Last month we reported that an iOS remake of Barbarian – The Ultimate Warrior, aka Death Sword, was in the works courtesy of developer Microids and publisher Anuman Interactive, and after a couple of false starts in the past week, the game does appear to officially be available in the App Store.
Renamed Barbarian – The Death Sword [$1.99/HD] for iOS, the game is a one-on-one fighting game that originally released in 1987 for the Commodore 64 and most of the other popular computers at the time. Gamers lauded the competitive gameplay of Barbarian in the burgeoning fighting game genre, but most of its widespread notoriety was due to some racy packaging and the ability to lop off your opponents head in a shower of blood during battle.
The iOS version of Barbarian is completely redone with 3D visuals, several new modes and unlockables, and cross-platform local multiplayer. I’ve spent a few minutes with the game on my iPhone, and although I never played the original, it seems like it might be kind of cool. It’s certainly got raciness and gore in spades, but I’m not so sure about the gameplay. It feels very basic and clunky, but it also feels like there might be some underlying depth to the whole thing that I have yet to figure out.
We’ll be spending much more time with Barbarian – The Death Sword in the coming days to adequately get a feel for it, and there’s currently a discussion of the game and further impressions in our forums.
It's an awesome game. This and Gridrunner in the same week. Happy.
really good review as it highlights many of the finer points a casual player might miss if they pick it up and discard it after they die once or twice. speaking of design and controls, the designer mentioned that the sliding business in the standard controls are made so you don't obstruct the screen as you play (a common failure among iOS/touch screen gamin). it seems, as you pointed out, that the slingshot controls are almost included as a sort of joke.
also, there IS a tutorial. it shows up the first time you play, and you can view it any time from the menu.
This Tim Rogers guy is a nutcase and a genius
This is what qualifies as a 4.5/5 game? I kept thinking it was a joke article...
The joke seems to be on you, good Sir. You do realise that there are people with opinions that may differ from yours? Instead of making your childish comment, why not contribute by stating what it is about the game you didn't like? That's if you even played the game in the first place...
After watching the video (or part of it), I felt like I already had played the whole game. So simple, so repetitive. You have such games for Flash, and lots of them, too. Just to let farnsworth_pro to know he's now alone with his opinnion. 1.5/5? TouchArcade is really losing its credibility by giving such games such high scores...
'After watching the video (or part of it)...'
Face, meet Palm.
The hero of the game stands in the middle of the screen, and enemies jump towards him from left and right. So Andy, what else is there in this game? The App Store is full of $0.99 games that contain tens if not hundreds of hand made levels. Why should I choose a randomizer instead of real content?
Video games are clearly not for you if you define multiple levels as "real content". Btw, there is a linear consistent narrative to Ziggurat. The enemy attack pattern may be random (which is a plus), but there is a beginning to the story, a middle and an end... Very few have made it to the end, and Rogers maintains that there's an ending that has yet to be reached.
it's actually not random! the enemy appearances are scripted. the game isn't "endless": it's "one level".
It wouldn't be an overstatement to say that most people expect more than one level and one endless mode, if you're limited to one gun and one terrain.
well . . . it's "one level" with a *LOT* of secrets . . . !
if you can survive for six minutes, Something Huge happens. if you can survive longer . . . well.
Random content isn't less real, it's just more random. A well-created randomizer can create amazing content - as indie gems such as Spelunky (PC/Mac) have proven. I'd rather have one great random level than hundreds of semi-inspired hand-made ones.
What there is in this game that isn't in so many other $0.99 games is an amazing, elegant design. It's simple, efficient and brutal. It's fun. It doesn't need ridiculous amounts of content to hide inadequacies because its simplicity allows it to have none.
There's you, the gun and the enemies. The only thing between that and game over is your skills. If you're a gamer, that's your game, your challenge, right there.
It's Worms, except SP only, less weapons, NO terrain variation or level variation whatsoever. Insanely small sprite set... I think he used maybe 2 spritesheets for the whole game...unreal. How many enemies are there maybe half a dozen? But hey, at least some are enlarged sprites...some even swap the colour palette!
Why does this game get a pass and 4.5 rating again? Because the incredibly static and unchanging gameplay can be fun sometimes? This "game" should have been labelled a demo...there's really nothing there.
there is a level variation! different enemies show up as you survive longer. as time progresses, things happen. there's even an "ending" (after which the game becomes truly endless, with two unique post-game enemy types and A New Central Mechanic).
as the person who made this game, i am probably a little bit biased, though i'd guess that it got a 4.5 out of 5 because it feels really good!
I could see it serving as an endless mode in an otherwise more broad game...
What I mean by level variation is any shape other than the standard pyramid which serves as the level base... sort of like what super crate box did. Anything other than the one simple level would boost the game's lasting appeal. It really feels like this was a demo made in a week and released into the wild as a full game.
I hope you continue to push yourself when developing games and look forward to future releases (and hopefully updates to Ziggurat to flesh it out more..as you yourself said "the game isn't endless...it's one level".
But as it stands, I can't recommend Ziggurat to anyone in good faith.
i dare say it's a pretty GREAT one level, though. think of it as a rubik's cube . . . with a gun. there's a little more to it than immediately meets the eye.
if it's not for you, that's ok! i enjoy the gun in it very much. i made (and i dare say *polished* the little game experience i wanted to play -- and i still play it very much).
(and some people on the leaderboards have played for literally 50 hours!)
That's excellent! I'm glad that you've created something that you can stand by and that other people are enjoying what you've developed.
For my money, the content just isnt there. A few more levels... a few more weapons... more visual variety... the bar for mobile gaming has been raised time and time again.
Competition is a great thing. When I can get games like Sword & Sorcery, Whale Trail, Bean's Quest, Beat Hazard Ultra, League of Evil, Super Crate Box which espouse such a high level of polish, it's very difficult for me to sit down with this game, evaluating it on the same metric as those games and not see it as a miss. It could have been so much more. Not necessarily more complex, but a heck of a lot more polished. Just my 2c...er 99c
So "Add more useless shit to the game at the expense of making it good?"
What a terrible design philosophy.
If there were other levels in this game, you would only want to play the one that's there now. If there were other guns, you'd only want to use the one that's there now.
It's like going to a guy's garage and saying "This custom built ferrarri is nice and all, but I have a friend who has FIVE PICKUP TRUCKS, and TWO of them actually RUN!"
"More Shit" does not mean "Better."
Yeah... every game really should just have one level. What a terrible design philosophy.
Why does adding more variety automatically equate to garbage content? Do you seriously consider anything more than one weapon and one level in a game to be "filler"? That's messed up.
It's nice that you created an account specifically for that rebuttal though. Friend of the developer perhaps?
"Every game should have one level" isn't the design philosophy on display, though. It's "THIS game has one level."
"This game is dumb because it doesn't have a fuckton of guns" is not a fair evaluation on a game you haven't even played.Really, whining that it's not enough content for a dollar is just... as dumb as shit, though. It costs a penny less than playing Time Crisis 4 just once.
It's a good idea to like this right now, though, because it's pretty much the Next Big Thing. If you don't come around until everyone else is already on board, you're gonna look like an idiot who needs others to tell him what to think. This is your last chance to pre-jump the bandwagon.
Just a warning.
lol
You're not just biased, your arrogant. That's why the game isn't any fun. You're enamored with your own shit. That doesn't make a you designer. It makes you a narcissist.
You know, when you can only attack the person, and not the ideas, you're basically admitting that you don't actually have anything to say on the matter.
what is wrong with making a game that i like?
as we made this game, i thought, "i like this. let's make it something i like even more." so we worked on it more and more, until i liked it a whole lot.
i'm being very serious with you, here: i am asking you very seriously: how is this a bad way to make something?
i'm asking myself what would make the game better FOR ME. i'm making the game better to ME. i am producing something *i* approve of.
because at the end of the day, opinions are opinions. opinions are subjective. i can't perfectly understand other people's opinions no matter how much scientific marketing data i collect.
i can, however, almost perfectly classify my own. i can say, "i like this", and feel like i'm definitely telling the truth.
sometimes, years go by, and i listen to a band i used to love, and i don't love them so much anymore.
then i listen to them a little bit more, and i remember why i loved that band, and i think, "oh, hey, that's why i loved this band. they definitely are a good band."
so i made ZiGGURAT into a game that i liked, and approved of, because i have no absolutely reliable ways to measure other peoples' opinions of it.
the alternative to making a game that i personally like is to make a game that i sort of DON'T like, sacrificing what i consider to be cool ideas or feelings so that someone ELSE somewhere MIGHT like the game.
that's too many chances -- and THAT'S true narcissism: making a game that i don't care for at all would require me to presume that i am some infallible deity who knows exactly what people want. THAT would be narcissistic.
what i did was . . . it was just natural. me and my friends all made a game. the four of us liked it a lot. all of our friends like it . . . a lot. we shared it with the world.
if you don't like it, that's okay. you don't have to be so mean to me about it!
Rock on Tim. I haven't played the game, but I do like your attitude and I think that you make a very good case for why games should be made the way you make them.
I may or may not pick up ZiGGURAT, but I'm already a fan.
So a good game needs to be super ultra dynamic, have complex controls, prizes at the end, a variety of weapons, level variation, more than 2 spritesheets, and a thousand different kinds of enemies?
Isn't killing as much aliens as you can before you die good enough?
This game was a total joke. Fanboys are the worst reviewers.
I spent more time reading this review (and FFS any of Tim's reviews),
than I could tolerate playing this game.
I love how TA rails on F2P monetization mechanics as unethical.
Funny thing is, I've never had a suck ass F2P game trick me out of .99
Whereas, I've lost lots of money gambling on throw away indie darlings like this one.
are you sure you were playing the game correctly?
i notice many people tap all over the screen even after viewing the tutorial slides that say "touch here" (on the bottom edge of the screen) and "don't touch here" on the top of the screen.
did you notice there's a "sweet spot" to the charge? as in, the largest / most powerful bullet is available only for a split second (.06 seconds, actually) at the peak of the charge, after which, if you continue to hold, the bullet scales back down to the third-largest size. it's a sort of street fighter 3-ish "parry" mechanic.
you could possibly watch this if you are having trouble playing the game!
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
i am only suggesting you give the game a second chance because you said it took you more time to read this review than you were able to play our game, and this review couldn't have taken you more than thirty seconds to read!
see if you can get 150 kills in one session. thennnnnnnnnn if you still hate it, let me know!
i have prostate cancer, by the way, so thanks for your dollar.
I would never have heard about this if this review wasn't posted and I have to day I haven't been so pleasantly surprised in a long time. It's simple yes, but the controls are fantastic meaning that the touch controls can be used in a proper arcade style game. It's made with a quite alot of care and if people can't see that then that's just one of those things. If you were brought up on Arcade games like Defender et al then I think you really will love this. As the first guy says - this and Gridrunner in the same week is an old skool gamer's dream.
I can't imagine how anyone that read the review was upset that it wasn't more than what was described. i got the game because of the review and it is great for what it is.
Shouldn't we perhaps hold games to a higher standard than "great for what it is"?
Why shouldnt we strive for a game that can just be "great" without any other qualifier? Great games are great games.
It is a well controlled arcade game of the kind that I used to spend a few quarters on. Canabalt is a certified iOS classic, but all it really was a tap to jump unlimited runner. The atmosphere and the tight controls made it great. I didn't mean to qualify the game, it is great to me, but I can see how some people won't like it as much. It's definitely well worth one dollar.
Two years..must comment...
"Shouldn't we perhaps hold games to a higher standard than "great for what it is"?"
This comment belongs on the internet forever and far away from real life. What should we hold games to? Should we hold them to something random? Maybe we should start holding games to bananas! Yes that's it! Let's hold games to bananas!
We should judge games off of the games they are and not the games they aren't. If we did that, we'd never have anything new. You can't say "a game needs this and that". The more restrictions you put on creativity, the less of it you get.
"Why shouldnt we strive for a game that can just be "great" without any other qualifier? Great games are great games"
Ummm...huh? Were you thinking before you wrote this or did you just bang your forehead into the keyboard until a sentence formed?
This is worth 4.5 stars? Really? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, TA ratings have lost all credibility since the Ghost Trick review.
TA suddenly lost credibility just because you, yourself, and you didn't like a game?
Reviews are subjective, some people need to grow up a little and chill out. The game is fine.
To tell you the truth the game is AMAZING! I was just a little scared at first that someone would yell at me for using an a word like amazing to describe a game I like. It almost sounds like some of the people above are upset that others like it as much as they do. People are funny creatures.
Nice game :) I am enjoying it a great deal! It's simple and harken back to a time when a game was just... a game, not a collection of modes, achievements and what have you.
How can you say this game is amazing?! It has a weird name?! OMG! I won't play a game with a name I can't pronounce, nosireebob. They should have docked a star just for having such a goofy name, amirite?
(In case this wasn't obvious enough, I am just being silly.)
Some of these comments make me wonder what kind of reception games like Missile Command, Joust, or Centipede would get if they were released today. Each was -- at their core, anyway -- built on a single, simplistic mechanic. They were all isolated to a single screen. They all had an unorthodox control scheme. Above all, they were all games in which making good decisions was more important than quick reflexes.
I think the reception to Ziggurat reflects a generational divide more than anything. It's a 2012 release with a 1982 philosophy.
One should aim higher these days. Releasing an early 80's game with early 90's graphics in the year 2012 is not really that ground breaking or amazing. It's good for you if you like such games. But don't give them 4.5/5.0 on the front page of a big gaming site and not expect to get flames for it.
It's all subjective. And just because tech keeps getting better, doesnt mean the games have to stay at the bleeding edge as well. I would much rather play this game over some of the big AAA titles for iOS or 360/PS3.
Missile Command, Joust and Centipede all had more than one level...
This isn't an arcade in the 80s, this is mobile gaming in 2012. Shouldn't we try to aim a little higher than the games in the 80s did?
There was also a MASSIVE CATASTROPHIC game industry crash in the 80s due to insane amounts of shovelware...just sayin.
Missile Command, Joust, and Centipede were broken up into waves, not levels. It's an important distinction. The term "level" indicates a distinct environment or challenge (i.e. the progression in Super Mario Bros. from water level to underground level to castle level), while a "wave" is a group of new targets incrementally more difficult than the last. The modern-day comparison would be Gears of War's campaign mode (levels) versus horde mode (waves). Ziggurat only differs from something like Missile Command in that there's no "reset" between waves, allowing you to fall behind if you don't clear a wave with sufficient haste.
As to whether we should be "aiming higher" than the Atari and Williams classics, well... I guess that's a matter of personal opinion. I collect vintage arcade games, and the reason I was taken enough with Ziggurat to want to argue about it on the internet is that it was incredibly refreshing to me to see a modern game with a genuinely classic ethos. I can understand if that's not everyone's cup of tea, certainly, but I was really surprised how many people think it's a BAD THING that someone made a game for dudes like me. :/
The bad thing here is that Touch Arcade gave it a biased review and 4.5/5.0 score. And put it on the front page while countless games that are far better than this one are not being noticed by the media.
I get so annoyed when people accuse Touch Arcade of 'biased' reviews. I'm sorry, I really don't care whether you like the game or not, but that kind of talk is just silly.
The game deserves it's great review and 4.5 score from Touch Arcade. And its 4/5 from 148 Apps. And its 9/10 from Edge. And its 8/10 from Pocket Gamer.
Your opinion is not the only opinion. But I suppose it's all a big conspiracy, right..?
In my book it gets a 5/5!
You hit the nail on the head with that one. I hardly ever post anything on the internet at all but I really felt compelled to speak up on this one. The game is great. If you dont like it keep it civil and smart, or move along.
I'm a big fan of Tim Rogers' writing, particularly the article he did on "sticky friction". That long, rambling, hilarious and insightful article over at Kotaku made me really want to experience a Tim Rogers game and just see exactly what videofriction according to Tim should feel like. I'm gonna go download Ziggurat now, and I'd love to hear any insight from Tim on the little frictional details in the game that make him proud.
i wrote a post on kotaku about this very topic! look for "introducing ziggurat"!
great game. its really nice to see developers making games that focus on having fun and giving you all the content from the get go no iap no leveling up, just the core gameplay that is extremely fun to play. even though im not so good, i have a 68 kill average i have fun every time i play it. great game
This one made me smile. What a fun game.
Only coming to this now after reading the pocket arcade review '10 games to play during the apocalypse' this game was first on the list.
This review is awesome, best review iv read for a long time!! How the hell did I miss the game and review when it came out!!!!!?? V