Puddle > Levels > Topic Details
Lucathegreat Jun 19, 2013 @ 10:28am
Don't waste money, buy Mercury Meltdown instead.
Seriously, of all the similar games I've played, MM is still the BEST by far.
The others just suck or are bugged or have nice ideas horrendously executed. Like this one.
I can imagine the developers to be like:
"Hey, why don't we make a stage where you have to button mash left and right in order to make the liquid proceed, fill it with hard to next-to-impossible to avoid hazards, mixing it up with an awful physic, make your liquid divide itself in a lot of parts totally randomly, and make the requirements for the gold medal so insanely high compared to any other level that you basically can't even lose a drop?"
"TOTALLY!"
and then another is like: "..why don't we make a good game instead?"
"What did you say? You're fired!"

Yeah, I'm talking of the "Tension" stage, of course.
It's really one of the worst level design I've ever seen in ANY game I've played, and I want to punch the one who designed it right on his ♥♥♥♥ing face.
There were others ♥♥♥♥ty levels before, like the bulbs one, but man, this is just too much.

Tip to developers: go to a game design school before even attempting to create a game.
We will be very thankful.

But, you know what's a good thing about this game?
The Neko cat of the logo.
It's cute.
I feel bad for him, as he got involved in this mess of a game.
Showing 1-15 of 21 comments
< >
General_Lecter_ Jun 20, 2013 @ 5:38am 
I hadn't played any fluid-based game before, but this one was a pleasant surprise to me. It keeps adding new mechanics every few levels, and the way the graphics and menus are done is fantastic!

I have earned the gold medal in all levels except the last 3 ones (on normal difficulty). Maybe you aren't understanding the score graphic you see at the end of each level? The steeper the line is, the more liquid you should preserve. However, when the line is close to horizontal, it usually is better to speedrun, no matter how much liquid you lose in the way... ;)

I understand your hate towards the Tension levels, though... Besides the zero-gravity ones, they can be truly annoying at first... but you'll get used to them if you keep trying. Having completed them, I think leaving them in the game was a good idea. :P

Some of the golds are hard indeed, but that's what a gold medal should be about IMO...
KickinChicken Jun 20, 2013 @ 12:08pm 
Mercury Meltdown...not on Steam, nearly ten years old, inferior graphics...so no go!
Vardis Jun 28, 2013 @ 3:19pm 
I suppose they could give out gold medals just for trying hard. Gold medals for everyone! :)
aEku Jul 11, 2013 @ 2:45pm 
Originally posted by Lucathegreat:
Seriously, of all the similar games I've played, MM is still the BEST by far.
The others just suck or are bugged or have nice ideas horrendously executed. Like this one.
I can imagine the developers to be like:
"Hey, why don't we make a stage where you have to button mash left and right in order to make the liquid proceed, fill it with hard to next-to-impossible to avoid hazards, mixing it up with an awful physic, make your liquid divide itself in a lot of parts totally randomly, and make the requirements for the gold medal so insanely high compared to any other level that you basically can't even lose a drop?"
"TOTALLY!"
and then another is like: "..why don't we make a good game instead?"
"What did you say? You're fired!"

Yeah, I'm talking of the "Tension" stage, of course.
It's really one of the worst level design I've ever seen in ANY game I've played, and I want to punch the one who designed it right on his ♥♥♥♥ing face.
There were others ♥♥♥♥♥♥ levels before, like the bulbs one, but man, this is just too much.

Tip to developers: go to a game design school before even attempting to create a game.
We will be very thankful.

But, you know what's a good thing about this game?
The Neko cat of the logo.
It's cute.
I feel bad for him, as he got involved in this mess of a game.
you are suggesting people dont waste money because of 1 level you dont like?

this game is good stop talking bs.

and getting best medail on all is real hard yes, but with one playthrough i got over 50% gold. maybe its not your genre, just think on it ;D i loved each level in some way.
-=HUE=- CrazyCanadian24 Jul 18, 2013 @ 3:15am 


Originally posted by aEku:
Originally posted by Lucathegreat:
Seriously, of all the similar games I've played, MM is still the BEST by far.
The others just suck or are bugged or have nice ideas horrendously executed. Like this one.
I can imagine the developers to be like:
"Hey, why don't we make a stage where you have to button mash left and right in order to make the liquid proceed, fill it with hard to next-to-impossible to avoid hazards, mixing it up with an awful physic, make your liquid divide itself in a lot of parts totally randomly, and make the requirements for the gold medal so insanely high compared to any other level that you basically can't even lose a drop?"
"TOTALLY!"
and then another is like: "..why don't we make a good game instead?"
"What did you say? You're fired!"

Yeah, I'm talking of the "Tension" stage, of course.
It's really one of the worst level design I've ever seen in ANY game I've played, and I want to punch the one who designed it right on his ♥♥♥♥ing face.
There were others ♥♥♥♥♥♥ levels before, like the bulbs one, but man, this is just too much.

Tip to developers: go to a game design school before even attempting to create a game.
We will be very thankful.

But, you know what's a good thing about this game?
The Neko cat of the logo.
It's cute.
I feel bad for him, as he got involved in this mess of a game.
you are suggesting people dont waste money because of 1 level you dont like?

this game is good stop talking bs.

and getting best medail on all is real hard yes, but with one playthrough i got over 50% gold. maybe its not your genre, just think on it ;D i loved each level in some way.

The problem here is that the "physics" aren't really physics at all. Sure, they try to be physics, but they ultimately fail at being... well... physics. Fluidity is a good example of a fairly recent fluid/physics-based game, and controlled very well while not *quite* breaking physics.
KickinChicken Jul 18, 2013 @ 5:20am 
Originally posted by Crazy Canadian:
The problem here is that the "physics" aren't really physics at all. Sure, they try to be physics, but they ultimatly fail at being... well... physics.

That explains exactly...nothing.
-=HUE=- CrazyCanadian24 Jul 18, 2013 @ 7:12am 
Originally posted by KickinChicken:

That explains exactly...nothing.

Actually, it explains why this game fails so hard.
KickinChicken Jul 18, 2013 @ 7:23am 
Originally posted by Crazy Canadian:
Originally posted by KickinChicken:

That explains exactly...nothing.

Actually, it explains why this game fails so hard.

The problem here is that the "explanation" isn't really an explanation at all. Sure, it tries to be an explanation, but it ultimatly (sic) fails at being... well... an explanation.
-=HUE=- CrazyCanadian24 Jul 18, 2013 @ 7:14pm 
Originally posted by KickinChicken:
Originally posted by Crazy Canadian:

Actually, it explains why this game fails so hard.

The problem here is that the "explanation" isn't really an explanation at all. Sure, it tries to be an explanation, but it ultimatly (sic) fails at being... well... an explanation.

Do I really need to spell this out for you? Fine. Since you don't seem to be capable of understanding me, I'll make this a little clearer...

First off, the physics are terrible. They seem like physics at first, but after you've played the game for a few minutes, they just don't feel real at all. Second, the difficulty is through the roof. Can this degree of difficulty be executed well? Sure, and I give you Cave Story as an example, but here it just doesn't work because it's "fake difficulty" - the game is riddled with nigh-unavoidable pitfalls and hazards, and the wonky physics aren't helping. There's also a lot of gimmicks, and all of them are obvious attempts to lure potential buyers into buying. You know a game has to be of at least sub-par quality when the devs have to sell it on gimmicks.

Hopefully this cleared things up.
KickinChicken Jul 19, 2013 @ 5:14am 
That's your opinion; not all games are for everybody. Personally, I didn't find it that difficult, as I've played through it a half-dozen times. The physics work fine for me and it looks great!
-=HUE=- CrazyCanadian24 Jul 19, 2013 @ 6:49pm 
Originally posted by KickinChicken:
That's your opinion; not all games are for everybody. Personally, I didn't find it that difficult, as I've played through it a half-dozen times. The physics work fine for me and it looks great!

Then that means that you're biased, which means it would be pointless for me to continue to argue with you. So I'll agree to disagree.

Just know that bias is bad and you should feel bad.
General_Lecter_ Jul 20, 2013 @ 5:02am 
Just know that bias is bad and you should feel bad.
KickinChicken was trying to respect your opinion, and then you come with such a rubbish comment? It's you who suck at this game and you should feel bad for that, in case you didn't notice... :P

So, you're claiming the game to suck because it doesn't feature realistic enough physics? Mario games would all suck for that reason, then...

Your point about gimmicks doesn't make any sense to me, either. How would a gimmick attract potential buyers? Would you have prefered the 48 stages to involve the standard water liquid (with uber-realistic physics, if that makes you happy)? You sound to me like the kind of gamer that loves repeating the same winning strategy again and again and doesn't like anything that drives him out of the comfort zone... What you call 'gimmicks' I thought it was a way to keep things challenging and interesting. I might have never finished (and 100%-achieved :P) the game myself otherwise...

Yeah, there are many things that look unfair at first and the game may depend on luck now and then, but the hazards are all far from unavoidable... it just takes practice, and learning from mistakes...

Just accept the rules the game is trying to deliver instead of thinking it should behave in a different way... it's you who is biased, at the end of the day...
-=HUE=- CrazyCanadian24 Jul 20, 2013 @ 8:05am 
Originally posted by General_Lecter_:
Just know that bias is bad and you should feel bad.
KickinChicken was trying to respect your opinion, and then you come with such a rubbish comment? It's you who suck at this game and you should feel bad for that, in case you didn't notice... :P

So, you're claiming the game to suck because it doesn't feature realistic enough physics? Mario games would all suck for that reason, then...

Your point about gimmicks doesn't make any sense to me, either. How would a gimmick attract potential buyers? Would you have prefered the 48 stages to involve the standard water liquid (with uber-realistic physics, if that makes you happy)? You sound to me like the kind of gamer that loves repeating the same winning strategy again and again and doesn't like anything that drives him out of the comfort zone... What you call 'gimmicks' I thought it was a way to keep things challenging and interesting. I might have never finished (and 100%-achieved :P) the game myself otherwise...

Yeah, there are many things that look unfair at first and the game may depend on luck now and then, but the hazards are all far from unavoidable... it just takes practice, and learning from mistakes...

Just accept the rules the game is trying to deliver instead of thinking it should behave in a different way... it's you who is biased, at the end of the day...

1: Rubbish comparison, Mario games don't revolve around physics.

2: Incorrect, variety is great in video games. My problem is when a game throws me something completely out-of-character for the game's premise and then tells me that I *HAVE* to complete it in order to proceed. *cough*NOVA*cough*

3.1: Games shouldn't depend on luck at all unless it's an optional gambling mechanic. Note the word "optional". Yes, I'm against *most* RNGs as well.

3.2: That's why I said "nigh-unavoidable". If you're going to rip on someone, at least pay attention to what he's actually typed.

3.3: I have no problem with practicing and learning from my mistakes, but as I said earlier, the game executes it's difficulty very poorly.

4: So I'm supposed to accept broken/partially broken physics and incontinuity? Sorry, but I haven't been hit over the head enough times to make that seem like a good idea.
KickinChicken Jul 20, 2013 @ 10:10am 
Originally posted by General_Lecter_:
Just know that bias is bad and you should feel bad.
KickinChicken was trying to respect your opinion, and then you come with such a rubbish comment? It's you who suck at this game and you should feel bad for that, in case you didn't notice... :P

So, you're claiming the game to suck because it doesn't feature realistic enough physics? Mario games would all suck for that reason, then...

Your point about gimmicks doesn't make any sense to me, either. How would a gimmick attract potential buyers? Would you have prefered the 48 stages to involve the standard water liquid (with uber-realistic physics, if that makes you happy)? You sound to me like the kind of gamer that loves repeating the same winning strategy again and again and doesn't like anything that drives him out of the comfort zone... What you call 'gimmicks' I thought it was a way to keep things challenging and interesting. I might have never finished (and 100%-achieved :P) the game myself otherwise...

Yeah, there are many things that look unfair at first and the game may depend on luck now and then, but the hazards are all far from unavoidable... it just takes practice, and learning from mistakes...

Just accept the rules the game is trying to deliver instead of thinking it should behave in a different way... it's you who is biased, at the end of the day...

Thanks, General, at least the two of us enjoyed it, anyway! I haven't got all gold, yet, but I'm working on it.
General_Lecter_ Jul 20, 2013 @ 11:15am 
1. Mario may not be a fluid, but it's affected by gravity and inertia aswell, and not in a very realistic way IMO... Do you blame the physics when you lose in Mario games too? ;)

2. You can use the 'Whine' option (not only in the forums :P), so you're not completely locked from advancing. Nova isn't that game-breaking IMO; the Tension and Zero-Grav stages may be more arguable, though...

3.1. I'm not a fan of games based too much on luck either, but... what did you expect from a game where you indirectly control a fluid? O_o

3.2. Word-wars are stupid, I know perfectly what you wanted to say. If you think the hazards are nigh-unavoidable (or whatever high-precision word you want to use), you've just not practised enough or you're just being stubborn instead of trying something different every time...

4. It's just broken from your point of view, there are other people here that don't have anything wrong with the game's physics. Personally, I just tried to enjoy the game, and the dozens of times I've failed, I just thought it was my fault instead of blaming the game, or the physics.

Not saying the game should be everyone's cup of tea, but don't try to make us look less smart than you, or something like that... >:(

Thanks, General, at least the two of us enjoyed it, anyway! I haven't got all gold, yet, but I'm working on it.
Best of luck, then! I had to watch YouTube videos for the last 3 stages, but anything else shouldn't be hard if you keep trying... I had a hard time with the inverted-gravity stage too... ;)
Showing 1-15 of 21 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50