Countdown Nintendo DS game

[Julie T]

My copy of the Countdown DS game arrived this afternoon , and I've had a practice on it, and played one full game.

It's really quite good IMHO, and much faster than DVD versions that I've played before.

Of course, it's not a patch on apterous, but will be great for getting a Countdown fix when not able to get online or when apterous is down (not that that happens as often nowadays as when I preordered it).

I'll let you all know if it's got my youngest, Henry, interested in Countdown later on. It's his birthday tomorrow, so will be getting other games, so probably won't try it for a while yet.


Positive aspects when compared to apterous:

you can take the game wherever you go, and start it up immediately

slightly more user friendly with the touchscreen, rather than keyboard keys and mouse

can play with friends and family without needing 2 computers

one-off cost (although as I chose lifetime membership of apterous when Charlie first created it, so is apterous for me! )

at the end of the round, you can see all the possible words from 2 letters up




Negative:

less widely sociable, although there are multiplayer options

weird numbers selection (one at a time - large or small - similar to letters selection) which makes the numbers round rather different to the TV show, as you can see how 'good' the numbers are as you choose the rest (how difficult would it have been to program to ask for 1 large, etc?)

have to actually input the numbers method within the 30 seconds, not just declare

can't input more than one word to choose to declare, have to delete previous word if you think of a better one

no strange variants, although you can choose to do numbers, letters or conundrum attacks, or unlimited time


All in all, though, pretty damn good for a handheld game IMHO, as Charlie has set an incredibly high bar with the wonderful apterous. I'll always prefer apterous, but the DS game is a useful alternative.

[Ian Volante]

Can I have an option for am a fan of hand-held games and Nintendo, but don't have one?

[Julie T]

Can I have an option for am a fan of hand-held games and Nintendo, but don't have one?

Ah, that'll reset the poll, I think. So please read:

'Not really a fan of handheld games/Nintendo' as:

'Not really a fan of/don't own handheld games/Nintendo'

Does that work?

[Derek Hazell]

Amazing how two people know this game's rubbish without even playing it. Daily Mail readers perhaps (they always know tv programmes are outrageous without even watching them).

Very interesting review though Julie, thanks for posting it.

[Julie T]

Very interesting review though Julie, thanks for posting it.

Thanks, Derek!

Perhaps there'll be more response after a few weeks - Christmas pressies perhaps?
I thought that Countdown fans would be interested in this, (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2810), but as the current state of the poll shows, maybe most don't own DSs already and don't think it worth the investment.

Amazing how two people know this game's rubbish without even playing it. Daily Mail readers perhaps (they always know tv programmes are outrageous without even watching them).

Yes, I do think that maybe also some people like to vote for the extremes just for the hell of it.
I did consider putting an option: "this is so great I'll never play on apterous again", just to give some a chance to vote for a ridiculous viewpoint and piss Charlie off!

[Joseph Krol]

Got the game for christmas from my sister. Seems alright, but apterous is much better.

[Soph K]

My brother got it as a Christmas present. He lets me play on it quite regularly, which is good. It is very very good, although, unlike on apterous, if you have only partly typed a word in, it doesn't give you extra time to finish typing the word. Same with the numbers rounds. Apart from that, it's fab! I am sure my brother agrees. I voted for the one starting with 'Great!'.

[Joseph Krol]

Any want me to do a review? Possibly with pics.

[Joseph Krol]

Here's another review (by yours truly)...

Upon loading the game, you're presented with the 'blue set' theme (which you can skip past) and then onto the title screen. There are two modes: Full Game and Training Mode (I think).

In full game there are five difficulty levels: Beginner, amateur, pro, champion, and another mid-range one I can't remember. On beginner it is pretty easy to keep your opponent to zero, though there are exceptions - more on that later. The 'champion' mode is about quarter-finalist level in my opinion.

Letters
The letters are selected by selecting consonants and vowels. The game will refuse to pick consonants if you have six already and it does that with all the combinations. The main letdown is that you must type in your word before the time is up. Whatever you are left with at the end you must go for - conjuring up memories of going for DANGE^ instead of DANGERS when the clock stopped mid-input. There is a 'clear all' button to speed the process along though. After the round your offerings appear in speech bubbles above your head, in red if the word is invalid. The game then shows all possible words for 2 up, either by alphabetical order or world length. I haven't noticed any major gaps in the dictionary, it seems to correspond with JimDic.

Numbers
A rather strange choice by the programmers was to let you choose numbers as you go along - if you went '1 large 5 small' on the show, you would go 'large...small...small...small...small...small.' (with the numbers appearing in the gaps). Not really sure if you could use this to your advantage though. One slightly annoying thing is that the game shows you your opponent's solution even if you have beaten them (often with your opponent coming to 450 with the target 554 or similar) and also shows you the program's method even if it is identical to your own. The input is rather annoying and I have heard it expressed that you have 15sec solving and 15sec inputting, instead of letting you solve it at the end like Apterous.

Conundrums
Little to say here - I think the jumbles are produced in a similar way to Apterous but they seem to come up with obscure words a little too often than it should. Quibbles include the fact that you must type the answer before you buzz, so eliminating any chance of a last second guess, and the fact that someone who struggles to get a valid five in letters rounds knows such obscurities as UROPYGIUM (part of a bird I think) and gets them on twenty-nine and a half seconds.

Training mode
Training mode simply gives you an endless stream of one of the rounds. Your opponent is your training coach who is effectively the same as Prune in the sense that he gets nothing at all.

Multiplayer
I have not had the chance to try out the multiplayer mode yet, so will update this when I have.

Trophy cabinet
You can get a limited range of achievements, like achievements for getting a nine, getting the max within 15sec on a letters round (there is a 'Finish early' button) and winning eight games in a row.

Summary
Good game let down by poor input methods but it stays true to the original.

[Soph K]

Here's another review (by yours truly)...

Upon loading the game, you're presented with the 'blue set' theme (which you can skip past) and then onto the title screen. There are two modes: Full Game and Training Mode (I think).

In full game there are five difficulty levels: Beginner, amateur, pro, champion, and another mid-range one I can't remember. On beginner it is pretty easy to keep your opponent to zero, though there are exceptions - more on that later. The 'champion' mode is about quarter-finalist level in my opinion.

Letters
The letters are selected by selecting consonants and vowels. The game will refuse to pick consonants if you have six already and it does that with all the combinations. The main letdown is that you must type in your word before the time is up. Whatever you are left with at the end you must go for - conjuring up memories of going for DANGE^ instead of DANGERS when the clock stopped mid-input. There is a 'clear all' button to speed the process along though. After the round your offerings appear in speech bubbles above your head, in red if the word is invalid. The game then shows all possible words for 2 up, either by alphabetical order or world length. I haven't noticed any major gaps in the dictionary, it seems to correspond with JimDic.

Numbers
A rather strange choice by the programmers was to let you choose numbers as you go along - if you went '1 large 5 small' on the show, you would go 'large...small...small...small...small...small.' (with the numbers appearing in the gaps). Not really sure if you could use this to your advantage though. One slightly annoying thing is that the game shows you your opponent's solution even if you have beaten them (often with your opponent coming to 450 with the target 554 or similar) and also shows you the program's method even if it is identical to your own. The input is rather annoying and I have heard it expressed that you have 15sec solving and 15sec inputting, instead of letting you solve it at the end like Apterous.

Conundrums
Little to say here - I think the jumbles are produced in a similar way to Apterous but they seem to come up with obscure words a little too often than it should. Quibbles include the fact that you must type the answer before you buzz, so eliminating any chance of a last second guess, and the fact that someone who struggles to get a valid five in letters rounds knows such obscurities as UROPYGIUM (part of a bird I think) and gets them on twenty-nine and a half seconds.

Training mode
Training mode simply gives you an endless stream of one of the rounds. Your opponent is your training coach who is effectively the same as Prune in the sense that he gets nothing at all.

Multiplayer
I have not had the chance to try out the multiplayer mode yet, so will update this when I have.

Trophy cabinet
You can get a limited range of achievements, like achievements for getting a nine, getting the max within 15sec on a letters round (there is a 'Finish early' button) and winning eight games in a row.

Summary
Good game let down by poor input methods but it stays true to the original.

Good review, Joseph. ...Or should I say, it seems like a good review - as I have hardly read any of it because I can never be bothered to read really long posts - you obviously put a reasonable (or, as you like to say it, WEASEL-ABLE) amount of time into that long review.

[Joseph Krol]

Now I've tried multiplayer, here's my minireview:

Multiplayer's alright - the inpt systems are the same as single player, as is the main part of the gameplay, but there are four things I found slightly annoying. It is that on a conundrum, if one player gets it correct then the other player is not alerted in anyway and effectively both players have the full 30 seconds. The other thing is that you cannot play a 15 rounder in multiplayer, only two, three or five rounds of letters, numbers or conundrums. Also when both players are equal, they do not both get a point, they both get nothing. Zilch. Nada. The last thing is that if you win a round, you get 1 point regardless of the normal score, so there's no advantage in risking a nine if your opponent has a six and you have a safe seven.

[Thomas Carey]

Now I've tried multiplayer, here's my minireview:

Multiplayer's alright - the inpt systems are the same as single player, as is the main part of the gameplay, but there are four things I found slightly annoying. It is that on a conundrum, if one player gets it correct then the other player is not alerted in anyway and effectively both players have the full 30 seconds. The other thing is that you cannot play a 15 rounder in multiplayer, only two, three or five rounds of letters, numbers or conundrums. Also when both players are equal, they do not both get a point, they both get nothing. Zilch. Nada. The last thing is that if you win a round, you get 1 point regardless of the normal score, so there's no advantage in risking a nine if your opponent has a six and you have a safe seven.

Seeing as I was the one you tried the multiplayer with, here's something else on it:

On conundrums it's not whoever buzzes first that gets it, so if one guy gets it on 3 seconds and the other on 29, noone gets any points.

[Soph K]

Now I've tried multiplayer, here's my minireview:

Multiplayer's alright - the inpt systems are the same as single player, as is the main part of the gameplay, but there are four things I found slightly annoying. It is that on a conundrum, if one player gets it correct then the other player is not alerted in anyway and effectively both players have the full 30 seconds. The other thing is that you cannot play a 15 rounder in multiplayer, only two, three or five rounds of letters, numbers or conundrums. Also when both players are equal, they do not both get a point, they both get nothing. Zilch. Nada. The last thing is that if you win a round, you get 1 point regardless of the normal score, so there's no advantage in risking a nine if your opponent has a six and you have a safe seven.

Seeing as I was the one you tried the multiplayer with, here's something else on it:

On conundrums it's not whoever buzzes first that gets it, so if one guy gets it on 3 seconds and the other on 29, noone gets any points.

yeah thats a bad and unfair thing, in my opinion

[Dinos Sfyris]

Presumably though the real spoils for the first conundrum solver are that he/she is finished and therefore no longer in the middle of a game of Countdown, and can feel free to go and watch things on telly like Take Me Out, which they otherwise wouldn't bother watching if they were indeed in the middle of a game of Countdown and wanted to finish that first?