next »

[increpare]

Did you try the mac version, or?

Why do I love this game so much? I needs a savegame/code feature.

That's a very odd reason to love a game 

I'm glad you liked it though.  About the savegame feature: do you find it difficult/irritating/pointless to replay through levels you've already solved?  I think I will implement a minimalist/retro-style savegame feature in the next version(I'll have 'save' and 'restore' buttons, together will all of the frustrations that result from getting them mixed up   ).

Also: how far did you get?

[Cymon]

Did you try the mac version, or?

PC version. (Sorry)

I'm glad you liked it though.  About the savegame feature: do you find it difficult/irritating/pointless to replay through levels you've already solved?

Yes and no. It's not that big a deal but I like my games a little more casual. Beating 25 levels requires a commitment of time that a game like this doesn't go with playing a few rounds on your lunch break at work.

I'd like it if there were a main screen where levels you complete were one color, levels you haven't been to are another, and you can jump to whatever level you've completed at the beginning.

Also: how far did you get?

I'm not sure. Maybe tonight I'll sit down and try to finish this game.

[Cymon]

So I cracked open the code to check it out and had a few things:

• You define a bunch of const ints for map generation and then don't use them. It would make your code much prettier.
• You have a ton of global variables each defined each on its own line. That would be fine if you were commenting on the usage of each one, but even then I'd combine many of them to share a definition line with others. Group them somewhat.
• As it's currently set up you can only have one boulder at a time. You're missing out on alot of potental robustness, tho to tell the truth one was more than enough.
• You mentioned pushable objects. That would be great!
• Another cool feature would be the ability to turn rooms 90^o left or right. It would be a departure from the portal of it's roots, but it could add a considerable level of robustness. Also I don't know how you can represent that with the blocky tile set, which I absolutely love.

If you ever re-did the game with a graphical tile set it would end up looking too 1988.

Thanks for providing the code. I think that sort of thing really provokes thought. Then again, I would.

[increpare]

Thanks for your comments guesst.

So I cracked open the code to check it out and had a few things:

• You define a bunch of const ints for map generation and then don't use them. It would make your code much prettier.

Yeah; there was a sort of trade of in my head between writing nice code and getting the game done.  Given it was so small I didn't feel any obligation to make it very sexy code.  Or neat code.

• You have a ton of global variables each defined each on its own line. That would be fine if you were commenting on the usage of each one, but even then I'd combine many of them to share a definition line with others. Group them somewhat.

I don't like declaring variables on different lines.  I find them easier to read through if they're on different lines.  It's a personal preference maybe, but I really feel it quite strongly.

As it's currently set up you can only have one boulder at a time. You're missing out on alot of potental robustness, tho to tell the truth one was more than enough.

Yeah.  I considered making things all nice and object-oriented, but...given that I decided that you would only be in one room at once, and that the room should be small to give the reflections screen-space to show themselves, there wasn't much point in putting the whole OO framework in.  And also the 1-room system meant that I didn't really need two boulders.

• You mentioned pushable objects. That would be great!

I can think of a couple of extra puzzles I'd be able to add in if I enabled pushable objects.  Hmm.  Would increase the complexity of the code; maybe to the extent where it would have been better to do stuff using an OO approach.  I'm not really interested on working on this project at the moment though.

• Another cool feature would be the ability to turn rooms 90^o left or right. It would be a departure from the portal of it's roots, but it could add a considerable level of robustness. Also I don't know how you can represent that with the blocky tile set, which I absolutely love.

tileset?  I don't know to what extent a bunch of hard-coded fillrects constitute a tileset  But I'm glad you like them: I also like them.[/list]

[Cymon]

I can think of a couple of extra puzzles I'd be able to add in if I enabled pushable objects.  Hmm.  Would increase the complexity of the code; maybe to the extent where it would have been better to do stuff using an OO approach.  I'm not really interested on working on this project at the moment though.
[/quote]
Shame, it'd be perfect for Cymon's Games.