Wow, whilst I was swanning about and sunning myself on cliffs and ledges this has really blossomed. Excellent work everyone, this is shaping up to be everything I'd hoped it would be.
I've got loads of stuff to respond to, and a bunch of other things to get done, so I might have to batch my feedback a little. I promise I will catch up before toooo long. I also might end up repeating some things that other people have already said, for that I can only apologise.
So, launching into it:
Ahh. I guess I ignored the focus on minimalism; my bad. What I was trying to do with my levels was provide a variety of experiences and goals, rather than just one.
... and that's great when trying to create 'real' levels, but it doesn't do much to illuminate or break down the building blocks of the game.
I also designed my levels with unobvious ways for people to screw themselves up, and wrong choices that they were totally free to make/attempt.
Whilst I don't really wish to aim this comment at anyone, since you inadvertently brought it up. As a general rule of thumb don't try and screw around with the player, you'll only put them off. There are of course many exceptions to this, but the rule of thumb remains important. If in any doubt, play fair!
Simple is fine, simple is the idea. Quite a few of the levels could have been reduced some without losing anything significant. In particular I noticed recurring use of symmetry. Symmetry can be great, but when it just makes a player do the same thing twice it's kinda dull. I find symmetry works best when you subvert it in some way (through player placement, or subtle differences), so that whilst both halves/quarters/whatever *look* the same, they play in a substantially different way.
Otherwise a pretty solid set, the ideas are good if perhaps unspectacular, and the layouts largely clear and concise. Good work!
Grudge match! (though thanks for your crits, they're spot on)
I is boring. Nobody wants to press a button to win. Because the player starts right next to the block and has nowhere to move but towards the block, it makes it appear as though pressing the right arrow causes the person and block to move in tandem with each other, as though they were a single entity. (a lesson which is reinforced over the first move of your second level). I actually think your second level is a better first level, as it teaches the player all the directions they can move, it establishes the block, player, and goal as separate entities, and it is much harder to win by randomly mashing buttons.
I was all riled up and ready to say it's *meant* to be trivial, it's the simplist possible level, but you make a very good point. It should have at least taught the player something about movement. It should have been
this puzzleYou had me convinced that VIII was impossible, so I skipped it. Then I openly wept.
I convinced myself it was impossible twice, once when I made it, and again when I played through them quickly before I put them up. I took this to mean it was a good puzzle.
...I might argue that IX is the exact same as VIII, but lengthier...
You're right, I umm'd and ahh'd about including them both, and somehow convinced myself that the 3 boulder one added something different. It didn't, and I shouldn't have included it.
but the earlier levels didn't engage me as much. I, II, and III could all be condensed into a single level with no ill effect, and level IV-VII all revolve around the same basic principle (the order in which you do things). Individually, the levels are well made, I don't think I found anything that needs to be removed. As a whole, however, your ten levels present about four ideas.
They certainly aren't a great set of levels as far as playability is concerned, and I wouldn't ever release a game with a level set that tedious. The intention was to try and explore the most minimal space as completely as possible. This does mean the set is low on ideas, but it did help me gain a more fundamental understanding on the interaction of the mechanics at the base level, which is the real focus of the exercise.
That is one thing that really stood out to me about this process is that the more one is familiar with the mechanics and possibilities of the game the better chance you'll have on crafting a level intelligently.
This, 1000x over. It is really important to note that whilst it's very possible to come in with familiarity to a game like sokoban, or a conventional platformer etc. there will probably be times we'll have to design levels for games we don't yet fully understand the mechanics of, and aren't even sure they'll be compelling. That is the time to reach for this excercise, to find the smallest chunks of 'playability', and gain an appreciation of what can be done with them. Leap blindly into trying to make big and final levels and one is likely to make much less interesting levels than they're capable of.
Oh yeah..
DAMN I WISH THE GRID WAS 11x11 not 10x10...
drove my OCD mad not being able to center anything. Hehe.
Haha, sorry. I didn't realise this would be a problem.. Surely though centering say, 6x6 in an 11x11 grid is just as hard though?
The first 3 are exellent examples of exactly the sort of deconstruction I was after. Four felt weak, there are far too many possible solutions, and it would be improved greatly by preventing many of them in some way (perhaps fill in some of the gaps in the grid?), it would lead to a much more complicated level though.
In fact, the same weakness is repeated through much of the rest of the set. It's a shame, as there are also some really nice ideas hidden in there too, it's just a struggle to see them. The set would really benefit from some time spent identifying the underlying ideas, and replacing the puzzles with versions that just contain the core idea and eschew the aesthetic concerns.
...
As mentioned before I'll be batching my responses a bit, more will follow later...
Developer
