• Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites

  • Gaming, Reviews - Written by on Friday, July 12, 2013 10:56 - 15 Comments

    Plants Vs. Zombies 2 (iPad): Review


    This review comes from Digitally Downloaded.

    review Let me just say from the outset; I’m not actually opposed to the free-to-play model. Understanding that free-to-play does not mean free, I’ve had a great time with those games that I have felt have put the model to effective use in providing players with a basic, entry-level version of the game for free, and then offering those who wish to invest in the game additional perks.

    It doesn’t bug me because I do believe that developers deserve to be paid for their hard work, and if these games were actually free, then the developers wouldn’t be making many more of them. With all that out of the way, I do have a problem with free-to-play when it has been forced into a game that was never really designed around the model.

    For example: Plants Vs. Zombies. Here is a game that was perfectly self-contained and carried with it a pricing model that allowed players to pay once, and get access to everything the game had to offer. With the monetisation out of the way, the developers were free to simply throw whatever they felt was fun at the players, and the result was a game that was entertaining beyond measure. And because it was so joyful, it attracted a broad audience and it was profitable for the developers, Popcap, despite there being no microtransactions involved whasoever.

    Enter Plants Vs. Zombies 2. Here’s a game where every single design element has been built around microtransactions. I don’t necessarily mean that in a bad way; for instance, I do think Popcap has spent more time balancing this game to make sure players will continue to progress even if they don’t spend a cent of their own money then they have actually making the game. That’s a good thing in principle – it shows that the developers didn’t want players to walk away from the experience having felt nickel and dimed. Where things go wrong is the basic reality that it is so obvious that this game has been so carefully constructed around its monetisation model, and because that is where the development energy went, the game itself no longer has a soul.

    Players get access to three worlds (with the initial release…). These worlds are big, bloated and generally become boring well before players get to the next one. The simple reason? They’ve been designed to keep players playing in the hope that they can be encouraged to spend some cash. Rewards are dolled out just often enough to act like a candy trail, and icons litter the playing field reminding players that they’re one tap away from even more goodness. But there’s not enough variety; not really. Just endless streams of levels to play for the sake of playing levels. It’s Candy Crush Saga all over again.

    The primary cash sink in the game is in its virtual coins (thankfully there are just a few non-essential plants that are available only through real-cash purchase, and while they’re fun they’re also not overpowered). With those virtual coins players can purchase a major power-up that allows them to personally flick or pinch a zombie horde to oblivion en masse, or they can buy a magic leaf that superpowers a plant for a short period of time.

    The game quickly falls into a rhythm then – as soon as a level starts, bring out a sunflower as your first plant (the sunflowers are the ones that produce the light energy that allows you to summon attack plants), then quickly pay for a super leaf to have that sunflower spit out a mass of energy. At that point you’ve got more than enough energy to get a major early advantage over the zombies and level design, and it’s relatively straightforward cruising from there.

    Without the energy leaf the going is tougher initially, and some levels become very difficult indeed without that valuable time and energy at the start to lay the foundations of a sound defence. I’m not going to quite say it’s pay-to-win (especially since it’s possible to grind a few old levels to have enough of the virtual cash to buy a magic leaf, with no payment involved), but it does come dangerously close.

    Notice how I’ve spent most of this review talking about the monetisation of the game? That’s not how a discussion of Plants Vs. Zombies should be. I should be talking about its awesome sense of humour, the beautiful, bright visual style, and the perfectly executed tower defence gameplay. All of that is still in the game, buried under the stuff that’s going to annoy a lot of people. It’s still a very, very good game. But because it is so heavily focused on how it is going to make money, it’s hard for me, as a player, to really connect with it.

    I really don’t understand why PopCap and EA didn’t simply say “here you go, dozens of hours of fun; give us your $10 please.” It would have been a guaranteed hit at that price, and perhaps, just perhaps, it would have retained its soul.


    Image credit: PopCap

    submit to reddit


    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

    1. Lightningrod26
      Posted 12/07/2013 at 12:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I really hate the fact that you have to pay for plants, and that they haven’t introduced more plants, and the artwork and design is not as good as the first game. In my opinion, this isn’t as good as the first. Sigh

    2. Simon Reidy
      Posted 12/07/2013 at 1:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Good review, can’t say I disagree with any of it. I was reading on Touch Arcade that one of the reasons it was released in Aus/NZ first, was to see how players react to the IAP purchase model, so it may still be tweaked to at least be better balanced before international release. However given the whole game is designed around IAP, I can’t see them changing their minds altogether and turning into a paid title, which it should have been all along.

      Luckily lots of devs having been moving away from the ‘Freemium’ gaming model on iOS lately and releasing top quality paid games instead, but Popcap obviously didn’t get the memo about how much gamers hate being so obviously milked. I’ve already deleted it.

    3. Bob
      Posted 12/07/2013 at 1:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t much like the pricing model myself (I avoided Candy Crush Saga for this reason), but are there any plans to do a review of the game itself rather than just throw a hissy fit about pricing?

      • RocK_M
        Posted 12/07/2013 at 2:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

        @Bob: Actually it is very telling if the review is ragging on too much about the pay system instead of actual gameplay. A good F2P game will let the gameplay shine and have the pay element woven in the background. Instead of an obvious in your face approach which diminishes the fun factor.

        It’s rather disappointing that from the looks of things the game has shifted away from what made the game fun (ie. messing around w/ various plant combinations as a stage progressed and you were given access to more plants + mini games + zen garden to extend the life) to relying completely on grinding for power-ups instead.

      • Tom
        Posted 17/07/2013 at 8:09 am | Permalink | Reply

        Like Bob, I’ve played this for the past few days without having to pay for anything. Paying for stuff is just effectively like paying to ‘cheat’ the game by unlocking special plants earlier than you would by playing through. I understand the frustrations of the in-built pay options, but the simple fact is that unlike other games you can very easily play on without paying for anything – and you don’t miss out on a thing.

        The gameplay is brilliant, it’s fun and full of laughs. It’s a brilliant sequel to an addictive game – a fact this review fails to mention.

        • Posted 17/07/2013 at 6:48 pm | Permalink | Reply

          “I should be talking about its awesome sense of humour, the beautiful, bright visual style, and the perfectly executed tower defence gameplay. All of that is still in the game, buried under the stuff that’s going to annoy a lot of people. It’s still a very, very good game.”

          Second last paragraph, Tom. The review quite explicitly says “it’s fun and full of laughs.”

          What you meant, I’m sure, is “the IAP model must have annoyed the critic, but it didn’t annoy me. I can’t say I agree with this review, but I understand where it’s coming from.”

    4. Gavin
      Posted 12/07/2013 at 1:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      So this is what you have really been doing for the last two days, right?

    5. richard
      Posted 12/07/2013 at 4:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I understand why new games no one has heard of would go the F2P model just to get people trying the game but with PvZ the original was so well known they could of charged $10 easily and people would have purchased it even though other games people hesitate to pay 99c. I was sad when within the first few minutes the tutorial even prompted people to go to in app purchases. When a tutorial suggests it as part of the game play I knew what to expect for the rest of the game and made a decision right then to spend zero money on it. I will still play once in a while though. Also the 3 power ups u can buy with coins are so annoying to use I think the game wouold of been better without them which shows they were only added to encourage in app purchase of coins.

    6. Hieronymus P. Organthruster
      Posted 14/07/2013 at 6:24 am | Permalink | Reply

      What a refreshingly honest review of yet another depressingly cynical game that appears to have had its heart and soul eaten up and shat out by greedy idiots.

      Please, please, if there is a god, have those idiots make less money from this than they did from the first one.

    7. bob
      Posted 14/07/2013 at 1:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      what a stupid review. I’ve played this game for 20+ hours now and not once had I have to pay any money. The game is easy enough to not have to.

      its free. Play it and see how wrong this editorial is.

    8. Dave
      Posted 14/07/2013 at 7:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I totally agree with this review – whilst the game itself is generally a lot of fun, the IAP aspect is built in to the design. Already, I’m finding that some parts of the game are simply there to entice you to buy extras. I’ve been playing for a day or so, and am finding this really detracts from enjoying the gameplay.

      It’s such a shame, as I loved the first version, but feel less engaged with this one.

    9. Posted 17/07/2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink | Reply

      I’m pretty much in agreement with the review. I was also really disappointed with the graphics and layout of the game. Where the original version made really good use of the ‘i’ architecture pvz2 looks jumbled and the field seems cramped. I read an interview where Shigeru Miyamoto said he wanted Zelda to be like a miniature garden you could carry in your pocket (or something to that effect..) and that was the magic of pvz for me. This game feels like it was made by a different team and is very ‘samey’. I would have happily stumped up $10 buck for a refresh of the original that incorporated some new plants and game play. Bring back the zen garden.

    10. Mensch
      Posted 18/07/2013 at 3:51 am | Permalink | Reply

      Where is the survival mode? Where is the endless mode? This game is trash without it.

    11. Sabaki
      Posted 18/07/2013 at 3:57 am | Permalink | Reply

      PvZ 1 is in my top 5 games ever!

      The reason? There was a blend of charming characters, visual & audio presentation and a finely honed gameplay.

      Gameplay was king! You had the tools (ie plants) at your disposal. It was YOUR timing, judgement and ability to think on the fly that brought the satisfaction of victory.

      PvZ 2? Well, I quite like the new graphics and I love most of the new plants and zombies (except that bastard parrot!)
      I will state that I miss the upgrade mechanism from part 1 and cattail was my favourite plant!

      What I do not like is some of the game play mechanics.
      There are way too many challenges that are above victory through skill and has been tweaked to force you to at the very least consider you to buy IAP.

      Agree or not but this has severely hurt the original game’s premise.

      On the IAP, I’m in the corner of buying the game and all the content outright.
      I will state this as a personal opinion but of those real money plants are MEANT to be in the game. Snowpea & Jalepeno? Come on now!!!

      This game will be successful and enjoyable. It will however not best the original as it has forsaken raw gameplay for profit.

    12. Mk
      Posted 31/07/2013 at 10:09 am | Permalink | Reply

      Agreed. Played the first level without spending money and without using plant food or cheats (that gestures thing, it’s cheating). It starts fun but grow boring very soon. There are 10 levels, some mini games, and then before seeing the next world you have to make 35 stars. It means playing again for 35 times the levels you just played with some quirks. In theory it could be fun, but it is always the same “produce a lot of sun” or “don’t plant here”. The first world attack plants are pretty much all the same and playing 35 levels was really boring. After that you get to the second world only to discover all the keys you dropped in that 35 boringness are useless, and you start over with tutorial like levels with one wave of zombies. Yeah dressed like pirates, but the gameplay is always the same.

      The game is pretty easy and only children will have the need to spend virtual or real money here, so it’s a big fail also for f2p fans, which I’m not.

      I can’t see this game as fun and neither as money making. A 1$ price tag would have got more cash to the publishers probably. At least it would have saved them the shame. You will probably never hear about pvz3. Sad.

    Leave a Comment


  • Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:

    Follow us on social media

    Use your RSS reader to subscribe to our articles feed or to our comments feed.

  • Most Popular Content

  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT

    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications

    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry

    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights