17 replies to this topic

[Affray]

I have been playing this for a good hour already.
Found it on Newgrounds while making my internet rounds.

Here is the link to Infectonator 2
http://www.newground...tal/view/603478

And the first game if you feel like playing it too
http://www.newground...tal/view/527013

Try not to lose too much of your day on these.

[Jesse Custer]

wow thats crazy addicting

[Wolf]

Shit, with how many hours I lost in Infectinator 1...


Must avoid

[Affray]

Shit, with how many hours I lost in Infectinator 1...


Must avoid

That won't last for long.
You will cave as I did and fall into the pit of zombie virus spreading.
If you beat the game to completion you get to play it a second time with a bonus zombie.
Tantalizing.

[Wolf]

That won't last for long.
You will cave as I did and fall into the pit of zombie virus spreading.
If you beat the game to completion you get to play it a second time with a bonus zombie.
Tantalizing.

You're making this difficult, Affray

[Affray]

I am the harbinger of good things, that have a cost.
Hours of personal enjoyment, and all it costs is your precious time.
The real question is, what else could you be doing?

[Wolf]

So I actually got around to play it, and I have to say I prefer the first

I don't know if it's the assholes with the grenade launcher, the levels with a horrible army/civilian ratio, or the feeling that it's just drowning out the spirit of the original with bells and whistles.

I was saddened when my fully maxed out zombies got their asses handed to them by 1 guy, making me realize I would need to resort to blowing people up with the grenade/mines. The whole time the devs taunting me with "donate to get the nuke/better zombies", which to me sounded more like "Start hacking flash-based games again, Wolfie"

I understand trying to make a few dollars on your flash game, but don't hold your game mechanics hostage. [And don't steal your tilesets from other games HINT HINT]


At the end, I just have one question

Who would play a zombie infection game to blow people up?

It's just not good science.

[Affray]

Flawless logic I am afraid.
I did not enjoy those levels where there are a million military guys and like ten civies and your zombies were wiped out in thirty seconds or less.
I rarely used any explosives, only when the level required them to complete it 100%.

I also loathe when they hold out on game mechanics in hopes that you will pay for them.
Why make a game that is eighty percent complete and make people pay for that last bit instead of making a great game and leaving it at that.

[Wolf]

Flawless logic I am afraid.
I did not enjoy those levels where there are a million military guys and like ten civies and your zombies were wiped out in thirty seconds or less.
I rarely used any explosives, only when the level required them to complete it 100%.

I also loathe when they hold out on game mechanics in hopes that you will pay for them.
Why make a game that is eighty percent complete and make people pay for that last bit instead of making a great game and leaving it at that.

I was the same way with the explosives, they just didn't seem too sporty

I'm glad I'm not the only one to feel this way about the donate button

If someone enjoyed the game enough, they'll donate to see more games from that developer. I can understand incentivizing it, but people aren't gonna be happy with just more zombies and a game-breaking nuke. Flash games [especially this one] are intended to be played in an afternoon, and seldom returned to. Your reward for donating being to shorten the already short gametime is just counter-intuitive.

If I could have donated to add some replayability to the game, or maybe get a simple different game mode I would have gladly forked over for that

[Affray]

I am annoyed at flash games that use this ploy, but xbox games are what really grinds my gears.
A few of the Assassins Creed games are bad for this.
They give you the game, which is full of story and some history, then release some DLCs that are basically missing segments of the character's story/plot of the game.
this aggravates me to no end.
I hate feeling like I bought part of a game and have to keep paying to get the rest of it.
I allow DLCs like the first Borderlands game released, they are extra places/missions/plot seperate from the original game.
Without them you don't miss out on anything from the actual game, which is the way it should be.

Some free flash game I can shrug off, but when it is something that I payed actual money for, I expect what I earned.

[Wolf]

I am annoyed at flash games that use this ploy, but xbox games are what really grinds my gears.
A few of the Assassins Creed games are bad for this.
They give you the game, which is full of story and some history, then release some DLCs that are basically missing segments of the character's story/plot of the game.
this aggravates me to no end.
I hate feeling like I bought part of a game and have to keep paying to get the rest of it.
I allow DLCs like the first Borderlands game released, they are extra places/missions/plot seperate from the original game.
Without them you don't miss out on anything from the actual game, which is the way it should be.

Some free flash game I can shrug off, but when it is something that I payed actual money for, I expect what I earned.

I agree, it gets tenfold worse when you're talking about the full game.

Nothing like spending $60 on a game [which is a ludicrous price btw], just to go home and have the game hold itself hostage. Not only does it wreck the immersion [like Dragon Age's quest that you had to BUY], it's sure to turn people sour to your game and have them trade it in, boosting used game sales and hurting your profit, theoretically.

Additional content is great, content that I feel was taken away, not so great. You mentioned Borderlands, which is a good example. They added new quests and more fun goodies, none of which was vital to the game itself.

I guess the point I'm getting at, is a game should be able to stand by itself. You shouldnt have to buy part of a game, then the rest of the game later, unless the pricing matches.

[Bowsette]

Know what sucks with that dev in particular? It's ~$5 for the premium content.

I can BUY a much longer, more polished, better-looking game on Steam for less than that.

I use Kongregate a lot, and I exist on one principle: The tagline for Kongregate is "[number] online playing [number] free games." Premium content is not free. Therefore, any game that begs me for money to be better at it gets 1 star, and I never touch it again.

[Affray]

Know what sucks with that dev in particular? It's ~$5 for the premium content.

I can BUY a much longer, more polished, better-looking game on Steam for less than that.

I use Kongregate a lot, and I exist on one principle: The tagline for Kongregate is "[number] online playing [number] free games." Premium content is not free. Therefore, any game that begs me for money to be better at it gets 1 star, and I never touch it again.

Good principal.
Hopefully the creators of the extra content for a cost games figure out that they aren't really winning anything by producing such things.
You give anyone a game, flash or otherwise, that exudes quality and asks for nothing more than your appreciation and it will be loved by many forever.

[Bowsette]

I just find it to be a kick in the head. Withholding content that is overpowered or deemed necessary to progression (unless you REALLY strategize and spend a lot of time replaying over and over and over and over to get the in-game funding) is stupid. The latter especially is irritating. Flash games are meant to be fun. Grinding is not fun. Therefore flash games that exist on either pay-to-win or grinding principles are not fun.

Plus Kongregate runs weekly/monthly competitions for new games. Top-rated game uploaded each month wins $1500, top-rated weekly gets $250. If I can prevent asshole devs who charge for "free" content (especially when they don't call it premium: some call it donation content, lol) from winning that position, I'll take that as a win.

[Wolf]

Grinding is not fun. Therefore flash games that exist on either pay-to-win or grinding principles are not fun.

Regular games operating on those principals often fall short for me, especially pay-to-win

Nothing gets me off a game faster than Pay to Win.

[Calvary]

Loved this game, I agree with Xiao though, there shouldn't be any pay-to-win content, the game gets harder and harder as you can't get the best upgrades without hours of grinding.

Also, where's Madagascar, I want to infect it!

[Wolf]

Loved this game, I agree with Xiao though, there shouldn't be any pay-to-win content, the game gets harder and harder as you can't get the best upgrades without hours of grinding.

Also, where's Madagascar, I want to infect it!

Yeah, I also found it odd that the second game is much shorter than the first, with more of an emphasis on grinding

1 step sideways, 2 steps back

[Affray]

Loved this game, I agree with Xiao though, there shouldn't be any pay-to-win content, the game gets harder and harder as you can't get the best upgrades without hours of grinding.

Also, where's Madagascar, I want to infect it!

And now I know her name without having to ask like a mook.
Yes.