next »

[0rel]

Gainsworthy:

true. i'm for simplicity too...
(lumines / or this, i've never played it but that looks simply horrible to me. might be only a userdefined skin, i don't know)

no, especally puzzles based on stripped down gameplay mechanics need to look and feel simple for me. most of all games have some puzzly aspects in their gameplay, but puzzles as pure forms of this simply have to be visually clean. i think, i will leave it like it is now, unless there can be found some bugs...

HOW GET THAT HIGH SCORE?
well, yeah... it is possible. 10'000 can be made with some big filled loops,
but 28397 is - simply put - crazy ;)

here, some pseudocode...

Code:

SCORE_LOOP = 30;
SCORE_CELL = 3;
scoreBase = Count( colorLoop ) * SCORE_CELL;
scoreBonus = Count( colorOther ) * SCORE_CELL;
m_uiScore += SCORE_LOOP + m_scoreBase + scoreBase * scoreBonus;

[MekanikDestructiwKommando]

Would you kindly explain the idea of enclosed loops for more points? I've only seen 24, 26 and 32 points scored

[0rel]

sure, i've made some screenshots, it's easier that way:

a) small loop

the loop color is green. there are 13 loop cells.
the other color is orange. there are 2 enclosed cells.
the score is calculated like that:
- 30 points for the loop by default
- 13 loop cells: 13 * 3 = 39 points
scoreBase = 30 + 39 = 69
- 2 enclosed cells: 2 * 3 = 6 points
total: scoreBase + 6 * 39 = 303 points

like you can see, 'bonus' is the wrong word actually... it's the main source of score to enclose othere cells.
maybe i should decrease is it again?
suggestion: scoreBonus = <number of enclosed cells>, no multiplier 3 here,
result: 69 + 2 * 39 = 147

b) a big loop

like you can see, the empty cells get filled up before the they disappear so that they give points too.
the calcs goes like that:

- 30 points by default
- 32 loop-cells: 32 * 3 = 96 points
scoreBase = 30 + 96 = 126
- 9 enclosed cells: ( 9 * 3 ) = 27 points
total: scoreBase + 27 * 96 = 2718 points

(with the mentioned change from above the result would be: 126 + 9 * 96 = 990, fair?)

the numbers in the popup are a bit confusing, like i had to realize,
i've updated the final version, so that only the number of destroyed cells appear there:
"126 + 27" becomes "32 + 9"
haha, such confusing basic math

any suggestions too make the scoring better or the instructions more understandable?
maybe i should increse the default-points-per-loops during the game, because it isn't that easy to make big loops at the end.
any hints and ideas appreciated! i see it more and more as "our game" than "my game", which isn't a bad thing...

probably an animation in the manual would help a lot.
my english isn't that good, so the text could be misenterpreted... if someone would post better small manual text i would update it...

[jph wacheski]

Well that is a sweet little game you got there!  is original enough to not be dismised as a simple Tetris rip,. but recognizable in how it workes,. there is fine line betwen the familiar and the new. some of each helps,. IMHO.

I do like your glitchy tune,.  it does have a nice happyness to its insainity,. I am a big fan of the realtime synth method,. and your generation creates interesting phrases,. what type of math you use to generate notes?   .,or do you have any good pointers to such info.s I am currently researching such things.

One thing I think your game could benefit from, is a very lightly drawn in grid, not lines, but half-sized squares just a few degrees off from the backbround that would lead the eye to the 45 degree rows and collums,. you get my meaning?  I can make a mock-up if needed.  but for me anyway I have a bit of difficulty seeing that I am in the row I think I am,. esp. when the thing gets moving quickly,. I think it would add a simple visual referance and could be optional. 

nicely done good sir.

[mechturk]

Although recently I've been furiously playing your game trying to get a handle on Tim W, I finally managed to pull myself away the game for long enough to post about it instead. 

Scoring

• I think the scoring is awesome as it stands.  To me, the game is fun largely due to the challenge of beating your own and other players high scores.  The current system encourages the creation of big loops as the main way of obtaining a high-score, which felt right to me when I played it.  The creation of really big loops with lots of enclosed cells is pretty difficult and requires very precise timing, so it only makes sense that you are rewarded well for them.
  
  
• I'm torn about whether or not you should increase the points scored for making loops later in the game.  On the one hand, making big loops towards the end is much more difficult and thus should be rewarded more.  On the other hand, having loops score the same throughout the game encourages more accurate play in the early game, which keeps things interesting even when the pieces are moving relatively slowly.  On balance, I like the way things stand now.
  
  
• Similarly, I've thought that it might be better to link the speed of the pieces with the current number of points.  It feels time based at the moment, but correct me if I'm wrong.  This would make it easier to judge how you were doing across games.  e.g. 10,000 on an empty board would be equivalent to 10,000 on another empty board.  Yet the current system rewards accuracy at every stage of the game.  You need to score extremely well at the start because as the speed increases, it becomes harder and harder to score well.
  
  
• This makes the placement of every single piece played throughout the  duration of the entire game very important.  While at times this can make the game feel very unforgiving, it also provides a tension, a need for perfection and dare I say adrenaline buzz that lasts throughout the game.  ZICZAC is one of the most technically demanding puzzlers I've played in a long time and one of the things that makes it so fun is that the real action starts from the the very first second of play.
  
  

In other words, the current scoring is awesomesauce.  Please don't change? 

Manual/Instructions

• The instructions you posted above are great.  The screenshots pretty self-explanatory really, and the scoring implications of everything are explained well in the text.  An animation in the manual would be better, and best would be an arcade-style demo.
  
  
• Speaking of demos, the ability to record replays of a game that then could be shared with other players would be very awesome.  If you decide to take the game further after the competition, then this is one way you could go.
  
  

This game definitely gets my vote.  It's my absolute favorite.   

[MekanikDestructiwKommando]

Thanks! I'll try out those loops.
I agree, I like the scoring remains the same.. you have to maximize your points

[zradick]

I love the art style and of course the title is great. 
The controls were tough to get used to, especially at first.  Once I got the hang of it a bit I still had trouble lining things up, but I guess it just takes some practice.  I like the non-standard window size, adds some flavor.
Cheers,
--Zack

[moi]

Nice new mechanism, very fresh and interesting. I liked the loops (although I was disappointed when I made an "8" and it wasn't counted).
I noticed a couple of annoyance, for example When the piece starts to fall you can't know which direction it will be going and if the upper board is full it makes it too difficult.
Also if for any reason you leave one single square in the upper part of the board it becomes way too dangerous.
Overall the game becomes too difficult when the pieces are piled high. Making comebacks almost impossible.
Overall very nice game, although the PG aspect isn't really its strong point.

[Sar]

I'd concur with most of the feedback so far, really; stylish, a fun puzzler. I didn't have any trouble working out how the game played and how to make loops, but... well, it didn't behave exactly the way I was expecting. It's possibly a tetris holdover, but I was expecting the loops to be checked once the currently-moving section had finished moving, rather than during the progress... several times I'd lose a chunk of it as I brushed a bit too close to an existing section and got a "Yay! 2x2 'loop'!" score. :/

I'm just curious what the motivation was behind that particular design decision. It's quite nice to be able to keep steering the remaining sections after a loop as been made, it's not really a complaint as such, just wondering.

[0rel]

hey hey, great feedback guys! you're of big help...

yesterday evening i've just wanted to add this fine grid lines again, looked never so good before, but i gave it a try. after a while trying around, it catched me again... so i worked out some other things as well. now, the play area looks a bit more polished, and the gameplay is different too, hopefully better.

i know, it's not fair compowise to change major things at this point.. but i know my lazy side too well. half or less finished code projects will ever be completed, at least in my experience... it's too hard to get into them after a while. but, since this is my first real game, i'm still motivated to bring this further, and cause of the simple nature of the game, it's fairly easy to try many things out.

-> therefore this new versions simply will not count for the compo, i leave the "finial version" like it is... and its highscore table remains sperated.

(btw: this compo is soo great! but not because upcoming voting thing, no, just because so many good things have been accomplished! the voting isn't so important imo, i don't wanna catch your attention by doing this or something, is only because i just want to make a/this/other games atm ))

ok, what has changed so far:
- a visible grid to make alignment easier (thanks jph)
- a simple arrow to point out the direction of the blocks before a new round begins (thanks moi)
- markers to show the number of cells of the next block
- chickymick block shading
- fairplay: slowdown by scoring

download:

ziczac_test0


big loops make the game slower again. it's rather rewarding and relaxing when a big loop lights up, compared to the unreasonable stress of the other version. but i don't know if the balance is right yet. the game increases its speed rather quickly. and, the small hits have almost no weight, no remarkable effect on the speed. -> it's not definitive at all...

todo:
- ultimate balance
- hard-normal-easy mode?
- spastik-danger-turnoff (may not be too healthy to play this at highspeed, so don't take it too serious! this is meant to be "mind-clearing" fun, concentrating, a positive game, not a brain killer...)
- different music
- ...

further replys tomorrow...

[0rel]

jph:
the "music" is based on a logistic map, or logistic equation. such a wonderful small formula. i feed it with different coefficients and calculate the notes step by step. if the result exceeds the valid range of floating point numbers, the coefficient is increased a little, and a new slightly different sequence will be generated... after that, the resulting values are then scaled up, ranged and mapped onto a pentatonic scale to get the final frequencies.
it's a very interesting field, but i'm far from expert in either music nor math or even dsp, just browsed the web for while... still learning and experimenting.
some useful stuff to learn from:

http://www.musicdsp.org/
http://www.flexatone.net/algoNet//
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/stk/
http://www.essl.at/publications.html
http://puredata.info/
http://www.audiosynth.com/
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/

i still believe there can be new ways to apply the realtime synth method onto games. games which are more similar to instruments, expressive softwarepieces (...). after ziczac. i'll start some new prototypes probably...

farbs:

it's like Tetris and Tron made babies!

yeah :D, exactly! perfect match
actually, at first i wanted to make it 3d, similar to tron or to the great tron-like game of nenad, 16x16's: counterclockwise. you would have had to fly around and make loops by leaving trails of different colors. loops = points.. knots, enclosed regions... but i dropped that concept and tried something similar first in 2d. and so the tetris analogy came in...


mechturk:
thank you really much for extensive testing and playing!
what you say shows that the base mechanics work like they are at the moment... good to hear. i still think it needs some improvments, esp. the scoring. what do you think about the new way of slowing down the game again? too boring? would have been a higher score-factor in the late phase more thrilling? it's quite sure, that it was more precicly comparable before. thus more competitive... but i think it's not fair to punish the player that much. to increase the speed independently of his success... it's like a bad job: you're doing well and trying to do your best, but the boss always wants more and more, independent of your doing.

Similarly, I've thought that it might be better to link the speed of the pieces with the current number of points.  It feels time based at the moment, but correct me if I'm wrong.

what did you mean excalty there? in the final version, the score is completely independent of speed or time...

An animation in the manual would be better, and best would be an arcade-style demo.

yes, i'll try to add something like that.

Speaking of demos, the ability to record replays

oh yes, that could be the key! i've actually already had these animations on the manual screen, but it wasn't easy to add a good explaining example... some kind of recorder would probably help here.
but for the other purpose, to share the plays on the net, it might go a bit too far, since it's not an action game where the replays can act like a movie.
but yes, as a player it could be enjoyable to see the sessions of the top scorers... replays like visual music pieces, a good one could be enjoyed on its abstract level maybe. all games entering the highscore could be submitted and downloaded as a "evolutionary showcase". still a bit odd, a puzzle with replay function, but thanks for that hint!
   

moi:
good points...

Making comebacks almost impossible.

that's crucial, really.
i've tried to fix that. you can now play more consciously: be risky and make big hits, or more patient and slow... danger is now part of your strategy.
(btw, i'm a curious how you could make an "8". after some tries to make one i realized that it will not be possible... either the upper or the lower "subloop" will emerge first)


Sar:
frankly spoken: i do not know :). wasn't really a concious design decision...
like it is now, one of the challanges is always to find a valid path to place the new blocks. small hits like 2x2 loops are mostly negative, altough they can be used too clean up the area from time to time, they mostly hinder you to move somewhere. so, loops - like all things - have always two sides too. it's not always desirable to make one. it can be considered as a negative event... i liked that somehow.
but hey, i'll simply try it out in the tetris way. scan only on stop... shounldn't be to difficult to make it work that way. could be more intuitive...

[Tommunism]

The new update is great. Excellent work, I'm officially a fan.

[Jasper Byrne]

Hi Orel,

Your game is beautiful in its simplicity.  Just like Tetris itself.  Like others have said, the aesthetic is lovely and the gameplay is just different enough from the Russian wundergame to make it an original and unique experience.

I have no criticisms at all.  In fact I'd urge you to try and sell it, as it would be a perfect mobile phone game (although I'm sure you didn't make it with money in mind.)  I also love the idea of PG music - and you've done it well.

Great work man. 

[skaldicpoet9]

Very nice, very nice indeed.

Great aesthetic, even more so in the latest build. The music is very appropriate and gives it that quirky puzzler feel (Bust-a-Move comes to mind). The gameplay is simple yet complex and requires a good deal of strategy, concentration and reflex; I love moving the shapes about, they feel like I am herding enormous snakes into a pen lol.

You should definitely keep working on this past the compo though. I would love to see new challenges, levels and customizable skins. If you do work on it further please don't get rid of the minimalist design, I think it works really well for this game.

Oh and Orel...don't give up on Arcade games altogether, it seems like you have a real knack for these kinds of games

[Bezzy]

I definitely like this idea a lot, and the surrounding mechanic really adds to it.

I think my only tiny bit of feedback may be on the input windows.. it'd be nice to sorta "queue" your next move within the "step" time.

So I can maybe just tap right, rather than hold it while the next step occurs (though i could be wrong about that happening). And if that's possible, it'd be nice to see a "ghost" block of where the line is about to go, based on your current/previous input.