Less bloated software is always a good idea, I am a bit concerned with the idea that smaller source equals better programs. It seems to me that by sacrificing source size he has lost some readability, his example may be <1K but it's at the cost of increased difficulty debugging, porting and modding. IMHO removing formatting just to reduce source size and or line count is as bad as loading a huge library only to use one of said library's functions.
I’m only making business card sized games now
31–40 of 177 posts
Re: I’m only making business card sized games now
#32It looks like a fun programming project..However, I am getting lost as to the purpose. Why write something so hard to comprehend just to get it into ~< 1K unless the only purpose is to get it small? Why not a larger game that is more fun to play? Why not a larger game that is still tight code, but good to teach game mechanics?
IMO art is all about working within constraints. i think this might be some of the most beautiful (if not maintainable) code out there. No body needs to maintain a picasso, just preservation.
One always has constraints, if only in time/budget/imagination. And those are some pretty boring, vanilla constraints.
Different constraints encourage or force different approaches, which gives you different results. You're not going to have a budgeting meeting over a <1K demo. You're not going to contract out to an artist. You're not going to use a large engine. You're not going to make a doom clone. You're not going to hum and haw over what middleware to use. It limits how much over-engineering you can invent. <1K is a pretty extreme constraint... but it's not that far off from what the demoscene does, and they discover some fascinating techniques and tricks in the process.
Re: I’m only making business card sized games now
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally reject "hours of enjoyment" as a metric for value and depth of a purchased game. It's good to hear that you've had positive experiences, but the dark side is that for many it drifts towards being an addictive time-suck that eats money for nothing in return.
This is particularly true of, say, many mobile games. But conversely, if not hours of enjoyment, then by what metric do we gauge a good game? Perhaps there’s a line here between hours of enjoyment and hours of mindless engagement?
Hours of enjoyment benefits certain types of games versus others.
Return of the Obra Dinn is a pretty short game, I put 13 hours into it by playing quite slowly (and there's a not inconsiderable amount of AFK time in there as well), I doubt I'll touch it again any time soon (because the structure gives it zero replayability value), and I would count it as one of the absolute best games I've ever played. Portal 1 is a 4 or 5 hour game and, again, one of the best ever.
On the other end of the spectrum, games like Minecraft, Oxygen Not Included or Factorio are enormous, all-absorbing time sinks that will consume your every waking hour for months or years on end if you let them.
How do I compare ONI and Obra Dinn and say that either is, in any objective sense, better than the other?
Re: I’m only making business card sized games now
#34> We all know that modern games have become bloated, weighed down by useless features, achievements, anti piracy measures, piles of assets, and other junk. Not only that but developers are constantly taken advantage of, made to crunch for no pay, mass layoffs, etc. Lives have been ruined, and for what? So you could watch your horse poop or play dominoes in an open world game? I am not sure that it's fair to compare a…
>developers are constantly taken advantage of, made to crunch for no pay, mass layoffs, etc. Lives have been ruined, and for what? So you could watch your horse poop or play dominoes in an open world game?
Hard to feel too bad about people working on leisure products.
I'm sure if you swapped out Golf/NASCAR, people here would be less sympathetic.
Re: I’m only making business card sized games now
#35> We all know that modern games have become bloated, weighed down by useless features, achievements, anti piracy measures, piles of assets, and other junk. Not only that but developers are constantly taken advantage of, made to crunch for no pay, mass layoffs, etc. Lives have been ruined, and for what? So you could watch your horse poop or play dominoes in an open world game? I am not sure that it's fair to compare a…
I personally reject "hours of enjoyment" as a metric for value and depth of a purchased game. It's good to hear that you've had positive experiences, but the dark side is that for many it drifts towards being an addictive time-suck that eats money for nothing in return.
amplified by the new model of game design to drive loot box sales above all else, which means fun gameplay is no longer a priority compared to designing systems that encourage users to spend on microtransactions, especially addictive-personality types.
quoting a comment from another thread "it used to be that you felt good because you were having fun. In this new era of micro transactions the games aren’t even fun anymore. There is only frustration, and then you pay to alleviate that frustration. You sometimes find yourself sitting there say, “why am I even doing this?”"
Re: I’m only making business card sized games now
#36That ski game reminds me so much of the Olympic Games Pack that Microsoft sold as an add on to the original games (Solitaire, Minesweeper etc.) that can installed with Windows back in the day.
I must say that those little mini games were some of the most enjoyable ones I've ever played. Useful to burn a few minutes while waiting for compile to finish or a call to be returned. I've never really gone for any really immersive games in my time.
Nowadays, my favourite game to kill a few minutes at a doctor's surgery or something is F-Sim. It doesn't classify as a simple game, but just 2 minutes as a test of skill to shoot a random approach and landing in the Space Shuttle and I am happy.
Re: I’m only making business card sized games now
#37This is a blatant rip-off of my 17-line c64 basic game, Space Caverns, published in 1986 in Run Magazine.
http://www.gamebase64.com/game.php?id=12367&d=24&h=0
:)
Re: I’m only making business card sized games now
#38I remember metrics such as how long can you keep playing it, e.g. people still play Kong or PacMan or WoW, different styles, different depth, but each has its own crowd. Another metric is 'how long does it take to finish' and we know that for games like WoW or Fortnite, it is 'eternity'. I find this more as an interesting notion, get people to appreciate the format and then develop it to something else, but for some reason (most) people have rejected those pixels and are on-board to far larger widths and heights, and in colour. I do not want another WAP when I have 4G though.
I do admire and respect the effort and the skill though!
Re: I’m only making business card sized games now
#39People are taking this awfully seriously for what is pretty clearly a tongue-in-cheek writeup. An article doesn't have to be an April Fools joke to be fun, nobody's obliged to be literal in all they say.
Re: I’m only making business card sized games now
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally reject "hours of enjoyment" as a metric for value and depth of a purchased game. It's good to hear that you've had positive experiences, but the dark side is that for many it drifts towards being an addictive time-suck that eats money for nothing in return.
It must be one heck of a fun title to take someone who would — if not for that dratted game! — be a productive pillar of the community and make her a bump on a log. The far simpler, albeit non-egalitarian, explanation is some people are more productive and others will find ways to waste time.
I agree with you, but I still am highly disturbed by "whale hunting" aka certain entities manipulating those types of people into spending as much money as possible in exchange for being able to withdraw even further from productive society.