The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Grid Wars 2
Fuga
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A lot of you probably know a game like Geometry Wars.
Grid Wars 2 is a clone of that game done by Mark Incitti and it works on PC and MAC. Of course there are some slight changes too.
I've tried the steam port of GeoWars and honestly, I like this version more on PC.
This is a great game to pass time.
PC version: http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/grid/GridWars54.zip
Mac version: http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/grid/GridWarsOSX.zip
Info: http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/grid/wars.htm
Before you start, I'd suggest chaning the controls in the options. :P
My record on the default settings is about 700k.
Fuga on
0
Posts
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Yeah, the author removed the game from his website:
Other sites still host the file though, which is why you can still get it... you just aren't supposed to.
He did.
I've played Grid Wars.. can't remember if it was #1 or #2 though..
.. I like Retro Evolved better, if only for the fact that so many people play it, and there's an online leaderboard.
But GeoWars Galaxies takes the cake for best space-gride-war-shmup-arcadey-game-ever award.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Grid Wars 1 was kinda obviously inspired by Geometry Wars, but not completely based on it. This is a blatent rip off, designed to be even more like Retro Evolved. It has very similar menus, sound and graphics. I suggest you just head to steam and get Retro Evolved.
It's a shame that Retro Evolved isn't as customizable as this though.
Anyone is free to rip off gameplay mechanics as much as they like.
If it looks nearly similar art-wise then there is a point to the Geometry Wars dudes complaining. But frankly, my opinion is "may the best game of them win".
The points a Black hole is worth increases exponentially with the more stuff it eats.
Which turns the hi-score game away from the "circle the map shooting the same direction for high-score" approach of the Retro Evolved, and into a game where you "Farm" the black holes, letting them eat, then shooting them to make sure they don't pop, and letting them eat more.
Your high score comes from how long you dare to let the Black Holes live before blowing them up.
Overall it surpasses Retro Evolved, but falls at the brilliant Galaxies.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Of course, but this isn't just game mechanics. They use the same art, same gameplay and mostly the same enemies with the same behavior. It's not just copying, it's taking someone else's work and making small modifications to call it his own. This is like taking Super Mario Bros, add a new powerup, name it Super Mario Dudes and call it a day.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Yeah but:
1) It is a game made out of love and affection for the original.
2) It includes vast amounts of different skins not attempted in GW:RE or Galaxies.
3) He's radically improved and remodelled the mechanics of the game. To the extent that in the world of Shoot'em ups, it's as different to Retro Evolved as Fifa is to PES in footie games. Actually more so, as he's pretty much changed what you have to do to "score a goal"
4) He didn't do it to profit.
And last and most importantly
5) He took it down as soon as they complained.
Incidentally, the game also lead me to buy 3 versions of the "proper" version, as it goes.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Not illegal - unauthorized.
However, one could almost say some of the art mechanics are stolen from atari titles. The main ship stolen from tempest. Superzapper = bomb. The rest of the art is definitely stolen. Now does bizzare games have right to the unique artwork, ya probably. But being an instant hater because the copied some artwork doesn't seem fair though.
I can't lime this hard enough.
The simple change of Black Hole scoring changes the way the rest of the game works so radically that it does indeed play like a completely different game. I actually played Grid Wars before Retro Evolved, and when I finally did I was so disappointed when I found out that didn't carry over. The tension and release of building a Black Hole and popping it for a six digit score can't be denied.
Also, Grid Wars does one other thing that I infinitely prefer to RE. Instead of randomly changing firepower, you collect gun powerups. I hate RE's randomly changing gun. Powering up the gun and plowing through enemies is much better.
Can't say anything about Galaxies, as I haven't played it, but if I had to pick between RE and Grid Wars, I'd pick Grid Wars every time. the way the mechanics are refined makes it a much better game.
This does indeed fundamentally change the game and make it more fun than Retro Evolved. I enjoyed the new strategy aspect immensely.
I do agree with LewieP though, if he would of at least come up with different shapes (I know a couple are changed) then it wouldn't be such a rip-off.
Edit: Also the little spawning things are cool too and I don't remember them being in RE.
And about that black hole thing, I don't play it that way.
If I was Bizzare I would have just hired him, and bought the code.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
Don't blackholes in Geowars do the same thing? I know that if I let them eat before popping them I get more points than if I just popped them. Is the major change in the rate at which points accumulate?
I haven't played any of the Geo games, but in Grid Wars if you farm two or three black holes for a few minutes you can get more than a million points from them alone.
Unfortunately the rate at which black holes grow and explode increases the higher your score is, so you really only get the chance to do that once near the beginning of the game.
A major part of the strategy in Retro Evolved is trying to balance black holes as defensive devices but leaving enough enemies flying about to gain higher scores, whilst still keeping an on eye black holes so that they don't explode before you're ready to shoot out their heat seeking circles.
So not only are you letting some Black Holes live to keep the swarms manageable, but you can't let them swallow as many enemies as possible because you need them to keep your score up. But you can't let too many enemies fly about or you might die. But you can't let them swallow too many or they might explode. So you might plug them with some bullets. But you might want them to explode to clear some space in the area to escape and shoot down more enemies.
See. It adds just as much strategy by having them not exponentially increase in score. In fact, I say it's better without it. Because if the black holes exponentially increased in how much they're worth by swallowing shit, you could just keep the holes there as long as possible, which makes the enemy swarms non threatening, which not only makes it easier to avoid death, it also makes it easier to increase your score.
Yeah, I'd rather have to balance score and potential death than making it easier to both avoid death and increase score.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
If you have a Wii, galaxies is such an awesome ride.
I would have to agree with you entirely. If blackholes gave me mega points, I'm afraid it would feel too cheap. I haven't played gridwars though so I am just speculating. I suppose it is fair to say that they really are different games despite the cloned visuals.
Every moment is a decision between harvesting the holes and thus missing out on more points you could have gotten if you waited, or taking a gamble by waiting and hoping a billion enemies don't spawn simultaneously and send the whole situation spiraling massively out of control.
You know what, read this link. He does a great job describing this game.
See, except in Grid Wars this mechanic exists as well. The Black Holes work the same as in RE, so they'll explode if too many enemies fill them up, just like RE. It's just that the score increase on the Black Holes serves to reward you for balancing the Black Holes between offense and defense. It also adds strategy by giving you an extra option to consider while playing. Need to pop a Black Hole for space? But what if it's in a really good spot and increasing it's score? Leave it alone for more score? or pop it for the space? It's an extra layer that's not in RE, and I think it adds a whole layer of complexity.
I will say this, I don't think Grid Wars is quite as frantic and twitch based. I can play Grid Wars for a lot longer than I can play RE, and it's not just because I'm better at one than the other. RE is about throwing as much shit at you as possible and seeing what happens. Grid Wars is (slightly) slower, but more strategic, and I prefer that. I can certainly accept that some people would just prefer the frantic pace of RE though.
I'd still rather have the GW gun powerups though. Fuck RE's random gun.
All of these facets are there in Retro Evolved, except the increasing score of the black hole.
The reason it is arguably better in RE is because the black holes serve a defensive purpose, and the most tense of balances is between score and risk of death. Because you are far more encouraged to attack enemies in Retro Evolved than you are to let them sink into a black hole, you are risking your life more so to achieve points than you are by letting them slip into black holes, which protects you from those very enemies. With Gridwars, by letting the holes suck in enemies, you are being protected from those swarms [which is a reward in that it protects your lives] -- you are then able to blow up the black holes, and achieve a higher score for doing so [which is a reward to increase your score]?
It's like you're not losing out on anything by letting the black holes suck up the enemies. But the greatest asset of black holes is that they protect you from the enemies. Shouldn't protection of your life be balanced out by not having the option of gaining more points for doing so?
Why should you be double rewarded for a strategy, instead of increasing the tension between attacking swarms and letting the black holes take them?
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Correct.
No, you see, it rewards you twice for farming black holes. Retro Evolved rewards you once.
with gridwars,
When you utilize black holes, they are sucking down swarms of enemies that are otherwise dangerous to your life to attack head on. That is the first reward - defense.
When you subsequently blow up the black holes to clear up some space for you to move, you are rewarded a second time - you are very nearly regaining all those points that you missed out by taking the defensive route of letting the black hole eat the enemies.
Retro evolved forces you to make a choice. You can either be rewarded for using the black holes for defense, and saving your life. Or you can be rewarded by attacking oncoming enemies, and increasing your score [at the detriment of possibly losing your life].
You are not rewarded first by saving your life by avoiding enemies [when the holes suck them in], and then again rewarded for higher scores for letting the holes suck in more.
This mechanic exists in RE.
But pop it for the space you are doing so for the sake of saving your life. More space = greater chance of survival. That is the first reward. The second reward is the fact that you get more points for having done so.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
I'm not saying one game is definitively better than the other. I'm just saying that one aspect of one game doesn't necessarily make it better than the other.
Ultimately, both games' scores are based on how long you can last. So it [the blackhole differences] ultimately doesn't matter, since both ways it's a test of survival. It's just that the scores will have different scales.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
It's brilliant.
I'm not saying that in definitively better - because it isn't, but it is incredibly different. Grid Wars is a game about Black Hole farming, that is where the risk-reward mechanic comes from, Geo-Wars doesn't play similarly at all - to me at least. The differences do matter in the way that a champion at Grid Wars would falter at Geo and vice-versa, and that the two different approaches may appeal differently to different people.
EDIT: as in the defining approach in Geo is "stay alive for 3 more seconds" which is awesome and nail biting. And in Grid, it's don't destroy the Black hole for 3 more seconds. Both brilliant.
But saying that I do think Geo-Wars Galaxies is, personally, the best of the three, by many, many times.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
I definitely agree that Geometry Wars Galaxies is by far and away the best game that is anything like these.
It's so full to the brim with awesome.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
See, on the base level, RE also rewards you for this. The points that you get for a Black Hole increase as they absorb enemies. It just caps out very quickly. (I can't remember the exact numbers here. If you wanna get 'em, I'll discuss them)
On a deeper level, I've got a couple of comments. See below.
I think we should separate game mechanic rewards from point rewards, because I think they should be considered separately. As a game mechanic, I'll concede that letting the Black Hole absorb enemies as a defensive mechanism could be considered it's own reward, as it does indeed increase your chances of survival. And this mechanic is certainly in both games.
I think the difference is how it relates to the points rewards that the game gives you. Now, you get points for destroying the black holes, and you get more points if you let the Black Holes absorb enemies first. This reward is in both games. The difference is how much reward you get for it. With RE, because the bonus tops out so quickly, after a few seconds there is no more increase, and the relationship between score and mechanic ceases. After that the decision to destroy a Black Hole is purely mechanical - if the Black Hole is better off protecting you, leave it; if it's hindering your survival, destroy it.
With GW, because the relationship between score and mechanic never ceases, there is additional information to consider when dealing with Black Holes. Now, it's not a simple if/then decision. You have to consider how the lost scoring opportunity that comes with destroying a black hole measures against the chance that you will survive if you don't destroy it. I think the additional economic choice is much more complex and requires more consideration. The slower pace of GW reflects this, and changes the nature of the game to a more measured, strategic experience. Though really, they're both twitch games. RE is just twitchier (and that's not an insult to RE.)
I also think that the gravitational interaction between the player, the enemies, and the Black Holes is far more complex in GW than it is in RE, but I don't really have anything to back that up, it's just the feel I get while playing the games. Getting into it would be a different can o worms.
And yes, I plan on playing Galaxies as soon as I can. It certainly sounds fantastic.
Jesus, this was a block of text, wasn't it?
Also, I read the article linked to.
I enjoy both RE and GW2 about equally, even if for slightly different reasons. I just don't think that the exponential score increases of GW2 necessarily make it better, and I'm hard pressed to say that it's necessarily deeper.
Ultimately, black holes are your greatest line of defense. But RE doesn't want to you rest on your haunches, so it doesn't reward you for letting black holes do all the work for you. You are encouraged to let black holes live and engulf enemy swarms that would otherwise kill you, but it doesn't stop there. You still have to put your life at greater risk by not merely 'farming black holes.' You also have to maintain them, but you cannot rely on them.
With GW2, it takes away from the tension of having to go out and shoot things on your own. It emphasizes defense, defense, defense. You are encouraged to create a castle of black holes and maintain them. That's where your job essentially ends.* Because you are not punished for not shooting enemies yourself.
If you could gain greater scores in RE for shooting black holes with a lot of engulfed stuff, players would be lasting much longer, and scores would be much higher. The reason is that encouraging black hole use has the direct effect of discouraging you from going out and shooting stuff, which puts you at a far greater risk of being killed.
GW2's system is both a step forward and a step back. It adds depth by encouraging black holes, but it decreases depth by a step by removing the function of a more tense life/death scenario.
* you still have to do some other things, like blow some up for space, but this is the basic idea. Blowing stuff up for space is something you have to do in RE, too, which is why I left it (and other additional things) out too.
Anyway, I think both games are great. I can see both sides of the argument. I guess it comes down to personal taste which way you'd prefer it.
What doesn't come down to taste is the fact that GeoWars Galaxies is better than the rest.
That's just an indisputed fact. Just like the grass is green. The sky is blue. GeoWars Galaxies is better than Retro Evolved and GridWars.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Good God is it fun.
Strictly speaking, I think the best scores in GW come from a balanced combination of farming Black Holes and shooting enemies. I know in GW when I see a swarm of squares, I try to shoot them instead of luring them to a Black Hole. At a high multiplier, they're worth far more points shot than absorbed. And even after you have Black Holes that you're trying to maintain, you're still shooting a bunch of enemies as well. There's still a very sharp risk-reward mechanic involved even when you're maintaining Black Holes. If nothing else, there's always the non-Black Hole affected triangle bits the game likes to send out in huge swarms. And eventually, no matter how good you are, your perfect Black Hole setup will eventually get pulled out of alignment by the gravity of some other rogue Black Hole, and the whole shebang will come crashing down, forcing you to die or start the whole process over.
Hey, it's not like it's easy to just set up a bunch of Black Holes and farm them. :P It's still a pretty tense, twitchy experience to get to that point, and once you're there it's definitely a lot of work to maintain without accidentally killing yourself in a gravity well. It's just not the crack-cocaine experience that is RE.
Anyway, I'm not sure I'd say that removing tension is the same thing as removing depth. I definitely think that GW is a deeper game. That being said, I can also say that you're spot on in saying deeper is not necessarily better. Frankly, I'm not sure that BC would ever be interested in adding that kind of depth to a GeoWar game. It's really not what the core design for the game is about. I think the GeoWar games are ultimately about the simple twitch experience, refined as far as is humanly possible. I think if BC could make RE even fatser and twitchier, they would. Heck, I can even see how my hated random gun power is just another part of the refined chaos.
And really, at the end of the day, it's not like I don't play RE. Heck, I bought RE twice. I'm not that good at it, but it's perfect when I want something fast. That's what it's for. When I play GW, I'm really going for a different experience. When I'm playing GW just right and keeping the Black Holes on the edge while blowing up other enemies, I can achieve the same kind of zen trance that I (used to) get when I'm playing Tony Hawk and just skating around and lining up crazy combos to nail.
Man, stop that. I don't have a Wii yet. My friend Steve does though. I'm gonna end up owning games for a system I don't own again, aren't I? Fuck.