Please read my posts more carefully... I've already answered most of these questions! Maybe I came across as
too critical, but I didn't mean to. I was simply responding to what you said, trying to clarify my thoughts. It seems like you're pissed at me now.
... Hmm... Indeed, this is a game about high scoring. So, how high of a score did you get with the boring 1-tile clears before you quit? 300? ...
That's about right, maybe less. As I said originally, I got bored of this. I've never been one to obsess
that much over a high score.
... That's what I meant by "intelligent" play. Thinking about how to get a high score now, not thinking about how to get 1 point at a time forever. Like, "What can these mechanics do for me?" not "How can I break this game?" ...
First, as I said, I wasn't
trying to break the game, I was just trying to do well at it. And since when was lesser short-term success in lieu of greater long-term success more intelligent? It's a puzzle game, my brain went into "solve" mode.
... So, BMcC, without seeing it through, did you simply surmise that you could simply play forever this way to get an infinite score? ...
Mm hm, that's what I said. I was asking around to see if it was true, 'cause I could hardly believe it.
...
I wouldn't trust those reviewers pouring out the praise, especially if they were playing a broken game.
When I said "trustworthy game designers", I wasn't talking about public reviews. I was talking about my personal, inner circle. ...
When I said "reviewers" I meant "public reviews."
... Except on TIGS... here the running comment is, "Sucks, AND it's broken!" ...
I think you're blowing things out of proportion here. I thought it seemed
good, but was turned off 'cause it was (or, at least I
thought it was) broken. No one's saying it sucks, in fact there are numerous positive comments.
... So, suppose you have a core puzzle idea that is very good, but you have to build a non-broken game with it. Like, something that can't be played forever, first of all. Then you have to assign scores to it... in some way that is balanced so that there isn't one play style that dominates. These systems with lots of inherent emergence are particularly tricky to leash down properly... ESPECIALLY if people can copy each other's games by watching replays on the leaderboard. ...
Yes, absolutely! I said as much earlier, and it's good to see you've got the dedication to hammer it out.
... You're so focused on the endgame flaw that you haven't played the fore-game!
Like... BMcC... I don't see you on the v3 leaderboards.... ...
Well, I don't think I
had version 3.
(Not that I've ever been good about making it onto leaderboards anyway.)
... And BMcC... regarding the App Store description. This *is* the puzzle game to end all puzzle games.
...
Haha, okay, well I'm glad
that's settled!
.. Seriously, though, I'm 100% confident in the deep interest inherent in the core mechanic, if only I can get the metagame stuff tuned properly for a good play-arc and balanced scoring, etc. That may take a few more iterations, or it may be impossible.
But you at least have to admit that it's not derivative. ...
You don't have to defend the game's concept! And I don't have to "admit" anything, 'cause I haven't been begrudgingly withholding praise, or whatever you're implying. (Sorry, maybe that was directed at someone else...) I agree that it's a solid concept, but, going back to the description, I was made to expect the second coming, not something you're still iterating upon! If I had seen a simple note or something saying you're still refining it, I would've messaged with, "I think there's an exploit here" and that would be that. But it appeared to be
done, which is why it was noteworthy.
... But really, the idea of posting a public news story about a discovered exploit... is just a strange mentality. Like, "Hey, that's news, buddy!"
I mean, some very nice people have submitted bug reports to me about Primrose... about other issues (like, actual programming bugs), but they're not running out to post "ROHRER RELEASES BUGGY SOFTWARE" stories on their blogs. Of course I write buggy software. And no one has emailed me about the "exploit" or any other issues relating to the design (except to tell me how brilliant and beautiful the design is, etc.).
BMcC, you facebooked me about it, but it was more to get my input (like... a savory quote?) before you wrote your TIGS expose story. ...
Hey, this is quite a stretch! I was
not planning on writing an expose, I was covering the game like I would any other. I messaged you because I was surprised and wanted to bring this to your attention. I wanted to know if you were aware of it, if you were planning on updating the game, etc. I certainly wasn't looking for a "savory quote." That's pretty insulting.
If you really think I was jumping at a chance to embarrass you, why did I ask around first, why did I message you, and why didn't I just make some explosive post last night, before seeing your response? That doesn't make sense.
(EDIT: Corpus said basically the same thing right as I was about to post.)And if it's true that I'm the only one to email you with an issue with the game's design, I think that's to my credit.
... BMcC, by the time you "discovered" this flaw, the fix had already been released (it was posted on Feb 25). ...
What, I didn't discover it now?
And I think I had the previous version, actually.
... Anyway, I'm just pointing out that there is a kind of "troll-ish" atmosphere on here, especially compared to the rest of my online communications. There's more to being nice than saying, "Hey, we're all nice here!" I'm not asking for ass-kissing or anything, just civility. ...
What? This is
hardly trolling, and certainly civil! It's critical, sure, perhaps over-critical. But this is a board of game developers, I don't know what else you'd expect!
Player
