PuzzleScript – an open-source HTML5 puzzle game engine

Okay, well maybe I've forgotten the definition of "succinct."

> briefly and clearly expressed

Brief, sure, clearly expressed? Absolutely not. There's more to puzzles than moving things around.

    [ > Player | Crate ] -> [ > Player | > Crate ]

This isn't succinct. This is brief. Puzzles, and games in general do more than move things around. So, if I wanted something to turn into a different item, where's the syntax for it?

There doesn't seem to be any.

The syntax is seems to be for moving things. Okay. What if I want something to slide over multiple tile spaces? Where's the syntax for this?

There doesn't seem to be any.

What if I want the item to progressively become more difficult to move, say for instance if I'm moving a snowball. Where's that syntax?

There doesn't seem to be any.

So, in short, an entire syntax has been developed for one feature: movement. And it doesn't do it well. Why would I use this?

that gave me a bit more trouble than the go one

On the off chance that you have a genuine interest in knowing the answers to your questions, and are not grandstanding, I will answer.

First differentiate between the syntax and the tool. This isn't a tool that supports every possible game. It is designed for creating movement-based puzzle games. Though it can support many others, that is its focus. You can certainly stretch it to do Tetris or Threes, but probably not Mario.

If you are involved in game technology, it is a masterclass in supporting a very large (but still restricted) class of games in a very small tool set.

So, specifics:

> if I wanted something to turn into a different item

    [> Player | Box] -> [Player | Contents]

assuming you open your box by moving into it, or

    [Action Player | Box] -> [Player | Contents]

if you want to press the action button.

> What if I want something to slide over multiple tile spaces

    [ > Player | Crate ] -> [ > Player | > Crate ]
    [ > Crate | no Wall ] -> [ | > Crate ]

The first line says moving into a crate sets the crate in motion. The second line says it keeps going until it hits a wall.

> if I want the item to progressively become more difficult to move

What does it mean to become more difficult, given that moves are atomic actions? (Back to the restricted domain of this tool.) But, for one possible design, we can do:

    [ > Player | LightObject ] -> [ > Player | > LightObject ]
    [ > StrongPlayer | LightObject ] -> [ > StrongPlayer | > LightObject ]
    [ > StrongPlayer | HeavyObject ] -> [ > StrongPlayer | > HeavyObject ]

Regular players can move only light objects, strong players can move either.

The ethos of the system is that to change state, you change object type. This is less restrictive than it sounds, because it is possible to layer objects. But it is still restrictive. And deliberately so.

> it doesn't do it well.

Based on the calibre of people who have used this, including for the rule development and level design for decently successful commercial indie games, it might be worth entertaining the notion that it might just be you. A more constructive and educational alternative might be to try and specify the same sophistication of rules in a more succinct syntax.

Hi leafo, thank you for taking the time to write a response to my comment, I genuinely appreciate it. I received a couple downvotes for my comments and I was a bit down about that, but I think your response is very reasonable.

Like I said, I'm not much of a gamer, but your response makes me want to give your platform a try. I think if you're willing to have an open discussion about something for which the outcome might be unknown, things are going well. I certainly wouldn't make any claim to know what the kinds of barriers and limits we should have might be. And I totally understand that it can be very challenging to manage and weight all factors. Realistically, you might get some stuff right and wrong at times. We're only human, after all.

Having been in the tech industry for a few years, my big piece of advice would be to try and be as open as possible. I always find it incredibly frustrating when companies try to cover things up (not accusing you of doing this in the slightest). I think as long as you communicate openly with the community, everyone sensible will see that and be willing to take the time to dig into things.