Dang it I missed the deadline by a mile. Too much school stuff and took too long to come up with a good idea.
Oh well, I'll still finish the game and post it.
Oh well, I'll still finish the game and post it.
Hey, @FrostyCat, I played your game and it's pretty good, for the kind of game it is. Just a few suggestions (which I wrote in my review but havent posted yet): make it so the player can "unselect" a selection s/he made by clicking that selection again. I found myself confused with the boxes on the screen when I decided against the selection and wanted to see the layout of the game board without a selection made. (Hope that makes sense.) Also, the wait time between the end of the computer's turn and the beginning of the player's turn seemed too long. I found myself slightly annoyed having to wait to click when it was clearly my turn.I found a crash in my entry as well, and it finally cropped up today. Looks like this is what I get for only having a few rounds of time for testing --- something that has just under 5% chance of happening might not get the chance to show up. Here's the fixed version plus other fixes: Link
Given how many of us seem to have regrets about submitting truncated entries, I'll follow suit and release a remastered version later this week. Hopefully I wouldn't get carried away playing with it instead of working on it. The game is strangely addictive, and it might just get even more so the more I add to it.
I updated my reviews / votes to include yours: https://forum.yoyogames.com/index.php?threads/gmc-jam-31-xxxi-voting.56074/#post-340329
Out of simple sportsmanship, I would prefer that this NOT be done as part of voting. Though few in number this time around, competitors who submitted valid, bug-free uploads on their first shot should be rewarded for their diligence and proper execution, and "zip patching" degrades that.Seems that I'll need to bring forth the old hidden technique last used ten Jams ago, which is ZIP patching. And by "ZIP patching" I mean not only providing files, but also updating the Jam Player data while keeping the existing reviews/rankings intact. I'll prepare the appropriate patch pack tomorrow, once I'm back at my main PC... u_u'
(seriously, though, there has been awfully many invalid uploads and just slightly bugged games this Jam, especially compared to the number of entries overall...)
I agree completely. It's not like bugged entries are some unlucky anomaly. They are a result of people uploading their entries before doing any testing of their .exe. Some (but not all) of the bugs in these entries would've been discovered pre-upload by a single run-through.Out of simple sportsmanship, I would prefer that this NOT be done as part of voting. Though few in number this time around, competitors who submitted valid, bug-free uploads on their first shot should be rewarded for their diligence and proper execution, and "zip patching" degrades that.
I also agree... If people get the chance to repair their bugs after uplading, than I would like to have a chance to add features and tweaks which where not possible because of time I wasted on getting rid of bugs. This completely makes no sense and kills the competitive feel of the jam.I agree completely. It's not like bugged entries are some unlucky anomaly. They are a result of people uploading their entries before doing any testing of their .exe. Some (but not all) of the bugs in these entries would've been discovered pre-upload by a single run-through.
It is not a question of polishing entries, nor is it about fixing several issues in a game. On top of that, the 10-day jam argument was so that more people could find a weekend's worth of dev time, meaning that many did not get more time to polish the game. Further more, many of the bugs reported to be in need of fixing are to more or less revert last second quick fixes that broke the game. We're talking everything between seconds to a few minutes to fix them. From this I conclude that it's not mostly a matter of knowing how to make a game well, but rather about stupid mistakes that made it into the final build of the game.Tbh... I wouldnt count on forgiving games with errors and bad bugs if a jam is actually 10 days long. Everyone had that sufficent time to fix and polish their entries. Mostly its a matter of knowing how to make a game well and fulfill making it before the deadline. Now 3 day jams would be exceptionally fine because its much reasonable that within given 3 days isnt enough to fix several issues in a game.
Fair enough man, if people are okay with me being allowed in since I made a dumb mistake and worked hard on it then great but if they feel like it's not fair, it's fine@FrostyCat @Ralucipe @Smiechu
Building up on what @Cloaked Games said about playing fixed versions:
After patching, the Jam Player specifically tells people that the game has a post-Jam version, and asks whether you would like to play the post-Jam one or pre-Jam one, along with the explanation what got changed. So if you want to play the pre-Jam version or take out some ratings from the post-Jam one, Jam player gives enough indication to easily tell original entries from post-Jam entries apart.
The exception would be @Micnasr entry that was uploaded, but there were no permissions to view the site; it's a pre-Jam version that has been essentially locked away. It would be pretty cold to disqualify someone from a Jam based on a sneaky mistake like that (it's not like simple download testing would reveal that mistake, because one would download the game as themself and thus not notice problems with permissions). Besides, it probably already has an impact on the rating that the game would be given. ^^'
I assume that sufficiently many reviewers will probably either remove some points/rank down post-Jam games or base their rating solely on pre-Jam version (alternatively, those who already ranked all games will keep their ratings like that). If so, even with patching the game would be in significantly worse position compared to if it had been made properly right from the beginning - so it's not like sloppy programming and lack of proper tests goes completely unpunished - while at the same time it doesn't completely destroy their efforts when a large chunk of the work put in the game gets locked away and wasted because of a mistake or bug that could be fixed in 5 minutes. (well, I guess a matter of trust is also involed)
Oh, and also, I specifically refer to post-Jam version that fix these little mistakes that result in unproportionally bad consequences (unproportionally to time needed). When it comes to adding new features and content, including it in a post-Jam patch is a big no-no.
With the discussion that arose, right now I'm not quite certain whether I'll be making a patch or no. I'd like to get more input from other people (especially participant) whether they're cool with that or not (both when it comes to Micnasr pre-Jam entry that had insufficient permissions and other people's post-Jam entries that involve simple fixes and are explicitly recognised by Jam Player as post-Jam, with an option to play pre-Jam version).
I am against the zip patch as long as the vote is open. But once it closes, I am open to a comprehensive zip patch afterwards to showcase what the contestants would have done with time to fix reported bugs/crashes, clean up and add back truncated features.Darn, it's still not clear to me whether to patch or not to patch.
Also, whether to include that unfortunate entry that got uploaded on time, but the page hasn't been made public - because that part has been largely missing from the discussion. ^^'
Also, please note that when you express that "original entries should be rated" sentiment or "people that got the original version right should be rewarded" one, I'll automatically assume you are against the ZIP patch unless specifically implied otherwise. @Relic 's post is a good example of a post of someone that would rather stick to the original entries but it's clear they're not against ZIP patch (given the way to differentiate between Jam and post-Jam versions and choice to play either).
Right at the moment, I don't really feel like making any kind of patch anymore, since it seems like a lot of people are against the Jam patching even in the earlier described form. If you wrote a post against rating post-Jam versions but actually find such a form perfectly acceptable, please let me know. There's only so much nuance I can catch... u_u'
I mean, I agree but I put the page private instead of public and I didn't change anything since before the JAM.Personally, I’m going to second everybody else’s opinions and say a new ZIP should not be made. It undermines the spirit of the jam and punishes those who were able to make error-free games.
I do think that some sort of centralized location for all the fixed versions of games would be a good idea for those who, after rating a game of that nature, wished to play it in its intended state.
I’m aware of this, and I do plan on including your game in my reviews and votes.
Thanks guys, that was really stupid from me lol
I meant time/effort playing both versions of the game, not really downloading them, but I guess your point still stands even then. Though I'm still concerned people will miss some fixed versions.To be fair, would you really want or care about feedback from someone who thinks having to download the fixed version themselves is such a hassle?
yeah just install my game from my link at the top and review it thanks manAfter reading other views and giving it some more thought, I guess I have to agree not patching being the right call, but my one concern is that players will give feedback on jam versions and ignore the fixed post-jam versions, because it's more time/effort to play both versions, and also easier to miss the fixed versions, since they aren't included in the zip. Meaning some devs likely won't get nearly as useful or accurate of feedback.
For e.g., something like, "game won't run; can't say anything about it", would really suck if a fixed version allowed the player to actually play as intended, which would in turn allow the player to give truly useful comments to the dev.
I guess I'll vote based on the jam submissions to keep it as fair as possible for those who ensured their entries were properly playable, but my feedback will have to be on the fixed post-jam versions to give the most helpful comments.
@Alice Just one question though:
Does @Micnasr's game get disqualified from voting? If the game is the same and it was only the link that was a problem, shouldn't his be an exception?
Oh wait, should've @NAL'd with that last inquiry...? Are you guys dual-hosting? Bruh, I'm confused, ahaha
I did a lot of mobile dev so it appealed to me. As a Canadian I connect to the snow. It would be a great mobile game.Re Snowball in Hell... Just wanted to say wow, and thanks for the positive comments in the review section. This is my first Jam so Im pretty chuffed to have some positive reviews.
Thanks also for the feedback, and while this was supposed to a throw away game built over one weekend I think now I will develop it further. Based on the feedback there are some obvious improvements.
- At the moment their seems little use in collecting snow. Here I will need to make the snow melt faster. At the moment it only melts when you are in a certain range of the lava, therefore if you are high up you don't melt. Also it then becomes a disadvantage to be a big snowball then. So I need to strike balance. I think just having a continuous melt rate would help, plus more objects that would melt you if you got too close. I also wanted to add drips so its obvious you are melting.
- More obstacles / enemies.
- Ghouls / devils
- Platform obstacles like saws
- Moving platforms
- Pipes like sonic
- Scoring system.
- More levels!
- Make level restarting easier.
- Mobile version
What was glitchy about it? I can't seem to see any issues with that.The frontend and intro were too long and seemed glitchy.
Wonky how? I know they weren't actual 3D rolling dice or anything but I'm not sure what was wonky about them.The dice rolling was kinda wonky, too.
I'm sorry, I tend to be overly blunt in my reviews. Please don't take offense. I'll replay the game tonight, then send you some details thru PM.@HayManMarc Would you mind elaborating a little on your comments for Gambrawl?
What was glitchy about it? I can't seem to see any issues with that.
The intro is skippable.
Wonky how? I know they weren't actual 3D rolling dice or anything but I'm not sure what was wonky about them.
The rest seemed mostly pretty fair. I was a bit worried about the transitions being long, but the way I coded them made them a bastard to modify heh.
@Misu I am Bro' : ). The reviews can not be accurate representations of your work's worth. The world would be so terrifyingly simple. But it is actually complex as crazy. Phew...Im really upset about this community. I may spend 10 days actually working on an entry and yet I still dont do a good job on getting anyones appeal.
Oh, I didn't think they were blunt, just very vague and undescriptive. I literally have no idea what you could mean and was just curious on the specifics.I'm sorry, I tend to be overly blunt in my reviews. Please don't take offense. I'll replay the game tonight, then send you some details thru PM.