Interesting game. I only gave it a 3 because I think there are a lot of improvements that can be made: Levels are just too long - shorter levels with higher frequency of enemies, give a choice of what to improve when the gun levels up - reload time, damage, double fire etc, more variety of enemies. By level 6 there are only 4 different enemies, what with the length of the levels it gets monotonous and you figure out each enemy's weakness easily. It becomes a turkey shoot with the right gun for the right enemy. This can be improved so much to make it a good game, at the moment it's just mediocre.
Plenty of worries about this, but what about Johnny Rocketfingers. Extremely graphic violence and language, yet no one complained about that game. Maybe Kongregate should set up a seperate area for games that do feature sex violence or language. We don't want to censor, but equally I know there are young kids on the site.
Way too slow with two characters, especially as one of them already has two of the abilities, why have a second character with only a third ability? Why not combine them all into one character? It'd speed up the action a lot, either that or speed up the characters and make them equal in their abilities and puzzles to solve, and they have to be actual puzzles, not just getting from a to b with a few blocks in the way.
Like other people say, a game based on cube has fantastic potential and this is not a bad attempt, improvements can certainly be made and your current type of objective, i.e map your way to the exit is likely to frustrate more players than by having a straight puzzle solution.
Nice idea and well presented, but as vaetrus says, using a mouse to infect one cell at a time on a fixed time limit, means that however good you are, you will eventually lose out simply to the time limit, it might be an idea to systematically increase time along with the levels or allow time upgrades to be bought, also maybe some graphics evolution for the virus. Has great potential, but some way to go yet.
Extremely offensive to animal lovers, including me, you can have good animals attacking bad humans or good animals attacking bad animals. But to have your hero in a story vehemently destroying nature just because it happens to be there is exceedingly offensive. Ok, it is just a game, but that doesn't mean that thoroughly bad taste is acceptable. 1 out of 5, less if I could.
Not bad. Makes a nice change to DTD anyway. If, as people say, this is stolen, well I have no problem with stealing from fast food companies, they sell shitty food and make a lot of money, but I'd respect it more if it was admitted that this was a "clone", that's if indeed it is stolen.
As earlier comments, couldn't find where to sell the veg, also watering all patches at once, nice idea, cute and clean but yea, if this is gonna be a sim you need to take it a lot further, if it's gonna be a game then put in some objectives.
Either that or you've been hacked, decent kind of idea executed badly. It's like that old adage, you can only fold a piece of paper 7 times no matter the size. Well this game is the same. At level 5 there are more balls to click than time to click in, no matter the player. End of game and who on earth would have the desire to get to level 5 twice. I believe that you have the germ of an interesting game hidden within the physics, this is not it however, back to the drawing board.
The best Breakout game I ever played was in the late 1980's on an Amstrad CPC 464. About 20 years ago or so. One things with breakout games. It's been around for decades, any competent gamer has played it to destruction, so a new game has a lot to live up to and needs to offer a new slant, a new idea, something, anything. Pacman can stay Pacman forever and ever, Breakout can not. Not enough here.