 rounds (Why get rid of round numbers and use hours and minutes? Now I have a non-standard, less-straightforward way of tracking progress? Hours and minutes? Do I have to figure out how long each round is? Does it vary depending on how long I take to finish a round? Should I multiply the length of a round or perhaps divide how "long" I've played by the time it takes per round?) into the game, which is disappointing. Now I have Assassin, Freeze, and Orbital Flames. Not sure if I should keep trying different things or try to get what I think I want. And look at that! No refresh option for these options. Tsk. And I liked that so much for the rest of the game ;-)
I just noticed, after selecting Vampire at the beginning of a new game, losing some HP then gaining in back through Vampire, that I now have 982.05/1000 HP. I suppose precision and not losing the tiniest portion of HP gained is important, but it kind of gives me the impression that I also lost 0.95 HP at some point, maybe. Perhaps rounding is more aesthetically pleasing and draws less attention to itself and is less distracting when I quickly check where I am at HP-wise in the middle of a game before I choose an upgrade or assess what I should focus on next.
At last I've tried the web/HTML experimental version and, indeed, bullet speed plays a real role. I'm slightly annoyed that attack speed and bullet speed aren't tied together as one, though. It seems while attack speed on a single target can be quite good, the biggest pause can be in changing targets, which increasing bullet speed lessens. I've only played two games of it so far, but I learned a bit too late the second time that I wasn't getting the DPS I wanted because my bullet speed was too low.
Also, if I'm giving critical feedback, I'm not sure how I feel about the... Bestiary. While it seems like a good idea for reference, I was a little disappointed that I couldn't learn about the (new) creatures I was currently fighting in the middle of a game. It just seems like it would be more timely if I could see it as I go and not wait until I lose (or is there a way to interrupt my match, return to the campsite and... see? See how weird that would be?) before I can get the useful information.
Actually, as far as buying abilities between rounds, like regeneration (I love regeneration in games), while I like to upgrade, it seems I can't know ahead of time the web of upgrades. It's painful enough to spend what points I've earned on upgrades I'm not interested to see what it leads to without it leading to another upgrade I'm not interested in. Do you think it would serve your interests as well as mine to give some sort of preview or warning of what upgrades lead to what upgrades? Or, maybe, you could make all upgrades available and price them differently based on their value. Saving up for a better upgrades seems better than wasting money getting to upgrades I wasn't going to be interested in.
I guess that's all for now. I'm going to play some more.
Oh. And there doesn't seem to be that "problem" with the projectiles/bullets/fireballs outpacing the impacts or impacts being skipped. That was REALLY bad in the non-experimental version. Maybe you should consider updating it so people like me who apparently need a bit of prodding to get on Discord to try the experimental version aren't so discouraged that they'd think or say the game was "ruined" by this seeming flaw in the most public-facing web version :-)
EDIT: Actually, as far as the upgrades you buy with embers, I got plenty of Embers during my second... match? I can't remember if I just played another match. No, I had over 20000 embers so it wasn't "painful" to explore the upgrades. It was great, actually. I found the Vampire upgrade that I thought you might have replaced with regeneration. And a bunch of others. And this time when I play, I'll know to use the bullet speed upgrade (I'm still new to it!) and get much further with more embers. If I had a phone... this would be one of the games if not THE game I'd be playing most on it.
I understand. Like I said, I'm on a Chromebook. While I doubt I could sideload via Android on a Chromebook, perhaps I could activate Google Play on my machine and at least give a better, more up to date version a shot. Wildfire really is addicting. I really wish I could play a version that performed as intended and expected. So I will likely try the version I can get through Google Play. And, when I do, I will likely come back here and tell you how it went :-)
EDIT: There's an updated version for the web? Hm. Maybe I will try Discord, the one platform I find least user-friendly, at least as far as finding anything goes.
I probably should have mentioned this sooner. I'm using a Chromebook and so I can't download, install, and play the latest version off Discord. I've also found Discord frustrating, at least as far as searching for groups or other content. It's weird that way. I'll try the web/HTML5 version again, though. I don't understand why I'd get this unusual experience, though, unless the browser version isn't as good as the Windows version. You gave a warning at startup and suggest the Windows version, so there's that. On the bright side, I do believe if it were working as expected it would be an extremely addicting game.
I'm sorry but after my recent realization that bullet speed actually decreases the number of impacts per bullet, it sort of ruins the game for me. I was already avoiding the random selections last night to avoid increasing bullet speed, but today using them again in accordance with what you said just made it so much worse again. Imagine upgrading bullet speed and the bullets outpacing impacts. That's what I believe is happening. I'm not going to rate this game. I hope you fix it so that maybe I'll find it again and enjoy it as it was meant to be enjoyed, with the upgrades working properly.
Actually, I'm playing right now, and the problem may not be accuracy so much as projectiles don't land. It's like there are more projectiles coming down than there are ones landing anywhere. It's like half or more of them make no difference and do nothing. Maybe bullet speed doesn't affect accuracy so much as outpace impacts or the rate of impact. Maybe with slower bullet speed, more bullets actually hit targets. And with higher bullet speed, some or most impacts are "skipped". It's a real problem and reduces the effectiveness and enjoyability of the game. I hope this helps, as this game is actually quite addicting. It would be much more addicting if upgrades didn't degrade the effectiveness or performance of the gameplay, though.
After I obtained 100% accuracy, I increased the bullet speed to x12, but it meant I was missing the targets, oddly by some sort of delay. Why have separate stats for attack speed and bullet speed, especially if increasing one of them negatively affects accuracy? I'm using the HTML5 version. Is that why this game doesn't work properly when I do this? Now I hate bullet speed, not knowing what the point of it is if my attack speed isn't increased and the damage isn't increased. It's like having a faster bullet without any benefits of having a faster bullet. Quite the opposite, actually, since for some reason an increase in bullet speed makes me miss quite a lot despite having 100% accuracy.
Okay. Maybe I'll try it again sometime. However, you have my initial, mostly unfiltered reaction, and that may be more helpful than the nice response I have later. When I seek out a game to play, it's to be diverting and fun, not really nice or tolerant or even open minded. It's to play. Anything I put in I hope to get rewarded for. Anything that sort of slows me down or makes me think about the game at least momentarily takes away from the enjoyment of actually playing the game.
I looked at your strategies but it's just not worth the effort at this point. I think you neglected to say that what you put in the deck by what you play might also influence the outcome. If every time I get a pier, I play it, I put a lot of islands in the deck, which I'm likely to get as I spend money on cards but which won't make me money, so I should hesitate to play piers if I want something that will make money. I played this game again a few days ago and got a lot further, at least to population 70. But I can just bring a YouTube video up and see others finish the game. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. If I have to be careful how I stack the deck just so I can piece together a rudimentary village, it's no fun. I also took the time to play Micropolis or SimCity classic and realized I'm so over it. I don't care about building a city of large population using the same old strategies. I just don't care anymore. And I think the devs of this game may have overlooked the pleasure that can be gained from playing that is countered by thinking about elements that are at least somewhat out of their control. After putting so much thought and care into how I play, running out of money or cards and getting a game over sucks. Hell, by the time you've played more than a few times, failing for unsatisfying reasons, finishing this game sucks. It's not rewarding enough if you've spent all the time and effort. At least with SimCity classic, as you learned the game, you got better results and it wasn't limited to some deck AND there was no game over to stop you from continuing to try where you were. You didn't have to start over if you didn't want to but you could if you wanted to start fresh.
I can play the game just fine, but in a more typical shooter, the enemies and their fire move slowly. This one's all at once, and I completed it somewhat easily anyway. When I'm using cursor keys to move (as I prefer), maybe it shouldn't sort of start and stop in a way that makes it difficult to move exactly where I want to go, to avoid gunfire.
I've never made a game, but it seems inexcusable that such a potentially lengthy game would depend so very much on an RNG to be winnable. At worst, the randomness should be limited the way a deck of cards limits a game of Solitaire. Why play any game if it's rigged? By RNG, algorithm, or anything else? If you're going to mix dice with strategy, you might plan the game so it works out in someone's favour, like Monopoly, so at least there is in fact a winner. To me, it's like you made a game somewhat like SimCity Classic but used an RNG to twist it so strategy won't help! Is this a strategy game? Then don't use an RNG unless we're given some power to work against it, like with using dice to get starting stats for characters in a tabletop RPG. At least it's possible to grind until the stats improve and enjoy the adventure! Your RNG creates unwinnable games, and it's not like you've offered us anything more that the ability to choose what and where to place what we get randomly. If you're not going to keep your game winnable, don't be surprised if players call it a game for losers!
You're comparing this game to a AAA game? Seriously? While they really don't have excuses, for a different reason, because they're multi-million dollar studios that didn't conduct business properly or keep their priorities straight, you haven't taken on a comparable burden. This game isn't a Cyberpunk 2077 or No Man's Sky. But, if these studios made this game, it really would be due to lack of resources or making it a priority. This game isn't like Solitaire, where you're taking reasonable chances due to how a deck of cards works when the challenge and fun is revealing them all and getting them in order to win. You don't have to make this game easy, either. But every single time, given the chances are controlled by YOU, you could make each game winnable. You seem to have suggested that games being impossible to win is a "bug" that "can be particularly difficult to catch". Or did you just generalize because specific criticism is just too much for you to respond directly to? By the way, if you're aspiring only to the level of comparing yourself to AAA studios that deliberately screw their players with crappy early releases, further charges for stable releases, all while introducing new bugs to save money, CONGRATULATIONS! The reason games should be challenging or difficult is because, while winnable, there's something to learn to improve on, whether it's strategy or reflexes. You've shown by your reply that you have more in common with the mediocrity of mobile game devs and their refusal to even try to do the job right. Anyway, I'm no longer interested in played your half-baked, over-pixelated, sorry excuse for a timewasting, drawn-out, lootbox "game".
The "lose condition" should never be "buggy". If you're having problems making a game that works reliably, maybe you shouldn't post it to itch yet, where players actually want to enjoy it first and beta test your stuff second. In fact, maybe for a demo, you should consider forgoing any "lose condition" and let people play, if your "lose condition" is "quiet [sic] buggy". But you're on itch because you want the beta testing first and to make the game enjoyable second, if that. What a pretty buggy gamed "game" you've posted.
This game is stupid. It's based far too much on chance that the dev controls. It's like the stupid frustration of this game is a way of getting people to play over and over and over, to get more repetitive data for the developer. It doesn't seem that there's anything I could do differently that would get me further in the game, so it sucks and I suck for playing a game that is just a drawn-out version of a loser loot box that I have to piece together like an over-pixelated, childish puzzle. I'm now ready to rate this game.
I suppose I haven't been paying attention to anything other than adding to my little kingdom. I'm meant to read the pixelated cards and understand them? Well, this really is a cute game. I thought I was able to just do whatever I want and that, because it's a demo or something, the game ends quickly, here in the browser version.
First, the opening text doesn't really help me, yet I died almost immediately the first time so actually read it the second time. I don't really get the game so I tried to capture pieces. I didn't get a sense of accomplishment and decided not to descend when the opportunity arose. I don't get this game, so I'm not going to play anymore. It looks like it took a lot of effort but might be more the kind of game I would expect on a Commodore 64 or DOS computer, something a bit abstract and meant for those with an appreciation for detail that gives them patience and persistence. Good luck to you.
I played one round, didn't last very long. Personally, I don't like having to aim myself. I prefer the targeting be automatic so I can concentrate on movement. Also, this demo seems so limited in area that I feel it's almost a sandbox. The sprites are kind of big and move a little funny, including for my player. It feels a little too basic for me to be confident in any criticism I might have. Basically, right now, on the Itch.io website, it doesn't feel fun. And I'm using a Chromebook with a mouse, which might be easier than any mobile version using a touchscreen.