41–47 of 47 posts
Really nice. Reminds me of ZZT.
ZZT was brilliant. So simple and abstract visually, but it was programmable! I don't know where I'd be if it wasn't for all the hours spent writing ZZT-OOP.
Awesome! But the secret passages do not appear to be there... :P
This is a fantastic commentary on what makes a game fun. I'm always intrigued by titles that require nearly no art skills. "Thomas Was Alone" kind of surprised me in that way too because it was successful side by side with other titles on Steam while using an art style that was so simplistic almost anyone could have done it.
Just writing off the polish given to the jump physics, the water, the narration, the small touches like dynamic lighting and rain, and everything else as "not art" doesn't sit right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be interested in Jeremy Parish's "Anatomy of a Game" series: http://www.anatomyofgames.com/anatomy-of-a-game/
Interested is too mild a word. This is fantastic, Jeremy Parish is also a legend in the retrogaming community. Retronauts (old and new) is a must listen to podcast.
This is a fantastic commentary on what makes a game fun. I'm always intrigued by titles that require nearly no art skills. "Thomas Was Alone" kind of surprised me in that way too because it was successful side by side with other titles on Steam while using an art style that was so simplistic almost anyone could have done it.
Hmm. I don't think that saying "Thomas Was Alone" required nearly no art skills is fair at all. If your only definition of "art" is static, visual art that comes across in a screenshot, then sure, but that's not all that there is to art, and it's not even the hardest part of a video game. Just writing off the polish given to the jump physics, the water, the narration, the small touches like dynamic lighting and rain,…
Reminds me of the end of REDDER[1]. Strip away the aesthetics of any modern game, and you've got something very similar to this. [1] http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/529992