next »

[tembac]

I liked the "Puzzles" in this game but I though puzzle number 10 is a little unfair. I solved it and it wasn´t to hard but I don´t know if I solved it the rigth way because it felt almost like guessing to me.

I was overwhelmed by the new concepts on that level at first.

On level 9 I had the same problem as Almost. I didn´t knew they where answers for each of the questions.

the narrative was interesting and it was one of the main reason why I strugled to complete the game.

[bigbossSNK]

I didn't read the plot thoroughly.
IF I had bothered to read the plot thoroughly, THEN the references to Australian AG would have broken the story's immersion.

Level 10's solution doesn't make logical sense.
IF you intended for level 10's solution to not make sense, THEN good for you.

Offering the game as a download is an unnecessarily strict barrier to entry.
If you want to expand your appeal (to any web capable device), THEN code the game in Javascript.

[Ben Kuhn]

Overall, I enjoyed the game. I wish that there were some longer puzzles. All of these were really easy; I finished in about 10 minutes. Then again, I'm not really sure that propositional logic scales very much - it's so simple by design.

Also, I hope that you can figure out some way to render the Prop Calc notation in level 10 with Unicode glyphs instead of bitmaps. It's kind of ugly.

Speaking of Level 10, I'm not sure about using that notation at all. It seems like you're resorting to "fake difficulty" with the legend and the pointless translation exercise it requires. Consider using "and, or, not, if, then, therefore, implies" as normal?

Clicking "continue" after completing every puzzle was annoying and felt unnecessary. Why not just blink "//answer true//" a couple times and move on?

While on the subject, "true" seems to be the wrong word for it - I'm winning because my argument is valid, not because my conclusion is true.

Also, yeah, I think Javascript is a medium naturally suited to the style you're going for. Then again, you probably don't want to rewrite it.

The style of the dropdown menus kind of clashed with the clean aesthetic of the rest of the game. In fact, using them to develop proofs at all seemed kind of clunky. I found myself wishing for a more free-form way to develop proofs. I think there are some theorem-verifiers floating around in academia - maybe look to them for ideas?

I thought the music was a little weird somehow as well, though I wouldn't swear on it.

And, uh, the story was pretty cliched, which is not a good thing in such a text-heavy game. That's probably not something you can change much at this stage, but probably worth mentioning.

Actually, this felt more like a minigame to me than a full game. I guess you just can't go very far with Prop Calc on its own. If you were doing it over again, I'd suggest that you clean up the interface, add more formal systems than just Prop Calc, make it longer and harder, and make the story more interesting. But the core concept was pretty cool.

[tjubert]

Thanks for your feedback guys - and keep 'em coming!

I'll take a look at #9 and see if I can make things clearer.

As for #10, I was interested in finding a way to make it clear how mathematical argument is (or at least should be). To emphasise that rationality, right and wrong, aren't subjective, aren't things you solve by shouting. The formulae, I think, help make that clear to players unversed in sentence logic. The puzzle is logically sound, but I know that it throws some players off.

I'm really pleased *most* players are enjoying the writing. As a player, I'd be somewhat put off by a large volume of text, so it's great people are finding it to be motivational.

Finally, I'd love to have programmed this in Java or Flash, believe me, but sadly my programming ability was pretty much stretched to the max using the software I did. I think there's a lot of places the game structure could be taken - even propositional calculus can be shifted into more complex puzzles - but, as Ben points out, this is more a proof of cencept than a whole game. I'd love to develop it further!

[PGGB]

It got picked up by RPS!

[bigbossSNK]

Kudos on the Rock Paper Shotgun mention.
Still, fix level 10.

[BlandFord]

I know this is more of a feedback thread, but I'm absolutely stuck on level 9 for quite a while.
Anyone willing to help me before I curl up and cry again?

[tjubert]

Thanks guys, chuffed at allt he new traffic, though my inbox has exploded overnight!

***********SPOILERS*************
***********SPOILERS*************
***********SPOILERS*************
***********SPOILERS*************
***********SPOILERS*************
***********SPOILERS*************
***********SPOILERS*************
***********SPOILERS*************
***********SPOILERS*************

Usually if people get stuck on #9 it's because they skip a step in the final drop down box. It's a very simple and obvious statement which I guess seems too trivial to include for many people.

Essentially, the contents of the final drop down should eb the same as the final line of the whole argument.
 

***********SPOILERS OVER*************

[Pencerkoff]

Hello this is Pencerkoff

Still, fix level 10.

I think the choice of symbols makes that part confusing.  Don't use the greek alphabet, there aren't greeks around anymore for a reason.

-PENCERKOFF

[bigbossSNK]

Nah, the symbols are clear.
Just that level 10's answer is il/logical.

[Ben Kuhn]

What do you mean by "illogical"? If you mean that it is an invalid progression from givens to a conclusion using the axioms of propositional logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic), I beg to differ. It's actually provably correct.

Of course, if you mean that it becomes completely nonsensical by stripping away any context from the underlying formal system, then I completely agree with you. In fact, I think that's the point.

[bigbossSNK]

I said illogical, because it is illogical.
For it to be logical, one of the statements would have to be changed to IF AND ONLY IF.
(I'll let you figure out which when you try to prove it)

[Hideous]

I got stuck on puzzle 9. I'm pretty sure I was right, it just didn't seem to like the order. Stupid puzzle.

[tjubert]

A lot of people seem to get stuck on that one, though I think more often than not it's because the correct answer seems a bit odd.

It's also possible that I've missed dedecting a potentially correct statement combination. If you feel like you've got a correct answer that's not recognised please do post it here and I'll check things over.

Puzzles 6 and 10 are now corrected with IFF formulations :-)

[tjubert]

I've just been made aware of a possible fix for the drop-down positioning bug. If anyone who's experienced this problem is able to test it out for me I'd really appreciate it.

Simply download and install this microsoft package: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=048DC840-14E1-467D-8DCA-19D2A8FD7485&displaylang=en

This may update your system fonts, and correct the problem. Please do post your results back here!