Such comments are really invaluable. It teaches me that some things which exists only in a developer's mind could not be that obvious in reality. Especially the post-mortem thing - a player really wants to see what led to death
This makes sense, there is no information about the fact the move costs bonuses.
Probably, I need to rethink the bonus mechanics. For example, increase score with each opened cell and decrease with each move + a small tooltip + undo option...
Thank toy for playing! You are the second player for the last 2 days who says the contrast is too low. I'm thinking about it right now, something should be done there... Regarding the tooltips with with what piece sees - right, and this is even more complex issue. I need to think of how to do these things obvious and to don't clutter UI too much in the same time.
It might I'm speculating here, but I see your question as a question from a game developer who want's to create a mechanics which would hold a player in the game.
In my opinion, there is not enough that "tamagotchi" effect yet, as the "investment" is quite small - just continue clicking.
I definitely can see an interesting survival game with such simple mechanics though, especially with this philosophical/existential theme about dark vs light.
Ahh, I see. The reason is that I uploaded the build with multithreading support, which should improve performance in theory. In practice, though, it seems to cause these errors from time to time.
Thanks for finding this!
I've uploaded the regular build now, so it should work.
I actually spent a couple of minutes with the game. Being able to see how much force I was about to apply gave me this feeling of "I’m in control, I can try again," a bit like those claw machines in shopping centres.
I think I stopped because there wasn’t much sense of visible progress, like "something new is happening" as I keep playing.
Played it and liked the music. It definitely delivers that 80s game feeling and a nice sense of nostalgia.
The game felt somewhat too easy, though. Once I realized I could safely deal with the monsters because my health regenerates, most of the tension disappeared. I didn't really get that roguelike suspense where you have to think carefully about your next move or whether you can afford to fight the next monster. It never quite felt like a survival challenge.
Thanks for playing, and for running the solver - nobody had checked that from outside.
The "pieces one at a time" was my page, not the game: several kinds stand on the first board. Rewritten, along with two lines about flags that were out of date.
And you're the third player to guess the right click wrong, so that one is on me.
Despite how simple the prototype is, it made me imagine a platformer where you can actually see and tweak the parameters for jumps, attacks, shooting, etc. It could add another layer of control.
It also reminded me, in a good way, of an ancient game I played on a programmable calculator sometime in the '90s. You entered the amount of fuel and the engine thrust vector, then pressed "run" to calculate the rocket's next position during landing.
Minesweeper, but the clues are chess pieces. Each piece shows how many mines it can see, and it sees the squares it could move to. You can also move a piece to count from a better square.
Every board is built and checked by a solver, so no board needs a guess. If you ever feel forced to guess, that is a bug and I want to hear about it.
What I want is narrow: the video has no text in it on purpose. Did the rule land before you read this post, or did you need the words? Four players in a row told me they could not tell what they were looking at to begin with, and that is the thing I am trying to fix.
Smaller second question: where did you first not know what to do?
