yeah no rage. at their worst deaths are tedious, but not rageariffic.

So to the OP questions, controls are everything. I think you already know that. All game creators should have that rubber stamped on their hearts. But you seem to get that.

Toto Temple is a good name. It is kind of hard to say, but that might be a good thing. I like how your game looks to control. Having an array of smaller movements that all feel different is a good idea. Extremely bad cameras for example have very simple rules but are hard/boring to maneuver. Good cameras have very complex rules, and lots of exception cases, but are very natural to use. The same is true with controls.

Why would multiple words be bad? Of course they are good. The only badness comes from incorrect usage, or conflicting usage, non-stable usage etc. The thread has a good handle on how I've seen the terms used.

I will say one thing, that I think is important. Friction is like a music note. To compose music you must first understand that there is a structure there. Notes relate to other notes, in various ways. By understanding these relationships you can layer ideas to create interesting compositions.

The problem with "friction" in games is that it is so often ignored, even though it is as essential as notes in music are.  "Sticky friction," juice, collisions, feedback, "soupy:" these terms describe things. They are all abstract - unlike music notes which have testable definitions. In the end it doesn't really matter if we agree what "juice means," only that we understand each other enough to deconstruct games.

If I look at Mario, the feel of running, jumping etc is so frictive. Those are your harmonic building blocks (as the player). They all go together, in most combinations, especially those needed to make progress in the game. And beyond that they create layered music that is interesting, and complements the emotional experience the player is going through when playing, independent of them.

I'll expand the definition of friction a little bit used by OP. It's not just about character design. Clicking a menu item in Civilization has friction. The button animates, maybe there is a sound, maybe an extra animation if you did something substantial. The feedback "pushes" back at the player, indicating impact.

Think about sliding your hand through the air? How can you tell something is going on? Your muscles resist and the air resists, telling you what you are doing. The world resists your momentum, changing its course. All interaction happens with an actor and an object that resists in some way. Without a division of intention - 2 different things - we have a single object. IOW friction is the experiential fundamental element of games. It describes the experience of interaction. "What does it feel like to do X?"

Think about dialogue trees. What is the usual frictive difference between choosing one option over another? Nothing. Cool. In Skies of Arcadia a tone plays when you choose the "right" option in special sequences - and your "status" goes up. Excellent.

edit: btw "game-feel" is when multiple frictions are considered together.

interesting convo.

(yeah, not like playing cave story is a bad thing)

that's sick

Ah. In that case, aside from the obvious good-game-design stuff, I want equipment that makes me feel special. If for example I am given a sword, and that sword can strike, I want that strike to be meaningful. Audio logs were enjoyed by many people I believe. But here, on tigs, maybe they seem tacky, because they are literally just thrown in there. In general any design that can be cobbled together, without insight into the whole gathered when adding a piece, is bad. Things should be cohesive.

The master sword in LttP is a nice example for a few reasons. First of all it is built up in legend, in the world, so we have a narrative lead-up. Then it turns out you need this thing to go on your adventure, and that makes sense in the context of the world. But wait you need an item to get it. Then you get it, in the back of a forest - cool scene. You pull it out. Then you use it. What is special about that?

The sword is more powerful, longer, and has a special ability (when you are at full health). You earn it, because you need it, and it doesn't break the game. Audio logs are just "there." There is no reason for them to be there, but there they are anyway. You listen to them. You learn something. But you got them not for a curiosity in the world. You got them for being thorough in your pack-rat attitude. You are rewarded for obsessiveness, with plot drops. Wtf? Where is the link. At least the master sword was retrieved for saving Hyrule.

I want to be rewarded for an accomplishment that is meaningful on its own. The gold medal in the Olympics is special because the event is special, then the medal is special as a symbol: you won, after all of that training. You beat everyone. The medal symbolizes the event. The event was something you already cared about.

Narrative links, rewards with value in proportion to the significance of the achievement they represent? Are these my criteria? On top of that do "what works" and you have something good, I think.

terraria with danger, the graphics.

score: 1724

I forgive you. cave story was my "first indie game," but you don't need to play it.

you know I've never actually played a fishing game - too confusing. maybe the easy appeal is what is needed in this genre.

u no play cavestory whyyyy!?!?

the atmosphere music was good

Wow, gruesome deaths are funny.

drop the mic

gl

o too bad

I'm not a fan of audio-log drops either. If you find yourself obsessing over them that's bad. If I played the game on the PC (Bioshock) maybe I would not have minded them. Normally I felt that they were at odds with what I was doing.

What's the difference between how we feel about rewards and what works about them? Those sound similar to me.

cozy look. how does it control?

All I gotta say is don't fuck up gameplay. That would diss your art. "Holy fuck" was my first reaction. (That's positive)