Compare Zoo Keeper with Monster Manager

As our game idea is come from Zoo Keeper, let's have a comparsion of them.

Similarities:
1.
Both requires players to move monsters and group them up, but they present the idea in two different ways.

2.
Both have timer and score.

3.
A match may trigger other matches. This can keep the whole map changing periodically.

Differences:
1.
In Zoo Keeper, player moves monsters by simply swaping two monsters which are next to each other.
In Monster Manager, player moves monsters by select a monster as a center, and all the adjacent monster will shift so that they seem to rotate around the center monster.
(In my opinion, swaping only involve two monsters, while rotation involve eight monsters, and so it is more challengeable.)

2.
In Zoo Keeper, Once three or more monsters join together and form a straight line, they disappear, and then the upper monster fall out and fill up the empty space.
In Monster Manager, After they disappear, the empty space is filled by simply put new monsters to those locations.
(Monsters falling is a good idea. However, many games have use this idea many times, and the implementation is not a piece of cake. Therefore, we apply the simplest method, that is replacement method.)

3.
In Zoo Keeper, if there is no match after swaping, the moved monsters will move back to their original position.
In Monster Manager, the rotation cannot be undone. In order to prohibit player from rotating without thinking, a counter called “life” is introduced. The life value is initially set to three. If there is no match after rotation, the lift value will be decreased by one. The game is over once the life value become zero.
(There are several advantages of using life counter. First, the game no longer need to keep checking whether there is always at least one match that can be made within one rotation in the game. Second, it allows players to get scores by more than one rotations during extreme condition.)