Winnie-the-Pooh Flash Game
Dec. 31st, 2006 12:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackYou will remember the flash game? I won't link to it here because I hope to upload version 0.4 shortly, with new levels, more plot and a fiddled interface.
What I like about it is the complexity of the characters. Many games do wonderful things with enemies with very simple rules (eg. Chip's Challenge, Deadly Rooms of Death) which can literally be summed up in one or two clauses. These are a bit more complicated, enough to have some challenging emergent behaviour. Instead of exploring interaction solely on a map, you have to explore abstract state spaces that control them, the idea being even one enemy can be challenging.
Although it should always be fairly logical, simple and graspable, many levels are essentially written around observing, predicting and exploiting just one aspect of behaviour. And others are tweaked to make the overall effect what you'd expect -- eg. if being chased by two enemies, and you go round a corner, and the first follows you, the second will follow him, rather than standing around stupidly. Exploiting that subtlety is far ahead, but it correctly gives you what you'd expect: both continue following you, but they don't just automatically know where you're going.
However, I think I was too niggardly. I like exploring every aspect of interaction of each piece of scenery, but I should have had some more simple interface: a fence, a gate, etc. Then levels could be simpler because you don't need to justify "you can get him but he can't get you" you can just do it, and if you have a fence it's entirely obvious what that means.
Anyway, the point of the post. I never had a name for the game. What should I call it??
What I like about it is the complexity of the characters. Many games do wonderful things with enemies with very simple rules (eg. Chip's Challenge, Deadly Rooms of Death) which can literally be summed up in one or two clauses. These are a bit more complicated, enough to have some challenging emergent behaviour. Instead of exploring interaction solely on a map, you have to explore abstract state spaces that control them, the idea being even one enemy can be challenging.
Although it should always be fairly logical, simple and graspable, many levels are essentially written around observing, predicting and exploiting just one aspect of behaviour. And others are tweaked to make the overall effect what you'd expect -- eg. if being chased by two enemies, and you go round a corner, and the first follows you, the second will follow him, rather than standing around stupidly. Exploiting that subtlety is far ahead, but it correctly gives you what you'd expect: both continue following you, but they don't just automatically know where you're going.
However, I think I was too niggardly. I like exploring every aspect of interaction of each piece of scenery, but I should have had some more simple interface: a fence, a gate, etc. Then levels could be simpler because you don't need to justify "you can get him but he can't get you" you can just do it, and if you have a fence it's entirely obvious what that means.
Anyway, the point of the post. I never had a name for the game. What should I call it??
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 04:28 pm (UTC)Thank you! http://semichrome.net/~jack/games/quartus/ (old version)
I am, but every time I turn a corner I lose a tiny advantage and eventually they catch up. I could test this by having them chase me round and round a square to see if I can improve my direction-changing speed.
Ah, thank you, I understand. The problem being of course there is no such thing as a tiny advantage: you either move smoothly, or lose a fairly big advantage. Practising would help, but it shouldn't have to be necessary, I'm supposed to go and design it so it just works the same way people's instincts do (that's why ipods are good :)).
Actually, may I email you the link to the next version? It's not finished, but I would be curious if you find the controls any easier -- you are good at explaining how they seem to you.
That helps - but I have to move to find out how the objects interact, like sticks and Poohs chasing and which elements block movement.
OK, that makes sense. That's about how it should be, except that the controls shouldn't be fscked, and you shouldn't mind dying :)
I dimly recall there being an item surrounded by hedges - I don't know how I could get to that item, or if it is there for decoration or to frustrate you when you really want one of those things but can't get it!
Yes :) Don't tell anyone. That is, working out which is part of the exploring. But it's probably a lot more frustrating than it should be if the controls don't work right.