Thank you for the kind words both of you!

Yeah, controls have been a constant problem.  No one (including me) is really completely satisfied with them yet, but I've gone through about 3 or 4 different attempts and haven't found anything I like better yet.  I haven't tried your idea yet, Hima, so I may give that a shot next!  The mouse wheel DOES currently [sorta] work, but whatever you select with it is automatically fired next time you click, so it is awkward.  Thank you for the suggestion!  I will probably try to push out a build with that change in it tomorrow, for comparison and contrasting.

(If anyone else has suggestions for controls, [or, of course, anything] feel free to shout'em out!)

Also:  Aww man!  I woke up this morning and realized that after I'd gone to all the trouble to set up most of my text in stringtables so I could run spell checkers on it... I forgot to run a spell checker on it.  Please ignore the rampant and embarrassing spelling mistakes that litter my text!  Pay them no mind!  I'M NOT REALLY AS DUMB AS MY SPELLING MAKES ME LOOK HONEST GUYS

I actually had one of those.  No one ever used it.

So I made it pop up automatically the first time they played.

And people clicked past it without reading, since they wanted to get into the game.

so feh!

I have it disabled in the UI right now, but if I can find a good place to stick a button for it, maybe I'll bring it back.  It would be nice to be able to bring it up on demand for confused people.

Awesome!  It lives!  I was actually just wondering last week what ever happened to this project.  (I actually had assumed you'd released long ago and I must have somehow missed it...)  Glad to hear it's still going forward!  Best of luck!

In theory 5:00 am is not the best time to be making changes to deep, core code like the  state-manager.  But it's causing bugs, so here I am.  (fixed, I think.  I needed to defer pushing new things onto the stack until the full update cycle was done, and the only place to really do that was in the state manager.)

Got more friend-n-family feedback.  Largely concerning the "new player experience".  Short answer:  It sucks.  New players have no idea what to do, and are, as a rule, fairly bad about reading instructions.  The usual pattern is

• Player skims instructions, while clicking through, trying to get to the game.
• Game starts.  A ship attacks the player.
• Player sees they are getting hurt and freaks out, pushing buttons randomly trying to make it stop hurting them.
• Player complains that the instructions should be better.

This has been fairly consistent.  No one really READS instructions, so like it or not, I need to provide a better way of teaching the player.  The good news is that I guess my iconography is good, since EVERYONE knows when they are being hurt.  (which makes them panic)

So rather than spending this weekend preparing another bunch of levels for people to play, I'm working on streamlining the new player experience a bit.  Reducing the menu options you see when you play for the first time.  Adding a tutorial that actually walks you through everything in-game, from moving around to firing to getting hit.

(Since a bunch of people are going to be trying it for the first time as new players soon, this feels like a really good time to improve the "new player experience")

Also - Thank you to everyone who dropped me an email for the playtest!  I am very much looking forward to your feedback, as "fresh eyes".  I'm still on schedule to send you something this weekend, although I fear it will be towards the "sunday evening" side of this weekend.  Still though, I should have a pretty solid tutorial hammered out by then, and some better play-flow in general.  (got some other feedback that I was breaing flow horribly by making people go back to the level select screen after every level - putting in a  "go on to next level?" button directly when you finish levels now.)

So yeah!  Tired, but excited!

Onward!

-Chris

Thank you to everyone who has sent me emails!  Right now I'm on schedule to send something out tomorrow (sunday) evening.  Thus keeping my promise to have something out by this weekend, if only barely. :D

(Adding some stuff to make a better "new user experience" though, so it's good stuff to get in before I subject it to a bunch of new users!)

Emails received!  (I'll send out a bulk response this weekend with further instructions, so don't panic if you haven't seen a reply yet.  I've just been too lazy to set up an auto-responder, and don't feel like collating the mailing-list more than once.)

Is it possible to playtest it without downloading it? If so, I'll also shoot you an email.

Yes, the test I plan to run will be playable in a web browser, so no extra downloading required.  (I suppose technically you still have to download it, but only in the same sense that you had to download this webpage to view it.  You won't have to install it, or run executables or anything, if that's what you mean.)

  Sorry for so many days of disappointment!  I sincerely hope it lives up to the expectations then!

One thing I have heard people say is ... "after you finish the first 90% of the game, then you're ready to finish the last 90%."

Well, this project has felt more like "once you finish the first 90%, then it's time for the second 90%, followed of course, by the third 90%.  And then, don't forget the 4th 90%, and 90% #5 is actually a 95%, which compensates for the fact that #6 is only 105%, or wait, that doesn't really compensate at all does it, but don't worry about that because #8 is 120%!"

(Also I apparently have a problem with actually sending things out for people to look at.  I didn't think I was a perfectionist, (I certainly wouldn't have described myself that way) but every time someone asked me if they could see what I'd been working on, my response would be "sure, I'll send you one!  Let me just fix a few things first, since they're easy fixes and I'm embarrassed to leave them in...."  weeks later later... "dude, were you going to send me a build?"

The good news is that every time I pushed out my schedule, it was because I felt that what I was adding was a good tradeoff of "bang for buck".  Every delay added something cool, I think.  The scope has grown to something that was unthinkable at the start of the project, but the end result is something now that I'm pretty happy with.

Hopefully other people will be happy with it too!

On the other hand, this has been a big slap in the face to my belief that I could make even remotely accurate time-estimates...   I think I'm going to do a serious post-mortem when I'm done with this.

Boss Rush!

Hello!  As some of you know, I've been working on a game lately, known as "Boss Rush".  It is somewhat like a shmup, only reversed!  If you want the nitty gritty details, I recommend checking out my Dev Log.  For those of you that don't feel like reading a bunch, here is the executive summary:  It's a shmup, but you play as the boss.  In the screenshot up there, the little red ship is the enemy.  You're the big grey one.

But... if you're interested in not just reading about the game, but in actually playing it, well... then I have news you will be glad at!

While I'm not quite ready to do a public release, I'm at what feels like a good point to do a closed beta.  The game is at about 80% complete, and the engine feels pretty solid.  All that is left is the last bit of content generation.  The game is very playable right now, and just needs the last batch of levels added.

This feels like a great time to get some feedback on the levels I currently have though!  They could use all sorts of things, from bug-testing (I think I've weeded out all the scripting errors by now, but who knows?) to balance tweaking.  (I'm pretty sure everything is beatable on hard mode, but would love for some feedback on that.  And is easy mode easy enough?  Etc.)

So.  If you're interested and willing to play an incomplete game (that I still think is fairly cool, although I'm admittedly biased) then send me an email at

bossrush-playtest [at] paperdino [dot] com

...and I'll send you further details!  I am planning on sending out a build to anyone who has expressed interest this weekend.  (I have a few last minute ends to tie up before then.  Sorry for those of you that thrive on instant gratification!)

System requirements:  It runs in Flash, in a web browser, so in theory, not too much.  I'll be interested to hear how it runs though.  It runs great on my 4-year old laptop, but crappy on my friend's 1-year old mac.  (I think it's because of the mac flash player being the red-headed-stepchild of adobe?)  Also, it will be good to hear if people have any issues in browsers other than firefox or IE.  (Which are the main two I've tested it in.  Mostly firefox.)

That's all!  Thank you in advance to anyone who participates!

-Montoli

Ok!  Details, as promised!

I'm [finally!] going to start a closed beta.  It will start this weekend, most likely sometime sunday.  (Depends on how fast I get the last few tasks done on saturday before I turn people loose on it.)  The game is around 80% done, and the only thing remaining to implement are the last levels for most bosses.

Anyone interested in playing this build and offering feedback, helping me tune difficulties, and root out any 11th hour bugs, send an email to

bossrush-playtest [at] paperdino [dot] com

I'll send further information out this weekend to everyone who has shown interest!

Thanks in advance!

-Montoli

Commute.


Seriously, I think I get my best ideas when I'm impatiently waiting for a train to show up.

Your trolling is getting less subtle.

I enjoy conversations like this, but I feel like this one has sort of run its course.  I feel like we've covered the original topic, (basically "what do people think of this article?"  (Answer:  Divided, although more seem to think that it is flawed)) and now, all we're really doing is quibbling over what we personally think the word "game" means.

This does not seem as useful to me!  It does not seem like it will make the world any better a place if I convince someone else to redefine some of their terms.  Similarly, it does not seem like I will make better games or become a better person if someone convinces me that I should change my own.

If you want to have a conversation about how games can afffect people, or how you could grow the medium, or stretch the boundaries of what a game can be, or the morality of making games that force players to do immoral things, or any other interesting, possibly borderline-academic topic relating about games, then I'm there!

But it just doesn't seem like we're likely to accomplish much more here in this topic, where we've basically come down to "This is true because my definition of a game is X!" "No, it's false, because MY definition is Y!"

[[Warning - long post approaching]]

[Warning - long post approaching]

Still alive!  Sorry for the lack of updates!  A contract gig I had accepted a while back, [thinking I would be done by now] started, and drastically reduced my free time for the month.  See, I was all figuring I was really ready to release about a week ago.  Everything on my check-list was done.  I was feeling good about things.  I was really happy where the game was at.

Then I gave it to some friends for perspective.  (The good folk over at Final Form Games)  They were going to "proofread it" before I sent it out for a massive playtest.  Make sure that I didn't do anything stupid like forget to connect an important button to code or some such.  Give me feedback and tell me if there were any tweaks that they thought would improve things.

ha ha.

They had some suggestions, all right, but they're a little more involved than "tweaks".

One of the difficulties and dangers in focusing on something intently is that you start to lose perspective on it.  It's easy to stop concentrating on the game as a whole, and just look at the list of pieces that are left to write.  And then assume that when the pieces are put together, the game will magically be there, whole, complete, and fun.  Basically lose sight of the forest for the trees.

This is the exact position I realized that I was in.  I had completed everything on my list!  I so was done, right?  But after giving it to some people who had not stared at the game nonstop for months, what they saw was not the same as what I saw!  In particular, they informed that the part that I thought was the main game (Survival mode - you vs. a constant growing swarm of enemy ships, play until they finally take you down) was not, in fact, terribly compelling.  Oh sure, it was fun.  It was still a good addition.  But it wasn't deep enough to carry the whole game, and there was not really any reason to play it more than once or twice after you'd seen all the ships.  After they spent the requisite 20-30 minutes getting gold-star rank in everything, that was that.  They were done.

In stark contrast, they LOVED challenge mode. (a bunch of descrete, bite-sized "levels" with unique goals and objectives which I originally included as a bonus mode)  They played it relentlessly.  Even though build I sent had only like 5-6 repeating challenges for every boss, which I spent around a total of 10 minutes on, mostly as a proof of concept that I was going to fill in later.  Tim apparently played it [willingly!] for over 5 hours, giving it a truly terrifying level of scrutiny.  (Although to be fair, he did have a fever at the time, so he may not have been fully in his head!)

Their reaction was basically "challenge mode needs to be your main game.  Either take out survival mode or make it a bonus feature.  Don't focus on it.  Focus on challenge mode, because it is the part that shows off where your game is the most fun.  Oh, and make less intrusive help windows."

So.  After a bit of consideration, (and checking with a few other friends to see if this reaction was general, and not just an outlier) this is now pretty much exactly what I am doing.  While it represents a bit of a shift from my original vision, I think it is a good one.  It provides a much more structured play session, and the user has better short-term goals.  After all, that's the fun of doing things indie - if I realize at the 11th hour that the game would be vastly improved by adding a week or two onto the schedule while part of the focus is changed... I can do that.  Without even having to check in with anyone for approval or buy in!

And I think I will!


Unfortunately, challenge mode at that moment only had about 5 half-real challenges, copied across 6 ships.  If it was to be a real game mode, I needed a few more challenges.  Based on screen layout and number, 18 seems like a good place to be.  That gives me 3 rows of 5, plus 3 "boss" levels at the end of each row.  Of course, that means coming up with [and coding!] 108 unique challenges.  That is a lot!  It is keeping me very busy!  Especially if I want to be done within the next two weeks!  (I'm currently up to around 60)

So net result:  I'm not as close to done as I thought!  Still pretty close, I hope.  But rather than a matter of days, it's looking more like a week or so.  Blame Tim of Final Form Games!  Blame him!  Although later, thank him, since the consistent stream of advice and sanity checks that he, Hal (also of Final Form Games) and various other friends have provided will, without a doubt, mean that the end game is far better than it would have been if I were developing in a vacuum.

Speaking of not developing in a vacuum, I think I would still like to try to do a limited public playtest.  Most likely starting sometime this weekend.  I will post details here (later today) as soon as I figure them out.


-Montoli

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then?  I'm pretty sure at this point that no one is going to say "Oh my goodness, your definition has opened my eyes, now I understand, the world is a wonderful place after all, etc".  I think we're fairly firmly into "semantic territory" here, and I guess there's not much left to say at this point besides "sorry our definitions don't line up, let's go make things we think are fun anyway?"

But you could though!  That's what I'm saying!  They're both deterministic rule sets.  That's the point.  If you press A button in mario, you jump up.  If you put a card down at the wrong time or in the wrong way in Mao, you take a penalty.

Whether those rules are arbitrated by social committee or computer is irrelevant.  You could still play the game either way.  Nothing is stopping you from playing Mao on the computer.  Nothing is stopping you from "playing" mario by having one person play the "computer" and execute the computer instructions by hand, and tell the player what is happening rather than drawing it on screen.  It would be like an insane, tiresome version of D&D.  No one would want to do this, which is why we usually reserve such games for computer arbitration.  But you still could do it.  Because they're both games, with a series of rules.

I'm not saying it would be the same game, but so what?  We've already established that taking a game and changing major parts of it changes the game.  I'm just saying that they're not fundamentally different just because one has rules that are complicated enough that it's unthinkable to play without a computer.

I know that "scientific/natural law" has the word "law" in it. Making a distinction between rules and laws based on whether or not they can be broken is still completely arbitrary and rather silly.

But that is the crux of it though, and kinda what makes up the difference between the two, and gives strengths to each, having a computer control the simulation aspect VS just players(people?), I can't imagine my game of Mao working with a computer at the helm instead of my uncle, and i can't imagine a game of Super Mario done as a board game.

Sorry if my word usage is confusing the point.

But the point is that you COULD run super mario as a board game if you were REALLY bored.  It, just like monopoly or mao, is just a collection of rules.  The only real difference is that Mario has far more rules and so is usually given to a computer to arbtrate, since it's complicated enough that it is tiresome to try to do it "by hand". 

Also, making a distinction based on "you can cheat in real games, but not in video games" seems like a really arbitrary one.  I mean, cheating is when you break one of the intended rules, right?  As has been pointed out, game sharks, etc, are just as much a way to cheat in video games as running up and punching the target in a dunk tank is.  In both cases, you're taking actions that you're not "supposed" to take under the rules.  (in one case, going past the line on the ground - in the other, directly editing program memory.)  Deciding that that way of cheating is somehow more or less valid or special than the other is a purely arbitrary decision.

(And as an incredibly arbtrary descision, it doesn't seem like a good thing to support an argument on, since I can just as easily say "I arbitrarily declare the opposite!" and then the argument falls apart...)



Also.  Penalty:  Saying the big M.

(sorry, my bad - didn't realize that we were in a "no talk zone")

...  Gentlemen.  Chief Navigator Montoli here.  I've been going over our course, and I think we're in for some more...  interesting times.

The short version:  Expect strange effects for the next couple of days.

Long version:  The sensors are going crazy about the section of space we're about to head through.  Electrical, magnetic, gravimetric... everything is going wild.  At best, our instruments are going to a be a bit fuzzy.  At worst, we may experience more serious ship system failures (I think life support is hardened enough to deal, but other systems may have issues) and potentially physical effects.  I have no idea what this much electrical static will do to a human nervous system, (ask the doc for details) but it can't be good.

I think we can get through the worst of it within two days, but at this point there is no feasible way around it without abandoning the mission.  (And even then, no guarantees.  These things are very anomalous - I've never seen anything like these, and I'm not completely convinced that we wouldn't have the same problem even if we reversed course.

Montoli out.

Anther vote for the body.  We don't know enough yet!  Even though this does give any forces of darkness an extra turn to maul someone in the night...

hmm.  Interesting article.

I disagree with it.

But curiously, I think it's more because I disagree with them over what constitutes a "game" than what constitutes a "videogame".  (In my book, "games" are wide enough to encompass any rules-bounded activity.  I get the impression that his idea of games is more restricted to things like board games and sports.)

I don't see how his arguments support his claim though.

For example, the argument that changing a game's assets changes the game:  Sure, that's true.  If you replace all the ninjas with bears and all the enemy soldiers with ... I dunno, bigger bears or something, you now have Bear-Puncher instead of Ninja-Gaiden.  But isn't that true of other games as well?  If you replace parts of them, even non-rules parts, you get a different game.  [american] Football played with a round ball is very different from football played with the weird egg that we use here and pretend is a ball.  The simple game of "catch" changes dramatically if you replace "ball" with "live hedgehog" too.  Most games are as much a function of their assets as they are of their rules.

Also, his argument seems kind of hand-wavey.  It sounds like he is basically just saying that to boil down to "when you run a game, with it's countless rules in code and hardware, the experience is more than the sum of the rules, you couldn't get the experience from just looking at the rules."  And that this somehow makes videogames different from regular games.

But that's true of pretty much any complicated game.  You can't look at just the rules of, say, poker, and understand the full nuance of the game, or the full fun of it.  Or monopoly.  Or Football.  The fun comes from the whole.  But again, there's the hand wavey part.  It basically seems to just be "video games are much more complicated, so they're different!"

Anyway, yeah.  Interesting article, but I disagree with his thesis, and didn't feel he did a very good job of supporting it.  It was sort of "Here is my thesis!  Now here are 6 declarative statements that don't really directly support it.  They are true, therefore so is my thesis!  QED!"

My $0.02 anyway.

-Montoli