Hopefully this is the first thread in a series. The theme of these threads will be to discuss the game design choices of specific games. I prefer downloadable shareware or freeware games for a number of reasons: everybody who is interested in joining the discussion can download and play the game; the smaller project size usually means the design is much more compact, therefore easier to analyze; it's actually easier for many people to consider trying such a project themselves - so the discussions should be a lot more practical. By the way, it should be the reviewer's duty to offer enough information so the readers of the thread can easily download and install the game - so we can get right to discussing (so for instance if you link to a Spectrum/C64 game, also link to the emulator page). Anyway, that's enough of an intro. For the first game I propose Alter Life This one comes straight from the cool "simple rules great addictive gameplay" category, except it's simpler than most of his opponents yet just as fun. I'm tempted to say one could make a feature complete playable prototype of Alter Life in just a couple of days (I should know better by now ). Alter Life is a strategy game were you command thousands of brave pixels (I mean viruses) into conquering the entire screen. The decision to remove unit types, 3d models or even unit sprites allows Alter Life to have the highest number of units I've ever played against in a RTS. In Alter Life handling the user interface is an important part of the gameplay. You aren't supposed to control your armies of viruses directly. Instead you add on the map attractors around which your viruses flock. You will find that doing something that is quite trivial in Starcraft (separating a fighting group in two smaller groups) is quite challenging and fun in Alter Life. By limiting the number of attractors players can add to the map the design forces shape on the battlefield: the viruses naturally group into armies. Shape is the first step towards adding strategy to the game. If you can describe the battlefield in an abstract fashion you can also make higher level plans. A tough question simple games must answer is where to get enough diversity from so the game doesn't become predictable and repetitive. Alter Life solves the problem quite elegantly: resources randomly appear on the map - the viruses then eat these resources - causing them to grow and gain energy. Viruses near resources have high energy - a virus will always destroy an enemy virus with lower energy. This means a group of viruses that is near a resource is often undefeatable - or if it is very small, it would soon grow to be invulnerable. On the other hand a group of viruses without a resource is again rather vulnerable. This adds long-term strategy to this game. You want to stay near your resources and be invulnerable, but you also want your armies to move to the empty spaces of the map so when resources pop up you seize them before anyone else does. In the end it's really a fight for controlling terrain - the more you have the more resources you control. This game has all it needs: a fun low level play (just moving your viruses on the map), reaction based gameplay (things happen to which you must take rapid action and fast decisions) and longer term strategy. [edited by - Diodor on January 8, 2004 4:04:42 AM]

Sounds more like a puzzle game than a strategy game.

The indirect control really detracted from the game for me. Several times I''d have only one attractor on the map, but for some reason my ''troops'' acted as if there was almost no attraction toward it. It is frustrating to have ''troops'' seemingly ignore ''commands''. I also feel that the simplistic rules greatly limit the strategy you can employ since all you can do is hope your units kill theirs before an energy source randomly pops up on top of the enemy and makes them stronger than your units. The slow movement speed and strength rules make surgical strikes nearly impossible to pull off - I feel that when I win its just because I got lucky and had an energy source appear at the right place at the right time rather than because of my skill.

Also, not really related to gameplay - I don''t like that the window is borderless. I think all non-fullscreen windows should have the default windows border.

quote:

---

Original post by Extrarius

Several times I''d have only one attractor on the map, but for some reason my ''troops'' acted as if there was almost no attraction toward it.

---

I recall the same happened to me, but it was my fault for believing I was playing a different player. Remember you always play red!

quote:

---

I also feel that the simplistic rules greatly limit the strategy you can employ since all you can do is hope your units kill theirs before an energy source randomly pops up on top of the enemy and makes them stronger than your units. The slow movement speed and strength rules make surgical strikes nearly impossible to pull off - I feel that when I win its just because I got lucky and had an energy source appear at the right place at the right time rather than because of my skill.

---

The game is all about placement. You need to create multiple armies and place them on the map so that whenever an energy source pops up you have an army nearby ready to rush for it and capture it. For instance I often start the game by dividing my initial force and going straight away for two sources of energy.

It''s also not a very offensive game - you just have to maneuver around and keep your forces on the energy sources. You cannot attack an army directly most of the time, but you can slowly conquer the entire map by making sure it is your forces who get the resources.

I always win now on the difficulty modes offered in the demo - I believe the game would be very interesting with a better AI or against a human player (I don''t think they offer a multiplayer version though).

[qute]
Sounds more like a puzzle game than a strategy game.

---

"Sounds"? The cool thing about this thread is that it takes less time to give the game a run than it takes to read the starting post.

It''s a really neat game... granted all the units are pixels and the game still ran at like 4 fps on a pentium 4... curses upon XP...

It reminds me of the old flocking algorithms... Flozoids or something like that... watching my armies of pixels divide and conquer (literally in this game) is truely awe-inspiring...

and for those of you, who like me, have a dial-up connection... you have my pity.

"Yes... I use VB6. But my pong could whip you tetris''s blocks."
Join Microsoft''s Guinea Pigs Research Panel Now! Click Here!

A simple game should never require a super-computer to run at 100% all the time. A have an Athlon 2200+, 512 megs of ram and a G4 MX 420 and the game ran slowly.
I felt that the 'strategy' element was very minor, as all I could do was direct my forces toward resources - the moment I did anything otherwise my viruses were killed off - I cannot attack another swarm because they will always have higher 'energy' than my attack force.
I belive that when two viruses colide, one of them is killed at random. This would greatly benifit gameplay in my own opinion - attacks could be properly mounted and tiny groups would no longer destroy massive assault swarms, but the need for resources would still be major as one always wants to expand his/her army.
On a side note, I found the menu and interface graphics exceptionally ugly and unproffesional.

[edited by - jack_1313 on January 11, 2004 4:49:17 AM]

The game ran fine on mine (AMD 2500+, 512MB, GF2 MX 400) I thought it was really enjoyable. I like the way tactics work very effectively and obviously, like surrounding your opponents etc. Where-as they don''t work so well or aren''t as noticable in other RTS''s. I think this one is almost one of those games thats very addictive and very simple, but there''s just something missing which means it doesn''t quite get there. I can''t put my finger on it though.

---------------------------------------

Let''s struggle for our dream of Game!

http://andrewporritt.4t.com

One of the key things that got on my nerves about the game is the precision with which the AI can control its units, compared with the relatively coarse control I can exercise. At one point it split up its main force into three separate forces going in rougly trisecting directions. I''m with the school of design wherein the user interface should not be a game in and of itself.

I do like the basic premise, and I didn''t find the ideas particularly difficult to grasp nor the work particularly difficult. The game is "beer and pretzels", not long-term. That''s both good and bad, but it''s certainly not where I''d invest my money given the option.

The aforementioned casual nature is assisted by a complete lack of diversity in units, which is one of the things I''ve most enjoyed about strategy games. I know why it''s done, but it would be nice to be able to see Fishy-style metamorphosis of units as they gain experience. That would maintain the simplicity of the execution while adding a layer of diversity.

There is also a distinct preference for defensive posture, which tends to lengthen the endgame. In a casual tactics game such as this, I think that could constitute a serious design flaw. In my limited experience thus far, it''s annoying to have to play mop-up.

The buy-me screens, however, ensured I uninstalled the demo asap. They''re too much, in my personal opinion. I don''t think I''ve ever played a game that could have overcome this level of intrusiveness.

ld

cool game, hate the buy screens tho, seems pretty simple , i might just make my own one and post it on the web