Looking for feedback for Kandahar Crush - PM me for demo

[9thunderworld]

Edit: Let me know if you want a demo.

The game's getting a mixed reaction (everywhere!) and I think the best way for everyone to judge it is to play it for yourselves.

But it won't have all the configuration options that the final release will so I don't want it to be redistributed. So if you're interested in trying it out for yourself, PM me or just let me know in this thread. If there's enough demand it will be out within a couple of weeks.

I started making Kandahar Crush in 2013 and I've recently added it to Greenlight. It should be out by the end of this year, and I'm interested in any suggestions that you've got to make it better.

Are there any features you'd like added or any changes you'd make? I'm not very active on this or any other forum, so I hope this doesn't come across as spam. But I'll be around to respond to any feedback (good or bad!) for as long as there's anyone who has anything to discuss. I can't guarantee that every idea will be used. But there's not much point making a game if I'm the only person who wants to play it, so I'm willing to consider any suggestions.

Official Site | Steam Greenlight | Twitter | Youtube

[tiaoferreira]

Talk more about your project, man.

[Shepardus]

Talk more about your project, man.

^^^

Hard to say much about what features we'd like added or what changes we'd like made if we don't know much about it in the first place. I watched the trailer you put on the Greenlight page but I still don't have much of an idea of how the game actually plays, besides the fact that you pilot what appears to be a B2 stealth bomber and bomb a bunch of buildings in a decidedly non-stealthy manner. Is the game arranged into a fixed number of stages, or is it some sort of endless score attack thing? Are there bosses? For that matter, are there any enemies that fire stuff at you? How does the scoring system work? How do you control the game? Judging by the trailer movement is either mouse-controlled or absurdly fast, but I can't say for sure.

Also you may want to turn down the screen shaking effect a notch, it looks like it wouldn't take long for it to become more irritating than awesome.

[9thunderworld]

The game's designed to be controlled by mouse, with one key (default: spacebar) used to apply thrust. That speeds the plane up by around 35%, which makes a big difference when playing. I've also included Xbox 360 controller support. I've only just added it (last week) but I think that with some tweaking it could be almost as accurate and responsive as mouse controls. But at the moment it's ok, if you really prefer to use a controller.

The plane is similar to the newest drones like the Phantom Ray. The actual bombing obviously won't go unnoticed, so the stealth aspect doesn't come into play in the game for the most part. In most levels the main objective is to either hit enough targets before the level ends (which allows you some freedom to choose the most effective 'flight-path' through the level), or to hit practically every target before reaching the end. So really, it's about timing and precision. Levels will get increasingly harder as you progress. The number of levels will be determined by playtesting to see how long it takes people to get through it.

I originally decided against enemies that attack you. That's mainly because the mouse allows you to move so fast, I'd have to practically fill the screen with them for them to have any chance of hitting you. Besides that, the game's challenging enough without them. Instead of the panic you get from seeing enemies and having to dodge bullets/missiles, it's more of an intense, focused minute and a half of knowing where you have to be a fraction of a second in advance, but not knowing if you'll get there in time. It feels more like an FPS in many ways, but less frustrating and more intense. Having said that, if there's an overwhelming demand for it I'd have to consider adding enemies.

I get your point about screen shake, Shepardus, although it looks a lot better without Youtube's encoding. Here's the original trailer file (30MB) in 1920x1080 resolution, 60 fps. But again, depending on feedback I could either tone it down or add an option to allow players to adjust it themselves.

The scoring system currently works by increasing a multiplier for every successful hit. So the first on-target hit earns you 1000 points, the second one gets you another 2000. Miss a target (i.e. it reaches the bottom of the screen without being hit) and the multiplier decreases by one. Launch a bomb and it hits the ground: the multiplier resets to one.

There's some more to it if you're interested, and a few things still TBD. But those are the main aspects.

[RipperRoo]

"spread democracy, by killing everyone who disagrees"

lol already dislike that trailer, hope you are not too serious with that

[9thunderworld]

You're not the first person to suggest that this might be in bad taste. I know war is usually all just fun and games. But if it made you laugh then it didn't hit too far off the mark.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

That's mainly because the mouse allows you to move so fast, I'd have to practically fill the screen with them for them to have any chance of hitting you.

This is another shmup being made by a developer who doesn't play shmups regularly, and therefore doesn't understand why good shmups use digital controls as opposed to analog, touch or mouse controls. The problem is avoided altogether when you have a control scheme with definite restrictions on movement.

To put it politely, the game looks incredibly boring. Your plane flies along, is not attacked by anything, no bombs appear to visibly drop from the plane, and buildings explode for no reason. Yes, we get it, the trailer is mocking the concept of war, particularly with respect to the war in the middle east, but a shitty kusoge "art game" that only exists to make a political statement is still a shitty kusoge. This doesn't even look like a commercial game, it looks like a flash parody video. That or a troll, in which case, meh. Seen funnier. The gameplay video isn't polished enough for it to even look amusing.

It looks like a Molleindustria game, if Molleindustria had zero style or subtlety.

[Doctor Butler]

^ He's a little callous, but he's right.

Your shooting game contained little to no visible shooting - This complete lack of visual feedback makes the game not only look cheap, but feel unsatisfying as well.

And "mouse controls" is a pandora's box of balance problems that's not even worth bothering with.
Just do digital, maybe with a focus/shift key.

[9thunderworld]

@BareKnuckleRoo

You're right, when I started making this I hadn't played a shoot 'em up since R-Type and Xenon 2 on the Amiga 20 years ago. One of the things that put me off them since then was the restriction on movement, so it was a conscious decision to do something different. The gameplay has as much in common with Arkanoid and driving/racing games than a typical shoot em up, I suppose. The fast-pace is part of the appeal (for those who like it, anyway), and comes from the accuracy and precision that mouse controls offer.

The bombs do appear to drop from the plane. You can only see them on the daytime sections though, and again, they might have been lost in Youtube's encoding. But they're clearly there in the 1920x1080, 60 mHz trailer.

Can you suggest any ways that you'd improve the game, without changing the core gameplay mechanic? Or is it simply not your kind of game? As an aside, I played that Molleindustria game, the Best Amendment, and for the first minute was like, meh. But when I picked up on the 4th dimensional aspect, I thought it was really awesome.

@Doctor Butler

The bombs are visible. You can see them on the daytime section of the trailer, but after rewatching the video it looks like they're missing from the night section. They should have been there but were apparently left out of the trailer. My mistake. They're definitely in the game, though. They appear when launched and fade out as they get further from the plane, slowing down as they lose forward momentum until they detonate on hitting the target (or create a dust plume if they miss and hit the ground). They're clearly noticeable when playing and there's also a "click-chunk" launch sound in the game I decided not to include in the trailer. Thanks for the feedback, and any more is appreciated.

[RipperRoo]

You're not the first person to suggest that this might be in bad taste. I know war is usually all just fun and games. But if it made you laugh then it didn't hit too far off the mark.

Yeah well i was thinking (hoping) that u were a bit sarcastic like the Team America movie, but if u really try to go that way then be more sarcastic!
Otherwise u ll look like a MURICA-yelling idiot (at least to me!)

For the Game itself, it doesnt look so well right now, so dont praise it too high.
People here will give u good advices (they will do on a very harsh way, so just take out the information out of the comments).

Do a lot of research, my game design that i had in mind changed a lot since i ve read more about shmups and read more on this forum.
If u are interested in doing a lot of research work, i can give u a couple of links! So if u are interested about it, PM me.

[emphatic]

Mouse controlled!? *slaps knee and bursts into laughter* Please, list ONE good shmup that uses mouse controls. ONE.

[9thunderworld]

I can't. There might not even be any. But that doesn't necessarily mean there never could be one.

You're not the first person to suggest that this might be in bad taste. I know war is usually all just fun and games. But if it made you laugh then it didn't hit too far off the mark.

Yeah well i was thinking (hoping) that u were a bit sarcastic like the Team America movie, but if u really try to go that way then be more sarcastic!
Otherwise u ll look like a MURICA-yelling idiot (at least to me!)

Hmm. The problem is I've got you saying I'm being too subtle, and BareKnuckleRoo saying a few posts above that I haven't been subtle enough. Either way there are going to be people who misinterpret it. But I'll obviously be able to fit a lot more into the actual game than in a 45 second trailer, so it should be easier to get the point across.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Can you suggest any ways that you'd improve the game, without changing the core gameplay mechanic?

I don't know what core mechanic you're talking about specifically, unless you refer to basically making a game all about Xevious style bombing...

The problem is I don't know who your audience with the game is: is this supposed to appeal to people for the same reasons that R-Type is fun? Or is this just a political commentary game meant as satire?

it should be easier to get the point across.

If you're mainly aiming for political commentary/satire, the problem is that I can easily tell what point you're making in the trailer alone. America fights stupid wars in the name of democracy and freedom against countries with vastly inferior technology.

Look at something like Molleindustria; you know they're making a statement, but it's vague enough that you have to play it to really understand it. That makes it more interesting an experience; you only 'get' it when you've played the game once or twice.

Political commentary games don't need to be long lasting or have strong core mechanics; they're not about the gameplay but rather how they get their point across. Generally, the game only has to last a few minutes, and the lasting impact is what counts. If your trailer already tells me exactly what your point is and shows me the gameplay that gets the point across, I really have no motivation to play the game, I know what you're trying to say.

Now, if you're making a game that's supposed to be a fun shmup that will make people want to play it for the same reason people still play R-Type, then it's missing an important element: the danger. Shmups are not about you shooting bullets against a defenceless target; they're about dodging a barrage of attacks and coming through victorius. If you're simply bombing buildings with no kind of danger whatsoever, your game really lacks intensity. It's not a fun experience when you're slaughtering something that isn't fighting back. There's no challenge there!

The trailer looks boring from a gameplay standpoint because all you're doing is blowing up civilian targets one after another with absolutely nothing stopping you. Playing a shmup is satisfying because of how challenging they are, or how fun their scoring system is to take advantage of, but your game doesn't seem to offer either of those.

[Lord Satori]

Mouse controlled!? *slaps knee and bursts into laughter* Please, list ONE good shmup that uses mouse controls. ONE.

Tyrian. (to be fair, it's optional)

[9thunderworld]

I don't know what core mechanic you're talking about specifically, unless you refer to basically making a game all about Xevious style bombing...

It's not very similar to Xevious. But yes, I mean the bombing of targets that you only have a brief time-window in which to hit. In most shmups you can usually shoot any target as long as it's in front of you. You also don't generally get penalized for missing targets or using much more ammo than you need. Here, you have to time each hit very precisely. You get far more points for increased accuracy, and if you fail to hit enough targets per level, you fail the level. You also have some control over how fast you scroll through the level (something most shmups don't seem to offer).

If your trailer already tells me exactly what your point is and shows me the gameplay that gets the point across, I really have no motivation to play the game, I know what you're trying to say.

You're implying that watching a brief section of gameplay is enough to satisfy a person's interest appetite for playing the game. I disagree. It might be enough for them to decide whether it's to their taste, but not enough for them to think that there's no longer any point in playing it for themselves.

I also disagree that for a game to be enjoyable you need to be constantly dodging bullets. If anyone on here were to suggest that my game's technically not a shoot em up, I'd accept that. But to suggest that it couldn't possibly be fun and challenging because there's no danger to you is not something I can agree with.

Also, they're not civilian targets. They're suspected terrorist training camps.

[Softdrink 117]

To be quite honest, I'm not sure what you're after here 9thunderworld. You post asking for feedback, but your game is already up on Greenlight, which means that you consider it at least finished enough to be presentable. You get feedback -- admittedly rather harsh feedback -- but don't seem at all interested in acting based on that feedback. You're asking for suggestions to improve the game without changing the core mechanics or gameplay -- so what exactly are you asking for? Purely aesthetic suggestions?

If anyone on here were to suggest that my game's technically not a shoot em up, I'd accept that.

I definitely don't think it is, technicalities or no. Dodging isn't even necessarily the issue. I think that most on here (and on the internet at large) would agree that a large part of what defines shooting games as a genre is being in danger, and needing to shoot and/or move to avoid that danger. Your game, as you have mentioned, is more about precision timing and positioning, and has no hazards to speak of (at least that I can tell). I'm not saying that you NEED to make a game about "constantly dodging bullets," but what you have created is not a shooting game in any sense that I am aware of, bearing more in common with something like Osu where precision mouse movement and timing is important.

It's entirely possible that what you've made is very fun to play, tells its political message well, and is everything that you want it to be; that's great, and I wish you all the luck in the world. I'm just not sure why you're posting here, and what kind of feedback you hope to receive.

[9thunderworld]

I think it's unreasonable to say that I'm not interested in acting on any of the feedback. I just haven't yet received much that I could act on. Here, I'll sum up what I've got so far.


You can't see the bombs: They're there. But they're harder to see in the YT trailer.

The buildings blow up for no reason: See above.

It looks boring: I'm not sure how to improve that without alienating the people who've already said it looks entertaining.

The screen shake could get annoying: Ok, I'll fix that.

There isn't one good mouse controlled shoot em up: Not everyone would agree.

Still, people would rather use a controller: That's fine, you'll be able to.

It has zero style: I disagree. But I accept it's not perfect and you might not like it.

The humor is too subtle: Ok, you might have a point there.

The humor isn't subtle enough: ...

It's not a shoot em up: Ok. But I think it has enough common elements to appeal to some shmup fans.


There's definitely a demand for it, and as I said to BareKnuckleRoo, I'm interested in any suggestions that don't alter the game's core mechanic. Any features that people would like to see added, I'd definitely consider. Any aesthetic improvements that I'm able to incorporate, Ill be happy to.

For example, early on in development I considered implementing procedural level generation. I later decided that a series of pre-built levels would work better. If there were overwhelming demand for procedurally generated levels, that's what I'd do.

The only things that are set in stone are: mouse controls are available, it's set in the desert and you're primarily dropping bombs on buildings that appear from 'above'. It's on Greenlight, but that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of opportunity to add to it or make alterations here and there.

[Ebbo]

I also disagree that for a game to be enjoyable you need to be constantly dodging bullets. If anyone on here were to suggest that my game's technically not a shoot em up, I'd accept that. But to suggest that it couldn't possibly be fun and challenging because there's no danger to you is not something I can agree with.

I think that lack of danger is just a part of bigger picture. In this case it has more to do with the way your game engages player in terms of gameplay and visuals. There simply doesn't seem to be much to do or see and thus it makes the whole game feel rather shallow. For an example the scoring system sounds sort of all-or-nothing deal which leaves very little improvisation for the player.

If you don't want player dodging bullets, you can think of other ways to make things more interesting. Or maybe just get down to the nitty-gritty and focus making the core mechanics more satisfying.

Also, comments like these

It looks boring: I'm not sure how to improve that without alienating the people who've already said it looks entertaining.

really come across rather dismissive and I'm pretty sure that isn't your target here. Think why that one particular person might find your game boring and then think ways to improve while still remaining faithful towards your original vision.

[9thunderworld]

The scoring system sounds sort of all-or-nothing deal which leaves very little improvisation for the player.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by improvisation in terms of scoring? But there's plenty of freedom to exploit the score multipliers and a few inventive ways of gaining bonus points (which, admittedly I haven't talked about yet). When and how special weapons are used also has a big impact on the number of points you can gain per level, as does the amount of time taken to reach the end of each level.

Also, comments like these

It looks boring: I'm not sure how to improve that without alienating the people who've already said it looks entertaining.

really come across rather dismissive

In the conversation we had (near the start of the thread) I actually asked him how he would improve that. I think it's only the summary that sounds dismissive.

If you take a look again at the summary you'll see that the only suggestion I didn't immediately agree to include was to add enemies. Most other comments on here point to the likelihood that the biggest problem is that it's just not a shoot em up. So I think my mistake was in thinking that hardcore shoot em up fans were more likely than the average gamer to like it, when in fact they seem to be less likely to. I've omitted some of the key elements of what makes a shoot em up, and can't include them without changing the game (almost) entirely. But I have taken notice of all of the feedback given and I'm keen to hear any more specific suggestions on what people here would like to see included.