Um, so, I gave up on my game a few days ago. It turns out that Unity is hard. But there's 4 whole days left. I could pivot. Here's what I got before Unity got to me:
I call it: Dinko elinkium!Roboticy3
Creator of
Recent community posts
I thought it was funny to just call things out that were obviously not lies enough that I did that a few times before playing it through. When I went through the last time I felt like a time-travelling super-detective that could sense the suspect's fear from a mile away because I would just call the right things while on fast-forward that I remembered from the earlier runs. Emergent gameplay at its best.
The audio and visuals come together very well, too. nice game!
Originally, the puzzles were more rigid. But I'm not a very good programmer, and more importantly I've never designed puzzles before. The result is puzzles that are not good. Here's what's going on, to satisfy your curiosity:
- The goal in level 1 is to pick up a stone. I didn't communicate this properly. If you type next before completing the level, it will tell you what you need to do. The messages are timing based. Afterall, the researchers need time to type them! The result is less than well communicated.
- Level 2 was pre-emtively cut due to cowardice! I had another idea for what to do with the arms, one fitting of the great mind of Franz Bagel, but it would have required a lot of extra implementation, and it also seemed in character for him to forget about something as routine as a hiring exercise. He and B.S. are based on two archetypes of compsci professors I've met during my major. And explorative-creative but sort of detached-wistful type and a micromanager-paranoid practical type respectively.
- Level 3 does not have the goal of holding Tibbles. It has the goal of moving him inside. Once he is inside, you're free to go.
The sensors are wrong because the way objects are displayed and searched for is only partially systems-based. A lot of it is actually just manual terminal messages I wrote, which is why the colors or names are sometimes off.
Thank you so much for the in-depth analysis. I also like how the tone turned out. I'm learning about some early programming concepts in school right now and I'm subscribing to the idea that, by modern sensibilities, these dawn-of-computing programs would come off as buggy and opaque. It's a slightly simplistic view but I'm sure players will sympathize with it.
The typing is very fun and the UI is good. I subscribe to the idea that the bug with the key-holding is an intentional expression of player choice because I found myself moving to the current key only if it would be easier to type with than my current held key. Everything clicked after I felt the raw power of being assigned P.
fun :) I've always wanted to play Kings Fields but have never wanted to put up with the old controls, and this game manages that feeling fairly well with mouse look. The ps1 dithering and the camera bobbing add a very textured breathing feeling that ended up making for cool breather moments after combat.
There's a visual bug where the crossbow "drops" its bolt sometimes but super clean gameplay-wise
Regardless of the character I play, this almost always happens. I like all of the main three, and it seemed just a couple days ago that the turn-based nature of the game was making it less toxic than other fighting games. But all of the characters have moves that often make the other person just say "fuck this" like opening with lightning strike or extending your combo with quick slash. I always stick around just because I want to see what crazy thing will happen next, and I thought that was the main draw of the game, but apparently not. I'd rather just play the game with friends now if everybody else will quit out over a 3 hit combo, and I'm ok with that being the scope of the game's multiplayer since its so experimental.
At least the game doesn't punish you for disconnecting other than mocking you in front of the other player, I much prefer that to games that ban you for having bad internet.