Compared to some of the games we've featured in the past, today's Game of the Day is refreshingly simple. However, what it lacks in complexity, it makes up for with pure addictive fun.
In Ultrablock, you'll have to click on groups of three or more colored blocks to destroy them. Fairly straightforward. But beware, if you accidentally click a single block or a pair of colored blocks instead of a group of at least three, you'll create a skull. Skulls cannot be removed from the board so be extra careful with your clicks. In addition, colored bombs will occasionally appear. At that point you should just stop worrying and learn to love the bomb, because clicking those will destroy all the blocks of that color. Whatever you do, don't let the blocks reach the ceiling, or it's game over.
Definitely check out Ultrablock below, but make sure you have time on your hands because once you start you won't be able to stop.
Click here to play Ultrablock!
ultrablock game of the day ultrablock game of the day
Pro Tips:
If you see that a row is about to be added, don't try to frantically click a cluster. Simply wait until it's added to the stack. It's easy to accidentally click the wrong block and produce a skull when a new row is added.
What level were you able to make it to in Ultrablock?
Showing posts with label Games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Games. Show all posts
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Hey Gaming Magazine Editor, Your Random, Tacked On Review is Wonky:
Critics of videogames have always had a strong voice in this industry. In the days of yore, a reviewer was truly someone on the inside, "in the know." These people played games (thoroughly) and reviewed them.
Now, I can't turn around without smacking my sackboy into a reviewer who thinks he/ she is an "expert" simply because the reviewer played a game here or there. These reviewers often don't have insider knowledge into the gaming industry and sometimes I wonder if even that would help them with their reviews.
Further, they don't seem to have (or take) the time to play the game through (or at least make a disclaimer that they haven't.) This is most evident in EGM's latest review of LBP2 where the reviewer said the Story Levels are better skipped.... Even though half of the game is Creation which is further enhanced by gaining materials, stickers, and decorations from the erm.... story modes.... skipping them would be stupid.
Lately reviews have turned more fanboyish where bias is evident within the reviews themselves. For instance, in one published review of LittleBigPlanet2, the reviewer stated that the multiplayer levels were "tacked on." I will allow you to digest that for a moment... or wait so you can finish laughing or blinking your eyes. I kid you not, the review actually stated this and claimed that it took away from the overall score of the game.
So this led me to think... I had heard "tacked on" before... and other ridiculous terms used to describe the games we so ardently play. I came to the conclusion that not only are these reviewers out of touch, but they parrot what someone else has said because they have no original thoughts on the game.
So, dear reader, the following terms will clue you into what entails one of these "not so well thought out" reviews:
Wonky - adj. wonkiness, Often used when referring to controllers. (ie: The controls in the game are wonky.) How about, "The controls didn't work the way I wanted them to and I refuse to use the options menu to change that."
Tacked On - vb. tack on, often used when referring to levels. (ie: The (pick one) multi/ single player levels feel tacked on.) Really? Do you even know what it means to make a game? And to claim something that took longer to program than it took for you to play it and write your trite review is "tacked on" is patently absurd.
Random - n often used when the reviewer can think of nothing bad to say. (ie the Physics are random; the gameplay is random; the graphics are random) Do you know how hard it would be to program random physics INTO a game and have them work?
Button Mashing - a vague reference to multiple button presses while playing a game (ie the worst part was the button mashing). Hmm?.. Like Yakuza 3 Button mashing (and I am not talking about the fighting part) or Street Fighter button mashing? Could you be more vague?
Cliche - n. synonyms: "also ran" & "clone" used when the reviewer doesn't know the difference between two entries in the same genre (ie This 1st person shooter is another clone.) Referring to something as cliche doesn't tell us anything. We don't have free access to tons of games and get to play them at work. Tell us what you mean. (Remember Journalism 101?)
1st Person - n. this is supposed to be used as a description of perspective. In reality, a first person game would allow you experience a narrator going through a series of obstacles. The 1st person uses I. The main character should view him/ herself this way. In reality, most shooters are 2nd person, whereas the player character is often referred to with the pronoun "you." (Like a choose your own adventure book.) A truly 1st person shooter would be like Duke Nukem (where the character is already established and doesn't change... 2nd person would allow for the player to be the character.)
Not swearing - if something is "shit" then tell me it is "shit" and not [expletive deleted]. If anything this industry needs, it is for its journalists to grow a pair and use freedom in their speech. I just played a game where zombies ripped apart another character and ZOMG!!!! you used "shit!" Wow... how offensive.
Grind - verb? - This has become a cliched, tacked on term that usually signals something is wrong. Grind has become something bad and when we see this in a review, then it has a negative connotation. So. I don't mind grinding, if it is done right. Dragon Quest does it right. Monsters are harder later on, but you don't have to go out and kill millions of helpless monsters just to get one ability point.
Hype - (used in conjunction with development time and resources) often added to reviews of sequels. (ie It doesn't live up to the hype.) What hype? The hype, you, the journalist heaped upon it? What is a measurement of hype? GT5 certainly had hype but based on what? How is it objective? UC2 was hyped as well and surpassed it... so... whose hype are we talking about? Review the damn game as a stand alone even if it has a 2 or a 13 after it. The developer didn't make the two games at the same time so your review shouldn't review it as such.
Thank you, dear reader, for your time.
And if you are an editor, please, enough with your cliched reviews. They are boring and tell us nothing.. I would rather read a well thought out and thoroughly researched article about one game, than 10 poorly written tacked on reviews for which the reviewer barely got past the opening creds.
So here is a review of your tired, cliched reviews:
Your Random Review of [Insert Game Title] for the [Insert Game System.] is trite. It is a poor example of critique. Your comments are wonky and your analysis is tacked on. It would be even more cliched had I not had to grind through all of the tacked on, random hype of your prowess as a reviewer. And since you have written a review before, it certainly doesn't live up to the standards previously set by your review of [insert other game title] for [insert favorite gaming system.]
Now, I can't turn around without smacking my sackboy into a reviewer who thinks he/ she is an "expert" simply because the reviewer played a game here or there. These reviewers often don't have insider knowledge into the gaming industry and sometimes I wonder if even that would help them with their reviews.
Further, they don't seem to have (or take) the time to play the game through (or at least make a disclaimer that they haven't.) This is most evident in EGM's latest review of LBP2 where the reviewer said the Story Levels are better skipped.... Even though half of the game is Creation which is further enhanced by gaining materials, stickers, and decorations from the erm.... story modes.... skipping them would be stupid.
Lately reviews have turned more fanboyish where bias is evident within the reviews themselves. For instance, in one published review of LittleBigPlanet2, the reviewer stated that the multiplayer levels were "tacked on." I will allow you to digest that for a moment... or wait so you can finish laughing or blinking your eyes. I kid you not, the review actually stated this and claimed that it took away from the overall score of the game.
So this led me to think... I had heard "tacked on" before... and other ridiculous terms used to describe the games we so ardently play. I came to the conclusion that not only are these reviewers out of touch, but they parrot what someone else has said because they have no original thoughts on the game.
So, dear reader, the following terms will clue you into what entails one of these "not so well thought out" reviews:
Wonky - adj. wonkiness, Often used when referring to controllers. (ie: The controls in the game are wonky.) How about, "The controls didn't work the way I wanted them to and I refuse to use the options menu to change that."
Tacked On - vb. tack on, often used when referring to levels. (ie: The (pick one) multi/ single player levels feel tacked on.) Really? Do you even know what it means to make a game? And to claim something that took longer to program than it took for you to play it and write your trite review is "tacked on" is patently absurd.
Random - n often used when the reviewer can think of nothing bad to say. (ie the Physics are random; the gameplay is random; the graphics are random) Do you know how hard it would be to program random physics INTO a game and have them work?
Button Mashing - a vague reference to multiple button presses while playing a game (ie the worst part was the button mashing). Hmm?.. Like Yakuza 3 Button mashing (and I am not talking about the fighting part) or Street Fighter button mashing? Could you be more vague?
Cliche - n. synonyms: "also ran" & "clone" used when the reviewer doesn't know the difference between two entries in the same genre (ie This 1st person shooter is another clone.) Referring to something as cliche doesn't tell us anything. We don't have free access to tons of games and get to play them at work. Tell us what you mean. (Remember Journalism 101?)
1st Person - n. this is supposed to be used as a description of perspective. In reality, a first person game would allow you experience a narrator going through a series of obstacles. The 1st person uses I. The main character should view him/ herself this way. In reality, most shooters are 2nd person, whereas the player character is often referred to with the pronoun "you." (Like a choose your own adventure book.) A truly 1st person shooter would be like Duke Nukem (where the character is already established and doesn't change... 2nd person would allow for the player to be the character.)
Not swearing - if something is "shit" then tell me it is "shit" and not [expletive deleted]. If anything this industry needs, it is for its journalists to grow a pair and use freedom in their speech. I just played a game where zombies ripped apart another character and ZOMG!!!! you used "shit!" Wow... how offensive.
Grind - verb? - This has become a cliched, tacked on term that usually signals something is wrong. Grind has become something bad and when we see this in a review, then it has a negative connotation. So. I don't mind grinding, if it is done right. Dragon Quest does it right. Monsters are harder later on, but you don't have to go out and kill millions of helpless monsters just to get one ability point.
Hype - (used in conjunction with development time and resources) often added to reviews of sequels. (ie It doesn't live up to the hype.) What hype? The hype, you, the journalist heaped upon it? What is a measurement of hype? GT5 certainly had hype but based on what? How is it objective? UC2 was hyped as well and surpassed it... so... whose hype are we talking about? Review the damn game as a stand alone even if it has a 2 or a 13 after it. The developer didn't make the two games at the same time so your review shouldn't review it as such.
Thank you, dear reader, for your time.
And if you are an editor, please, enough with your cliched reviews. They are boring and tell us nothing.. I would rather read a well thought out and thoroughly researched article about one game, than 10 poorly written tacked on reviews for which the reviewer barely got past the opening creds.
So here is a review of your tired, cliched reviews:
Your Random Review of [Insert Game Title] for the [Insert Game System.] is trite. It is a poor example of critique. Your comments are wonky and your analysis is tacked on. It would be even more cliched had I not had to grind through all of the tacked on, random hype of your prowess as a reviewer. And since you have written a review before, it certainly doesn't live up to the standards previously set by your review of [insert other game title] for [insert favorite gaming system.]
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Disney-branded Facebook games coming in 2012, Playdom head says
Can we all just say, “finally?” During a panel named “The Rise of Social Games” at the f8 Facebook Developers Conference in San Francisco, Disney Interactive and Playdom head John Pleasants revealed that two to four Facebook games surrounding Disney xd brands will hit Facebook in 2012. The general topic of the panel was the fact that branded social games are taking off.
Pleasants was joined on the panel by Kabam CEO Kevin Chou, EA Interactive head Barry Cottle and Zynga CBO Owen Van Natta. Facebook director of games partnerships Sean Ryan moderated the panel with the preface that branded games will take over the Facebook platform. And he might be right: EA just released The Sims Social, Zynga will soon re-brand its new Adventure World with Indiana Jones and Kabam recently announced The Godfather: Five Families.
Playdom, which Disney acquired in July 2010 for a whopping $740 million, is ahead of the pack with two branded games on Facebook: ESPNU College Town and ESPN Sports Bar & Grill. Both games performed well, thanks to advertising through the ESPN TV network. While Disney owns the ESPN brand, notice how neither of those actually involve the insanely popular Disney characters we’ve come to love.
Honestly, we’re surprised this didn’t happen sooner. Consider this: Disney has its own cable TV channel through which it could, in theory, advertise whatever it wants. Pleasants didn’t get into why it’s taken this long for disney channel games to throw its cast of characters into Facebook games, but did reveal the power of the Disney name.
Gnome Town, which Playdom launched in the summer–and we enjoyed quite a bit–peaked at 530,000 daily players. But just plopping the Disney logo on top of the existing one made users more likely to spend in the game just through trust of the company’s name, according to Pleasants. “We think it’s an advantage, if you put game play first,” Pleasants said.
It’s comforting to hear this emphasized by these developers. (Kabam’s Chou shared the same sentiment.) Branded games on Facebook are OK in my book, but the last thing anyone wants to see is the genre become a branding machine.
Pleasants was joined on the panel by Kabam CEO Kevin Chou, EA Interactive head Barry Cottle and Zynga CBO Owen Van Natta. Facebook director of games partnerships Sean Ryan moderated the panel with the preface that branded games will take over the Facebook platform. And he might be right: EA just released The Sims Social, Zynga will soon re-brand its new Adventure World with Indiana Jones and Kabam recently announced The Godfather: Five Families.
Playdom, which Disney acquired in July 2010 for a whopping $740 million, is ahead of the pack with two branded games on Facebook: ESPNU College Town and ESPN Sports Bar & Grill. Both games performed well, thanks to advertising through the ESPN TV network. While Disney owns the ESPN brand, notice how neither of those actually involve the insanely popular Disney characters we’ve come to love.
Honestly, we’re surprised this didn’t happen sooner. Consider this: Disney has its own cable TV channel through which it could, in theory, advertise whatever it wants. Pleasants didn’t get into why it’s taken this long for disney channel games to throw its cast of characters into Facebook games, but did reveal the power of the Disney name.
Gnome Town, which Playdom launched in the summer–and we enjoyed quite a bit–peaked at 530,000 daily players. But just plopping the Disney logo on top of the existing one made users more likely to spend in the game just through trust of the company’s name, according to Pleasants. “We think it’s an advantage, if you put game play first,” Pleasants said.
It’s comforting to hear this emphasized by these developers. (Kabam’s Chou shared the same sentiment.) Branded games on Facebook are OK in my book, but the last thing anyone wants to see is the genre become a branding machine.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
BBCW launches CBeebies games app
Games based on popular CBeebies Games series Charlie & Lola, Teletubbies, 3rd & Bird and Numberjacks are available through a new app launched by BBC Worldwide.
CBeebies On The Go is available for free on the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad to pre-school children in Australia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka and South Korea.
Developed by Tag Apps, it includes matching pairs picture games for the Teletubbies and Charlie & Lola, a Kerwhizz jigsaw game and a 3rd & Bird tap-the-fruit challenge. It also holds a number of short video clips from popular shows.
Director of CBeebies investment at BBCW, Henrietta Hurford-Jones, said the team had “worked hard to build a product that upholds the core values of learning through play”.
She added: “This new kids’ app is a first for the Channels business, so the learnings from this pilot phase will help shape any future plans to roll CBeebies Games On The Go out to new territories and different devices.”
More than 53m homes have access to the CBeebies channel worldwide.
CBeebies On The Go is available for free on the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad to pre-school children in Australia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka and South Korea.
Developed by Tag Apps, it includes matching pairs picture games for the Teletubbies and Charlie & Lola, a Kerwhizz jigsaw game and a 3rd & Bird tap-the-fruit challenge. It also holds a number of short video clips from popular shows.
Director of CBeebies investment at BBCW, Henrietta Hurford-Jones, said the team had “worked hard to build a product that upholds the core values of learning through play”.
She added: “This new kids’ app is a first for the Channels business, so the learnings from this pilot phase will help shape any future plans to roll CBeebies Games On The Go out to new territories and different devices.”
More than 53m homes have access to the CBeebies channel worldwide.
Disney-branded Facebook games coming in 2012, Playdom head says
Can we all just say, “finally?” During a panel named “The Rise of Social Games” at the f8 Facebook Developers Conference in San Francisco, Disney Interactive and Playdom head John Pleasants revealed that two to four Facebook games surrounding Disney xd brands will hit Facebook in 2012. The general topic of the panel was the fact that branded social games are taking off.
Pleasants was joined on the panel by Kabam CEO Kevin Chou, EA Interactive head Barry Cottle and Zynga CBO Owen Van Natta. Facebook director of games partnerships Sean Ryan moderated the panel with the preface that branded games will take over the Facebook platform. And he might be right: EA just released The Sims Social, Zynga will soon re-brand its new Adventure World with Indiana Jones and Kabam recently announced The Godfather: Five Families.
Playdom, which Disney acquired in July 2010 for a whopping $740 million, is ahead of the pack with two branded games on Facebook: ESPNU College Town and ESPN Sports Bar & Grill. Both games performed well, thanks to advertising through the ESPN TV network. While Disney owns the ESPN brand, notice how neither of those actually involve the insanely popular Disney characters we’ve come to love.
Honestly, we’re surprised this didn’t happen sooner. Consider this: Disney has its own cable TV channel through which it could, in theory, advertise whatever it wants. Pleasants didn’t get into why it’s taken this long for disney channel games to throw its cast of characters into Facebook games, but did reveal the power of the Disney name.
Gnome Town, which Playdom launched in the summer–and we enjoyed quite a bit–peaked at 530,000 daily players. But just plopping the Disney logo on top of the existing one made users more likely to spend in the game just through trust of the company’s name, according to Pleasants. “We think it’s an advantage, if you put game play first,” Pleasants said.
It’s comforting to hear this emphasized by these developers. (Kabam’s Chou shared the same sentiment.) Branded games on Facebook are OK in my book, but the last thing anyone wants to see is the genre become a branding machine.
Pleasants was joined on the panel by Kabam CEO Kevin Chou, EA Interactive head Barry Cottle and Zynga CBO Owen Van Natta. Facebook director of games partnerships Sean Ryan moderated the panel with the preface that branded games will take over the Facebook platform. And he might be right: EA just released The Sims Social, Zynga will soon re-brand its new Adventure World with Indiana Jones and Kabam recently announced The Godfather: Five Families.
Playdom, which Disney acquired in July 2010 for a whopping $740 million, is ahead of the pack with two branded games on Facebook: ESPNU College Town and ESPN Sports Bar & Grill. Both games performed well, thanks to advertising through the ESPN TV network. While Disney owns the ESPN brand, notice how neither of those actually involve the insanely popular Disney characters we’ve come to love.
Honestly, we’re surprised this didn’t happen sooner. Consider this: Disney has its own cable TV channel through which it could, in theory, advertise whatever it wants. Pleasants didn’t get into why it’s taken this long for disney channel games to throw its cast of characters into Facebook games, but did reveal the power of the Disney name.
Gnome Town, which Playdom launched in the summer–and we enjoyed quite a bit–peaked at 530,000 daily players. But just plopping the Disney logo on top of the existing one made users more likely to spend in the game just through trust of the company’s name, according to Pleasants. “We think it’s an advantage, if you put game play first,” Pleasants said.
It’s comforting to hear this emphasized by these developers. (Kabam’s Chou shared the same sentiment.) Branded games on Facebook are OK in my book, but the last thing anyone wants to see is the genre become a branding machine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)