|
If you don't want the player to feel like they're in control of the character onscreen, just in charge of spells, frame them as something other than that character. If the player thinks that they're the man on the board, they'll try to control him. If the player thinks they're a sentient spell tome or some kind of spirit companion to the hero, they'll know their role is to match icons to help the hero out while he does his thing. edit: If you still want them to have some control over movement, maybe they can use their turn to magically nudge him out of the way of an incoming attack or something. Cicadas! fucked around with this message at 19:14 on May 16, 2024 |
#
?
May 16, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
Cicadas! posted:edit: If you still want them to have some control over movement, maybe they can use their turn to magically nudge him out of the way of an incoming attack or something. It sounds like this is the idea, rare movement spells have been part of the suggested design. I guess my main question is, does the game really need automated movement on a track? It seems likely to be a source of frustration compared to just sitting there blowing away enemies as they approach (and using magic to reposition tactically as needed.)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
If you're casting spells for the character but can't control their movement, can you add a battle fairy that circles their head or floats nearby? It puts the player in the action/on screen, but clarifies your role as being able to cast magic, however for physical interaction in the game since you're merely a bystander due to diminutive size.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Apologies for the emphasis, but I've said this like four times now and everyone keeps ignoring me to say "but here's a way you could let the player control movement!" The thing is, I can't see a way to make that work in the way you're describing without allowing the player to control movement in a direct way. You're describing the ideal scenario that will make the game mechanic feel the way you want it to feel, but when I look at it I don't see any way that it won't feel terrible in most other situations, so any suggestions I might have end up steering it away from that design. This is my thought process, and I appreciate that it does not match yours nor should it, I'm just sharing what it is so that you see why I still arrive to the same ideas even trying to think of an idea that matches what you said: You want players to not be in direct control of their movement (but maybe have a way to FORCE movement in some situations but limited use). Therefore, you want the movement to be predictable, or else the player has no way to plan ahead because they don't know what will happen. Therefore, you probably want the movement to be somewhat systematic in a way that the player can learn and get used to (e.g. when there's a single enemy, they'll move towards the enemy unless the enemy is more than X away; if there's two enemies, they'll move to block line of sight to one; etc), OR you want the movement to be systematic in a way the player can indirectly influence (e.g. if there are no spells prepared, the player runs away from the closest enemy; if there is a melee spell prepared, the player runs towards the closest enemy; if there is a ranged spell, etc). Therefore, what you're really saying you want is for the player to be able to directly control the movement, but in a loose indirect way where the player can't plan more than a few turns ahead. Because if it's systematic and they learn the rules (even intuitively) it amounts to the same thing, it just takes longer for them to "learn the rules" first. But because movement is so key to everything (whether a spell does the right thing, whether you need an emergency spell now or not, whether you're losing or winning), it can't be too loose or else the player will try to find a way to completely remove the ambiguity (or drop the game). Therefore, instead of making it loose, the closest thing is to constrain it: movement is done by spellcast so you can move in limited amounts and limited directions (and is a resource), or there are benefits to be gained from movements that might put you more at risk and big penalties sometimes when the movements are safe, or the movement part is directly tied to your actions in a way that means in order to do anything else (match elements, cast a spell) you're forced to move even if sometimes it's not in the direction you want to move. So in the end to me: TooMuchAbstraction posted:what if the player didn't control the protagonist's movement and instead had to incorporate that automatic movement into their plans? Will literally lead directly to a design that is something like: the player can somewhat direct/influence the movement but is forced to make bad movement choices sometimes to be able to survive/attack, or is forced to abandon good movement choices because they don't lead to good attacks. Because what I personally think is that if you ignore the feeling you're trying to evoke with the design, and just focus on the result it actually produces in practice (not just in an ideal setup but across a short realistic game session), you won't like the result. And tweaking that design to remove the problems will eventually mean giving the player some sort of control. e: Honestly this is pretty much a perfect design to playtest as a basic board game prototype, and I think if you do that and don't focus on the exact situation you're imagining, it'll become obvious. But all this is just my opinion, it's just what goes through my head when I think through this design, not saying it can't work, I just can't see it. e2: Thinking about it some more, the only other sort of design I can think of that might work (but I can't imagine it working well) would be to try to minimise "because movement is so key to everything" by making it so you can't die (it just takes longer if you keep missing/not killing the enemies/etc) and keep the movement systematic and simple/predictable. Something like: the player is never stationary and is always moving in the same direction but the effects of the spells affect the environment in a way that means that movement changes somehow whether beneficial or not (the spell hits enemies to your left/right but also knocks you left/right by 1 tile but you keep running in the same direction, or it flips your running direction after hitting all enemies in front, or it alters the shape of the room and any overlapping enemies get killed but then you run into a wall, etc). But even with this, I believe the normal player reaction will be to find whatever minimal set of spells give you the closest thing to minimal direct control, and use those constantly to feel like you're in direct control even if the resulting gameplay is terrible. Red Mike fucked around with this message at 22:03 on May 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
I appreciate y'all taking the time to write all these thoughts down, and I do think there's some useful stuff in there, so thank you. In particular, framing the game so that the amount of agency the player has makes sense, is certainly going to be important. I admit to being a bit annoyed at the XY problem manifesting here, though. It's not like I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about the concerns you all have about why removing movement control from the player might cause issues. I was looking for brainstorming assistance, and instead found myself having to justify my decisions over and over again. Anyway. Here's a video of a test level, where the protagonist needs to make it to a designated exit tile to win, and automatically takes 1 step towards that tile each turn if possible. It's a small, easy level, so not much of a proof of concept, but it does work. https://i.imgur.com/JCFCUHV.mp4 The trick will be scaling this concept and making it fun.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 23:10
|
|
|
But have you considered making it an on rails shooter like timesplitters with puzzle game controls!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 01:38
|
|
|
The thing is, that game looks like a puzzle roguelike. People who have familiarity with puzzle roguelikes who might be interested in the game generally enjoy strategically positioning characters and setting traps - it's one of the major defining features of the genre. I think to make not having direct control of the character feel right to most players, you would have to significantly change the presentation.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 10:50
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I appreciate y'all taking the time to write all these thoughts down, and I do think there's some useful stuff in there, so thank you. In particular, framing the game so that the amount of agency the player has makes sense, is certainly going to be important. whoof. The effect when a large number of puzzle bricks gets removed at the same time, is a bit too much for me to able to look at. Too many particles going all over the place once the bricks disappear.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 11:46
|
|
|
KillHour posted:The thing is, that game looks like a puzzle roguelike. People who have familiarity with puzzle roguelikes who might be interested in the game generally enjoy strategically positioning characters and setting traps - it's one of the major defining features of the genre. I think to make not having direct control of the character feel right to most players, you would have to significantly change the presentation. <Me> "Hey thread, I'm trying to do X, because of these reasons. Got any ideas?" <Thread> "X is a bad idea, you should do Y instead. Here's a bunch of ideas for how you can do Y, which isn't what you want to do." <Me> "I've already considered Y, I don't like it because of these reasons. I'm trying to do X. Got any suggestions for doing X?" <Thread> "Do Y." <Me> "Do you understand how loving annoying it is to come to the thread with a request and get told to do something else entirely?" <Thread> "No. Do Y." There is a reason why hardly anyone new shows up in this thread any more. Y'all really need to get better at listening to people and working with them. It is loving tiring to go through this song and dance. SerthVarnee posted:whoof. The effect when a large number of puzzle bricks gets removed at the same time, is a bit too much for me to able to look at. Sorry about that, I'll look into it. Thanks for letting me know!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 12:45
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:<Me> "Hey thread, I'm trying to do X, because of these reasons. Got any ideas?" I get the reaction, but the alternative really is: <You> "Hey thread, I'm trying to do X, because of these reasons. Got any ideas?" <Thread> ... <You> "Anyone?" <Thread> ... or "No idea, that doesn't sound like it would work?" I'm not saying our ideas are the only ways forward for sure, but you're asking for idea X and what you're getting back is Y, Z, but also X', X'', Xa, Xb, and they're all being rejected for...not being X. Basically the fact that you're rejecting any apparent alteration to X as the same "that would be changing the entire design of the game" means ..there isn't any useful idea we could propose as far as I can see? I'm not being facetious, give me an example of an idea (even a bad one) that you don't think would change the design of the game, but is also different from what you have now.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 12:54
|
|
|
Red Mike posted:I get the reaction, but the alternative really is: Cool, that would be drastically preferable. Because that makes it clear that y'all actually read what I posted and listened to what I wanted! It's OK if you don't have ideas, you're not essential to my game development process, but when I have to argue with you every time you offer something that isn't what I asked for it makes me really question why I'm here at all. Like, you can disagree with me on my game design, that's fine, that's permitted. But when I make it clear FIVE loving TIMES that I'm not looking for alternate ways to give the player control over movement, that I WANT TO AUTOMATE MOVEMENT, maybe the problem is with you? At that point the correct responses should be either "OK, let's see what we can do, given that constraint" or "alright, I got nuthin', good luck you crazy diamond." And to be clear, this is far from the first time this thread has had this kind of issue, and not just with me personally either. Y'all have a reputation. You need to listen better and either shut the gently caress up or actually answer the questions OPs are asking, because when you pull this XY poo poo people just shrug and leave.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 13:05
|
|
|
At least we serve as a great reminder on how the average player understands the concept of constructive feedback.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 13:12
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Cool, that would be drastically preferable. Because that makes it clear that y'all actually read what I posted and listened to what I wanted! It's OK if you don't have ideas, you're not essential to my game development process, but when I have to argue with you every time you offer something that isn't what I asked for it makes me really question why I'm here at all. OK, I thought you were being reasonable until now, but I think you just lost track of what you were asking in the first place: TooMuchAbstraction posted:... "Hey thread, I'm trying to do X, because of these reasons. The only idea I have is X(a). Got any other ideas?" KillHour posted:Spells to move? You could have arrows on the board or something that get selected to cause movement? Or maybe when you move a piece on the match board, your player character moves in that same direction. You could tie it into the lore like your character is physically moving energy or ley lines to cast spells - the board is a second representation of the playing field. "How about X(b)?" (merging the move verb into another instead of removing it) Dewgy posted:Maybe a bit of a different approach here, and it honestly feels a little blasphemous to say as someone who likes what you’re going for…but does the puzzle board need to always be visible? "How about Y, it's not exactly X but avoids the problems?" (keep the verb but make the removal not needed maybe) Tricky Ed posted:I haven't thought this fully through, but... can movement and spell power draw from the same pool? If you're using PAD style puzzling, can movement "points" be traded give you more time to move a piece, or you can choose to move in order to refresh the puzzle pieces on the field? "I don't know, maybe X(c)?" (keeping the move verb but making it more limited/resource-bound) "Or maybe Z?" (making the move verb have particular benefits/downsides to try to shift the way the verbs look to the player) TooMuchAbstraction posted:I think my goal right now is to see if I can make the player wholly non-responsible for the character's basic movement. Occasional interrupts are fine, e.g. "I'm about to be rushed from the side, I'd better cast my Haste spell to move forward faster and dodge it". But if I can otherwise make movement just be something that happens, and which the player needs to incorporate into their plans without being responsible for, then I think I can really streamline the gameplay. And a more focused, streamlined game is likely to be easier to target at an audience. In response to the previous suggestions: "I think my goal right now is X(a), maybe with minor differences, so X(b) doesn't work." (making player non-responsible for movement but maybe occasional interrupts) "I think my goal is X(a) so Y doesn't work." (removing the verb not changing how it works or the weighting of it) "But really my goal is X(a) so X(c) and Z don't work." (removing the verb not changing benefits/drawbacks to make player see it differently) So I literally don't know what you wanted in the first place. You came up with the idea of automatic movement, said you're open to other ideas, and then rejected at least two ideas that were basically a softer version of what you already wanted. What idea exists that is "non-manual movement" but isn't "automatic movement"? The only vaguely similar thing is what I suggested at the end which is systematic movement that the player can learn the rules of, but it's literally what you suggested doing at the start but in a slightly rephrased way. You want to remove the verb/make movement automatic? Cool, so that's your idea; you're open to other ideas, what ideas are those since literally anything other than "remove the verb/make movement automatic" is apparently not what you wanted? As I literally just said: Red Mike posted:I'm not being facetious, give me an example of an idea (even a bad one) that you don't think would change the design of the game, but is also different from what you have now. e: and honestly, I personally don't care about steering your game design in any sort of direction, you asked for ideas on doing things like X and I gave you as many ideas as I could that were in that area, I genuinely cannot see what suggestion you wouldn't have been unhappy with, when my list of suggestions was: "Maybe you can tie movement to spells" (merge move verb with another) "There are benefits to be gained from movements that might put you more at risk and big penalties sometimes when the movements are safe" (keep the move verb but add constraints) "movement to be somewhat systematic in a way that the player can learn and get used to (e.g. when there's a single enemy, they'll move towards the enemy unless the enemy is more than X away; if there's two enemies, they'll move to block line of sight to one; etc), OR you want the movement to be systematic in a way the player can indirectly influence (e.g. if there are no spells prepared, the player runs away from the closest enemy; if there is a melee spell prepared, the player runs towards the closest enemy; if there is a ranged spell, etc)." (remove move verb, and basically the same as your initial suggestion) " the player is never stationary and is always moving in the same direction but the effects of the spells affect the environment in a way that means that movement changes somehow whether beneficial or not" (remove move verb but also change the existing other verbs to account for it) What other thing exists? Red Mike fucked around with this message at 13:26 on May 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 13:16
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Cool, that would be drastically preferable. Because that makes it clear that y'all actually read what I posted and listened to what I wanted! It's OK if you don't have ideas, you're not essential to my game development process, but when I have to argue with you every time you offer something that isn't what I asked for it makes me really question why I'm here at all. maybe you should take feedback better? we dont exist only for your benefit. i dont think discussion here has been disrespectful, whether or not it has been what you wanted. i dont think anyone here is under an expectation that we own your time or that you need to integrate any/all feedback or ideas here. the consensus here seems to be that given what you're showing, people would like a different game than what you're trying to build. you're getting very mad about people getting jazzed about a game concept.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:10
|
|
|
Movement should consume a small energy/stamina meter. The meter will fill automatically over the course of four hours, or, for a small premium currency purchase...
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Movement should consume a small energy/stamina meter. The meter will fill automatically over the course of four hours, or, for a small premium currency purchase... begone foul riccitiello, you dont belong in this world
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
It’s a bit of a different forum but when instructing people who playtest my games I like to point out that I don’t want them to leave out things or otherwise filter what they want to say. It’s not their call to try and guess what I want to hear. I prefer to take in a larger volume of feedback and then pick and choose all the bits that are useful for me and the project.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:53
|
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:At least we serve as a great reminder on how the average player understands the concept of constructive feedback. You're being facetious, but I do suspect that "how do I move my guy / why can't I move my guy / why isn't my guy moving where I want him" is going to be a common refrain from players. There's a lot of tension between the conflicting goals "I want tactical positioning to be important" and "I want tactical positioning to be something out of the player's turn-by-turn control." That doesn't mean that it's not a worthwhile goal, it's novel and unique precisely because of that dissonance, but getting it to work and conveying it to the player is going to be an uphill battle. There were several suggestions about making it clear that the player character was not actually the player character (to remove the expectation of control), but I'd still be inclined to try to abstract movement away further. The goals of this design seem to be: 1) Provide a variety of different threat scenarios turn by turn to give spells of different shapes and effects reasons to exist 2) Keep a steady rhythm of threats turn by turn with some look-ahead capability and while the tactical grid does do a good job with these I don't think either of them inherently requires it. I think a lot of players would find a model that's more abstract or more obviously on rails to be more intuitive than presenting them with a tactical grid that they can't actually do the things with that they would expect in a tactical grid game.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 15:21
|
|
|
I'll admit that I have not been reading this thread closely for the past few weeks, and I didn't until one of the posts yesterday realize that TMA's intention was to make the player character mostly not controlled except sometimes. But if everybody who sees your thing thinks it ought to behave in a certain way, especially in the face of a developer trying to say otherwise, then there's clearly a failure to set expectations. We may not be a representative sample of the general public, but if everyone here expects A, chances are the general public will as well. That's one of the things I've struggled to improve with my (small, jam) releases: I frequently am trying to do something contrary to expectations. And what do the players try to do? Surprise surprise, whatever they expected. Even if they brought those expectations with them wholesale. And trying to tutorialize or explain against player expectations usually just leaves them frustrated.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:17
|
|
|
But every once in a while someone gotta subvert expectations. It may not pan out but it's worth trying. That's how smash indie successes happen.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
xzzy posted:But every once in a while someone gotta subvert expectations. It may not pan out but it's worth trying. I do think it's important to have a clear design vision and stick to it rather than going for the path of least resistance. But I think the difference between smash indie successes and weird niche indie cult games (which are still awesome, mind you!) is usually in how well they convey that vision to the player.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
xzzy posted:But every once in a while someone gotta subvert expectations. It may not pan out but it's worth trying. Definitely true, but if you ask for other ideas related to X then you will get a ton of X-adjacent ideas, and unless the expectation isn't strong then yes of course most of those ideas will not be "subvert all the expectations" because there's a reason expectations exist. I'm sure there's a way to make that game design work, and I don't think it's just a problem with the presentation right now, but it would need the entire game design to be cohesive in that direction. "Just remove movement actions and make it automatic" clearly isn't enough, or else they wouldn't be asking for other ideas; so it comes down to making it softer than "just remove movement actions" or "change some other part of the design to make the lack of movement work better/less confusing". Smash indie successes happen because even early on you present your mash-up of unusual and standard ideas, and people react with "oh I see where this is going, this makes sense/feels fun". The original question was effectively "I can't make this make sense/feel fun, anyone have any ideas?" so we all tried different mash-ups to see if anything sticks. No smash indie success started with a prototype/early alpha that had people or developers going "I don't understand" or "this game feels confused/disconnected".
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
As a dumb-dumb who loves making the abstract literal: if the movement is on rails, the main character should be a train. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
ynohtna posted:As a dumb-dumb who loves making the abstract literal: if the movement is on rails, the main character should be a train. You're Blaine and you navigate the Wastelands
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:30
|
|
|
Thomas the game engine
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:There is a reason why hardly anyone new shows up in this thread any more. Y'all really need to get better at listening to people and working with them. It is loving tiring to go through this song and dance. I’m gonna be totally honest, I have the opposite problem with this thread. Seeing a bunch of people brainstorming and throwing cool ideas out then getting met by someone turning into an angry brick wall has completely turned me off of both this thread and the Dogpit discord. It happens constantly. This thread shouldn’t be a loving hugbox. You’re getting honest advice and clear criticism. If you want to dismiss it that’s fine, but if you don’t want other people’s ideas then you shouldn’t even bother asking.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
This might just be me but if the main interaction for the player is the element grid, and the character isn't directly controllable, my brain wants the placement of the two windows to be switched
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:08
|
|
|
I see what you're trying to get to and it is a tricky problem- the kind you may have to step back from for a bit if that's even possible. Like the sort of thing your brain only resolves when it's been ignored for a while. You want tactical positioning to make the shape of spells an important factor, but you want the player's position to be predetermined. One thing I can think of is to change perspective- like an isometric view might more fully convey that you're on a conveyor belt- but that would require a lot more graphical work. Another would be a big change to the fiction to somehow set up that you're on rails- like maybe you're a golem, or in a golem, or walking The Path of the Gods Which Must Not Be Violated, etc.- but I'm not sure how open you are to that, or how settled you are on the genre trappings. So like I said you kinda have to let some things percolate now and then.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:32
|
|
|
Even simply saying that you're entering a tunnel rather than the sort of dungeon that may have branching paths might suffice.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:42
|
|
|
Dewgy posted:I’m gonna be totally honest, I have the opposite problem with this thread. Seeing a bunch of people brainstorming and throwing cool ideas out then getting met by someone turning into an angry brick wall has completely turned me off of both this thread and the Dogpit discord. It happens constantly.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Rejecting a lot of good ideas that doesn't meet your vision and having to make hard decisions about what you thought you wanted originally, and being genuinely mad about it, is a core part of the creative process, I'm pretty sure
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
My take is that asking for feedback on a game is inevitably going to end up with responses that are: A) Valid reflections of the ways people experience your game and how it made them feel B) Wrong about the specifics of what made them feel the way they did and C) Ultimately conservative, leaning towards "why don't you do it the way other games do it" I'm a big believer that feedback is super valuable, but that most ideas given by other people are going to be bad fits for your game. They don't know your game and what your hopes for it as well as you do! Instead, I mostly use it as a way to find friction points/take a general temperature check on if the game is clicking for people or not. Usually, though, if your core conceit isn't clicking for people, the fix is to double down on it (and change the rest of the game to support it) instead of genericize it and do what other games do. As a bunch of other people have already said, it sounds like the lack of normal movement is landing off somewhat for a lot of posters in this thread, but that doesn't mean you should add movement so much as just change other stuff (very possibly just the framing) until the game you're envisioning clicks for viewers more easily.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
I haven't coded anything since 6502 Assembler on the C64 in the 80s so I can certainly be told to gently caress off out of here, but I hate when I ask a tech question online somewhere about problem X, and all the responses are to not do that but do Y instead. These people don't have enough information to make that call and they are just noise. Whether or not this is the same as what is happening for TMA is up for argument, perhaps, but I can appreciate their position and I'm not going to get stroppy about it. Would it have gone over better if every post started with "can't help you there, but have you thought about..."? I mean, probably, but that is kinda asinine and totally weakens my position  I'll go back to that delightful 6502 now - only 3 registers - ah, bliss.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 22:01
|
|
|
Gromit posted:I haven't coded anything since 6502 Assembler on the C64 in the 80s so I can certainly be told to gently caress off out of here, but I hate when I ask a tech question online somewhere about problem X, and all the responses are to not do that but do Y instead. These people don't have enough information to make that call and they are just noise. Whether or not this is the same as what is happening for TMA is up for argument, perhaps, but I can appreciate their position and I'm not going to get stroppy about it. llvm mos uses a chunk of the zero page as virtual registers. works rather well, and having more modern languages like C is nice.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 22:30
|
|
|
https://x.com/Shoehead_art/status/1791861829016207793 Sometimes you have to do a bunch of boring as hell work to make sure you can only use one object at a time (because you didn't plan ahead)
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 12:19
|
|
|
Dewgy posted:I’m gonna be totally honest, I have the opposite problem with this thread. Seeing a bunch of people brainstorming and throwing cool ideas out then getting met by someone turning into an angry brick wall has completely turned me off of both this thread and the Dogpit discord. It happens constantly. Thread title is long out of date and the new one should set expectations for anyone coming into this thread. Thanks, Dewgy. My vote: Making Games Megathread: This thread shouldn’t be a loving hugbox. That said, I've always liked seeing TMA's posts about his games, going back to starting with a clock for his Waves game, but maybe take a break. These recent posts are a bit more hostile and defensive than before.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 16:21
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Rejecting a lot of good ideas that doesn't meet your vision and having to make hard decisions about what you thought you wanted originally, and being genuinely mad about it, is a core part of the creative process, I'm pretty sure I think most people (except one guy a few months ago who was being weird) who still post itt do so in good faith, even if no one responds to me here it's years better than the insipid poo poo I've been getting for years on twitter where some eejit with 2 entire tweets will respond to footage of your game asking you to make it a bullet hell for no reason
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
I was literally thinking about making my thing that isn't even a game into a bullet hell earlier today 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I was literally thinking about making my thing that isn't even a game into a bullet hell earlier today I got moonlight on my retro game emulator thing last night which only has a 640x480 screen, and was playing Geometry Wars, since it's the rare "modern" game that's playable at that resolution TL;DR you should definitely turn your audio viz project into a bullet hell game  Geometry Wars has this weird rippling of space time going on in the background just ever so slightly it would mix great with what you're trying to accomplish
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
Every Extend Extra’s another good one to check out if you want an example from of trippy visuals turning into a game.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 19:55
|
|