Digfender, tower defense with a minor twist

Digfender
Grade: C+
Platform: Android
Genre: tower defense
Play Store: Free
Apple Store: Free
In App Purchases: Yes
Pay to Win: No
Released: 2016

I am a tower defense addict.  There's just something intensely satisfying about laying down defenses and watching hapless enemies wander through them until they die.  Or until they overwhelm you, though that's a bit less satisfying.

The game mostly plays like the average TD game but does so well, and has a few somewhat unusual aspects.

Generally speaking in tower defense games enemies either follow a fixed path that you must place defenses around, or you define the path for the enemies by placing your defenses.  In Digfender the twist is that the enemies are underground so you dig the path to them, then place your defenses on the sides of that path.  You don't have complete freedom in setting the path, not only are there some blocks you can't dig through, but you can't steer the path up once you've gone down, so you can't make it the longest possible path and due to the way they've set up enemies that might not be ideal anyway.

The towers themselves are fairly standard, there's freeze towers to slow enemies, and Tesla towers to zap them, cannon to hit them with area damage, and fire to surprisingly not do DOT until after an expensive upgrade. You get money for killing enemies which is spent on upgrades. Each tower can be upgraded three times normally, then branches to one of two specialties for the final three upgrades.

Where it differs from other TD games is in it's take on the standard tower types, and a few mostly cosmetic but enjoyable things.  For example, your freeze towers are also your sniping towers, which is not normally the way freeze towers work in TD games.

Digfender takes the not entirely uncommon approach of limiting upgrades until towers have gotten a certain number of hits on the enemy, which sometimes puts you in the awkward position of having plenty of cash to upgrade towers, but the towers being far from able to take the upgrade.  And since in late game spending the money on a new tower would be completely wasting it you have little choice but to sit on a cash reserve from time to time. But those sorts of limits are part of the challenge.

In the cosmetic but enjoyable category, Digfender leaves enemy corpses, but since they're climbing up the walls of the tunnel to reach the castle, when they die they go ragdoll and fall until they hit a horizontal surface, leaving a growing pile of cartoon orc and troll bodies as a tribute to the prowess of your defenses, and that's kind of fun.  It also lets you see where the majority of the killing is taking place and helps you plan your defenses accordingly.

IAP is limited to removing the surprisingly unobtrusive ads and buying diamonds.  The diamonds are used to buy super attacks to help you laze your way thorough a level, but are not necessary to win.

You can respec all your upgrades at will but it turns out you mostly don't have to.  Very occasionally you'll encounter enemies immune to one type of tower, otherwise you can win stacking any tower you happen to like.

There's nothing really groundbreaking here, but it scratches the TD itch well enough.  It's a good game for those new to the genre and has enough amusing little variations on the theme to be worth trying for longtime TD fans.

Portal 2, or how a sequel can be pretty darn good

Portal 2
Grade: C+
Platform: GNU/Linux, Mac, PC, 360, PS3
Genre: Physics puzzler
Steam: $19.99
Released: 2011

With the runaway success of Portal, an sequel was inevitable.  And unlike a lot of sequels, Portal 2 was a great game.  So why, you ask, have I given it only a C+?

C, of course, is average, and I consider Portal 2 to be a step above average.  But not, like Portal was, three steps above average.  Average, after all, is an entertaining and engaging game well worth playing.

In some ways Portal 2 is a significant improvement on its predecessor.  For all that Portal was groundbreaking, it was rather sharply limited.  There were only five elements available for the puzzles: the portals, buttons, boxes, turrets, and energy pellets.  The only reason Portal didn't become repetitive was that it was also extremely short.

Portal 2 kept the portals, the buttons, the boxes, and the turrets, and it added a slew of interesting elements that allow for more elaborate and varied puzzles.  Replacing the energy pellets with the thermal discouragement beam was an excellent idea because the thermal discouragement beam is such a more versatile game element, and also since it isn't a single activation element like the energy pellets it allows for more complex puzzles right off the bat.

They also added repulsion gel, propulsion gel, hard light bridges, excursion funnels, discouragement redirection cubes, and aerial faith plates.  The possibilities may not be limitless, but the success of the user designed levels shows that the new elements allow for many more possibilities than the designers had originally thought of.

From the standpoint of being a better physics puzzler, Portal 2 has Portal beaten hands down.

Where it doesn't do so well is in atmosphere.

Don't misunderstand, Portal 2 keeps the dark humor of Portal, it has snappy well written dialog performed by a stellar voice cast.  The Cave Johnson recordings alone justify the purchase price of Portal 2. 

For me though, it falls a bit flat when compared to Portal.  The creepy edge of Portal is gone, and perhaps it couldn't have really been kept. 

Unfortunately they also left out the solitude, and I think the game suffers as a result.  

In one way they'd never have been able to truly recapture the feeling of isolation and solitude from Portal, on your first playthrough it is possible to believe that Chell is the only thinking being in the entire facility.  GLaDOS initially comes across as a malfunctioning but non-sapient computer, and the slow realization that she is self aware, intelligent, and actively trying to kill you is a major factor in the tone and creepy value of the first game.  And of course that couldn't be maintained in the second game.

Perhaps it was because they realized that the sensation of true isolation from the original couldn't be recaptured that the designers decided to stick you with a companion for most of the game.  Stephen Merchant's Wheatley pops up almost immediately after the game begins, and when he isn't tagging along and telling you where to go, GLaDOS is.  As a result, for me at least, Chell feels more like a puppet used in a conflict between the two AI's rather than an independent agent.

Even the ending song reflects the shift from subtle menace to overtly stated intent.  

And perhaps that's for the best.  A game that tried, and failed, to maintain the atmosphere and creep factor of Portal wouldn't have been as good as one that went in its own direction.  Regrettably, that new direction just didn't grab me as much as the original did.

Which doesn't mean Portal 2 isn't a great game and well worth the price.  It is.  It's just that while it plays better, it doesn't feel as amazing, which is why it only gets a C+.