I almost had a heart attack seeing my game in the video. Thanks for playing it and reviewing it. The levels aren't really complete after where it seemingly crashed. Still thinking of ways I can make the puzzles even more interesting
I think most of your levels are great. It might be good to have a few levels at the very start just to introduce the world and how the unique movement works before any puzzles are really dropped. I didn't realize I was free to move wherever on ever other tile, I thought I was locked to just a set path. Perhaps with just a simple level with a nice wide pathway (at least 5 tiles wide,) providing room to move to both left and right. Then put the entrance on one corner of the pathway, and the goal on the opposite corner at the other end of the path, forcing the player not to just move down the path but to also cross it when they wish. And then maybe a level exactly the same, but the pathway is water in the middle so the player will have to figure out they can screen wrap. Just ideas though, great work so far, and thanks for recommending your game! :D
@@Artindi thanks for the input. I'll try it out. I agree it shouldn't feel restrictive. I also have a small question - did you feel like some of the puzzles felt like filler? It's something I've been thinking about
It's really weird to me that for all the items here so far, you've judged the final score on quality of what was made, and not just as an extension of the first two points, but for the middle item in this video, you just ignored all the work put into it? It comes off as you having an extreme bias, and not judging it fairly. Honestly it's really put me off from you. You gave it the same score as a game that's just a blank screen, when there's obviously SOMETHING happening and obviously work was put into it.
Yeah, while he doesn't consider it as falling into the definition of a 'game' I still would've liked the last score to be at least for what it's trying to do
I'm sorry you feel that way. Simply put I'm reviewing games. If it does not classify as a game by default the score must be null as if no score was given at all. The number that best represents this is 0. If I were to judge it as an interactive story rather than a game I would probably give it a decently high score as it was indeed a well crafted work. I included my review to help illustrate the differences between games and interactive stories for educational purposes, and isn't my entent to be rude to the developer or individuals who enjoy that type of media. Simply factual and objective. Thank you for commenting your concerns though.
@@Artindi I think in that case, it would be better to give it a null score, because null is VERY different from 0, and gives a different message. Either say it's null because it's not a game, or just look at literally any other game that isn't null. This isn't really the place for a discussion about what constitutes a game.
@@Artindi huh, cool, i personally felt like interactive stories are some kind of video game, just it's own group yet still classifies as one, but cool to see your prespective and such
@@GIRGHGH Thank you. I failed to consider creating a 'null' score. And will do that in the future for any similar situations. This series is and always has been intended to be thought provoking and educational as much as it is for reviewing games, as is my channel. Thank you for your critical feedback, I often find it more helpful to my work and progress than much of the positive feedback. :)
Would You consider Yume Nikki not a game because it doesn’t have much of a goal other than exploration? Well than I’d say that Return’s goal to have you live through the main character’s grief is just as much of a goal as Yume Nikki’s dream exploration. But unlike shit like life is strange, Return knows what it really is & is good at what it does, or at least it seems that way from a glance…
Not sure, might have to check Yume Nikki out though. Side note: I've been working on a video that hopefully can explain the difference between interactive stories and games, might be a long time coming, but eventually I hope to get that out there, at least to be thought provoking if nothing else. :)
To make an educational point, that yes, visual novels or interactive stories are not actually games, there are many who do not understand the difference or have yet to even consider there is one at all. Making this point will encourage understanding, exploring, or at least some considerations on what those difference might be. This would be especially helpful to those who have never thought about it before. For myself, researching the topic has helped me greatly in my own game design and even marketing, so I know bringing up the subject has potential to help others with theirs as well.
Damn a 0 xD But yeah I think it being interactive could classify it as a game and it could be pretty good in what it tries to do so yeah maybe the overall quality score should have been based on how well it told it's story and how well it looked and sounded (and you could've considered the mechanic the main topic of the story
if you havent yet, check out the zachtronics games! a whole set of unique puzzle games where you create your own solution, and each with unique puzzle mechanics be warned though, all of them get *very* difficult at the later levels
i understand your definition of a game, but i think it adjust better of an idea of a "competitive" game. I mean, if you see kids playing with imagination be it solo or in a group, wouldn't you call that a game? even if there is no goal besides having a fun time :) (i mean, my mother language is spanish, and "jugar" stands for playing a game, even if there is no goal nor objective to persuit, so if there is a word in english for that i'll be glad to hear it).
Generally there are a few categories of games. Competitive games against others, cooperative games with others, single player games. A game has rules, a win state, a fail state, and generally some level of player control. Kinetic novels operate in a weird space. We read books, we don't play books generally speaking. If every page of a book is scanned into a computer and turned into a pdf, we still don't consider reading pdfs to be a game. There's not really a win/lose state or any clear rules when reading stuff. Even if it's a fantasy book or an exciting one. The exception would be books with games built inside or Choose Your Own Adventure books. So without gameplay or rules, it's fair to say it's not really a game unless the walking is qualified as game play. I do agree that kids can play and use their imagination. If they're following 0 rules so it's just a chaotic mess, it wouldn't qualify as a game. I guess you could qualify it under the looser term 'activity.' They're playing and doing activities. XD
Great question, and that is interesting how Spanish uses the same word for both "play" and "game" My definition of a game is "A voluntary attempt to overcome an unnecessary obstacle." as defined by Bernard Suits. Because out of all the definitions I've researched this is by far the most accurate and concise. So to answer your question: "To Play" (at least in English) means to engage in an activity for enjoyment or recreation without practical purpose. And "To play a game" is a sub-category of "To Play" where the unpractical activity must be that of attempting to overcome an obstacle. For example: One could play with a toy car on a blue and white tile floor, but as soon as one tries see if they can drive their toy car from point a to point b without touching any of the blue tiles, they've started to play a game. Hopefully I answered your question. :)
What constitutes a game has been debated for a while. There is a "game" called the Mountain that involves simply watching the mountain evolve. You can't interact with it, just watch it, and move the camera around it. Is it a game? Sometimes things are just an experiment, or an experience, they aren't necessarily a game. But... That's what' debate is all about. Discussing and trying to decide what it really is.
@@Artindi thank you for your response, as well as Crissy Moss and Televised Feedback. I understand better now with that difference, "to play" and "to play a game". I wanted to point a thing or maybe two or three. I think that given definition center games into resource-management -> and I find it very easy to fall into a path of highly ideology games (League of Legends, Call of Duty, even games that wouldn't be that obvious as Stardew Valley & The Sims franchise) I'll explain this point later When I spoke about "competitive games" I wasn't just talking about multiplayer games, we can think about the obvious examples as any MOBA or mmorpg with a battle system among other players, FPS, etc. but also when the player is forced "to compete" against the game's world enviroment. What I mean is that almost every game has this kind of mechanic, the one that is about resource management: be that in a game like a city builder, but also some of the games shown in the video: be it managing "life" resource, or time. That being said, it kind of makes me feel like a pattern in video games, where everything can be summarized into resource management (maybe that's just the way computers work, making complex calculations u_u) which makes me think into the ideology behind the games that i've described as "competitive games" (i know this can be a huge debate, but i'd love to share more of this if any of you want to) which usually engages with players managing: "life" or "health" of a given character any form of currency "coins" for example, but it can be any other thing whatever the enviroment has to offer to the player so, for this point of view, even the sims is a fully ideological game, and it is (it's about managing some stats and hoard furniture -> hello, comsumism). but also tic tac toe involves a highly competitive activity. and what i really appreciate is mechanics that doesn't involve that activities, could it be possible? would it be not a game anymore? (because that given definition) I mean as programmers, or game desingers, people could leave that sort of calculations (because that's the way computers work) behind the courtains and deliver the player that ilussion.
Interesting observation. I always think it's cool when a game is more ambiguous with it's computations, allowing the player to focus more on other things besides resource management. But this would have to be done carefully as failing to provide important information to a player could be frustrating depending on the game. I believe many puzzle games fall under the category of not involving resource management. For example, Portal and Portal 2 don't show a health bar, because the focus is in solving portal related puzzles. And some games compromise with a mix of both, for example, Project Zomboid is a rather realistic zombie survival simulator, where you can become tired, need to eat, become bored, be in different levels of pain, be fearful, cause different levels of noise and many other things. However lots of these states don't show any kind of number or bar, but rather keep the calculation ambiguous by simply showing an image in the corner which will change depending on condition. (normal face when relaxed, scared face when fearful, screaming face when terrified. And funny enough, typically this face matches your own when you play) This kind of ambiguity keeps the immersion level high, though it isn't perfect because many other stats are shown readily to the player, such as durability on gear. So I bet there are games out there like you described, and honesty more games like that would be a good thing, as they would challenge us is new ways. I actually plan on making a game that involves healing or harming other people around you in order to progress, but because the health status of others and ourselves in real life is difficult to see, I don't want to show this with a number or bar but rather through the images of the characters, or perhaps with some other analogue indicator. I think this could be cool, but I guess we will see. :)
That review of Return seemed really oddly spiteful. I’m no stranger to being petty, in fact it’s one of my favourite hobbies, but it seems quite out of place here.
I would really love it if you could check out my game 'Is This Fun?'(made for the wowie game jam 4.0), it is not super unique/original but would still love to see some thought and feedback.
I almost had a heart attack seeing my game in the video. Thanks for playing it and reviewing it. The levels aren't really complete after where it seemingly crashed. Still thinking of ways I can make the puzzles even more interesting
I think most of your levels are great. It might be good to have a few levels at the very start just to introduce the world and how the unique movement works before any puzzles are really dropped. I didn't realize I was free to move wherever on ever other tile, I thought I was locked to just a set path. Perhaps with just a simple level with a nice wide pathway (at least 5 tiles wide,) providing room to move to both left and right. Then put the entrance on one corner of the pathway, and the goal on the opposite corner at the other end of the path, forcing the player not to just move down the path but to also cross it when they wish. And then maybe a level exactly the same, but the pathway is water in the middle so the player will have to figure out they can screen wrap.
Just ideas though, great work so far, and thanks for recommending your game! :D
@@Artindi thanks for the input. I'll try it out. I agree it shouldn't feel restrictive. I also have a small question - did you feel like some of the puzzles felt like filler? It's something I've been thinking about
@@microdavid7098 No, I don't remember feeling like there were filler levels. :)
It's really weird to me that for all the items here so far, you've judged the final score on quality of what was made, and not just as an extension of the first two points, but for the middle item in this video, you just ignored all the work put into it? It comes off as you having an extreme bias, and not judging it fairly. Honestly it's really put me off from you. You gave it the same score as a game that's just a blank screen, when there's obviously SOMETHING happening and obviously work was put into it.
Yeah, while he doesn't consider it as falling into the definition of a 'game' I still would've liked the last score to be at least for what it's trying to do
I'm sorry you feel that way. Simply put I'm reviewing games. If it does not classify as a game by default the score must be null as if no score was given at all. The number that best represents this is 0. If I were to judge it as an interactive story rather than a game I would probably give it a decently high score as it was indeed a well crafted work.
I included my review to help illustrate the differences between games and interactive stories for educational purposes, and isn't my entent to be rude to the developer or individuals who enjoy that type of media. Simply factual and objective.
Thank you for commenting your concerns though.
@@Artindi I think in that case, it would be better to give it a null score, because null is VERY different from 0, and gives a different message. Either say it's null because it's not a game, or just look at literally any other game that isn't null. This isn't really the place for a discussion about what constitutes a game.
@@Artindi huh, cool, i personally felt like interactive stories are some kind of video game, just it's own group yet still classifies as one, but cool to see your prespective and such
@@GIRGHGH Thank you. I failed to consider creating a 'null' score. And will do that in the future for any similar situations.
This series is and always has been intended to be thought provoking and educational as much as it is for reviewing games, as is my channel.
Thank you for your critical feedback, I often find it more helpful to my work and progress than much of the positive feedback. :)
Would You consider Yume Nikki not a game because it doesn’t have much of a goal other than exploration? Well than I’d say that Return’s goal to have you live through the main character’s grief is just as much of a goal as Yume Nikki’s dream exploration.
But unlike shit like life is strange, Return knows what it really is & is good at what it does, or at least it seems that way from a glance…
Not sure, might have to check Yume Nikki out though. Side note: I've been working on a video that hopefully can explain the difference between interactive stories and games, might be a long time coming, but eventually I hope to get that out there, at least to be thought provoking if nothing else. :)
Seems like a bit of a rigid definiton of what a "game" means.
What was the point of putting a game you didn't think was a game on here? To go "uwu visual novels aren't ackshully video games"? Lol
To make an educational point, that yes, visual novels or interactive stories are not actually games, there are many who do not understand the difference or have yet to even consider there is one at all. Making this point will encourage understanding, exploring, or at least some considerations on what those difference might be. This would be especially helpful to those who have never thought about it before. For myself, researching the topic has helped me greatly in my own game design and even marketing, so I know bringing up the subject has potential to help others with theirs as well.
The "visual novel" was called a game by the developer. It clearly was not. That was the point.
Damn a 0 xD
But yeah I think it being interactive could classify it as a game and it could be pretty good in what it tries to do so yeah maybe the overall quality score should have been based on how well it told it's story and how well it looked and sounded (and you could've considered the mechanic the main topic of the story
That could be a good way to rate interactive stories, maybe one day I'll start a series on reviewing interactive stories. :)
if you havent yet, check out the zachtronics games!
a whole set of unique puzzle games where you create your own solution, and each with unique puzzle mechanics
be warned though, all of them get *very* difficult at the later levels
Cool! I'll check them out! :D
Brilliantly concise reviews! Your editing and presentation never ceases to impress :)
Ah shucks, thank you kind sir! :D
i understand your definition of a game, but i think it adjust better of an idea of a "competitive" game. I mean, if you see kids playing with imagination be it solo or in a group, wouldn't you call that a game? even if there is no goal besides having a fun time :) (i mean, my mother language is spanish, and "jugar" stands for playing a game, even if there is no goal nor objective to persuit, so if there is a word in english for that i'll be glad to hear it).
Generally there are a few categories of games. Competitive games against others, cooperative games with others, single player games. A game has rules, a win state, a fail state, and generally some level of player control. Kinetic novels operate in a weird space. We read books, we don't play books generally speaking. If every page of a book is scanned into a computer and turned into a pdf, we still don't consider reading pdfs to be a game. There's not really a win/lose state or any clear rules when reading stuff. Even if it's a fantasy book or an exciting one. The exception would be books with games built inside or Choose Your Own Adventure books. So without gameplay or rules, it's fair to say it's not really a game unless the walking is qualified as game play. I do agree that kids can play and use their imagination. If they're following 0 rules so it's just a chaotic mess, it wouldn't qualify as a game. I guess you could qualify it under the looser term 'activity.' They're playing and doing activities. XD
Great question, and that is interesting how Spanish uses the same word for both "play" and "game"
My definition of a game is "A voluntary attempt to overcome an unnecessary obstacle." as defined by Bernard Suits. Because out of all the definitions I've researched this is by far the most accurate and concise.
So to answer your question:
"To Play" (at least in English) means to engage in an activity for enjoyment or recreation without practical purpose. And "To play a game" is a sub-category of "To Play" where the unpractical activity must be that of attempting to overcome an obstacle.
For example: One could play with a toy car on a blue and white tile floor, but as soon as one tries see if they can drive their toy car from point a to point b without touching any of the blue tiles, they've started to play a game.
Hopefully I answered your question. :)
What constitutes a game has been debated for a while. There is a "game" called the Mountain that involves simply watching the mountain evolve. You can't interact with it, just watch it, and move the camera around it. Is it a game? Sometimes things are just an experiment, or an experience, they aren't necessarily a game. But... That's what' debate is all about. Discussing and trying to decide what it really is.
@@Artindi thank you for your response, as well as Crissy Moss and Televised Feedback. I understand better now with that difference, "to play" and "to play a game".
I wanted to point a thing or maybe two or three.
I think that given definition center games into resource-management -> and I find it very easy to fall into a path of highly ideology games (League of Legends, Call of Duty, even games that wouldn't be that obvious as Stardew Valley & The Sims franchise) I'll explain this point later
When I spoke about "competitive games" I wasn't just talking about multiplayer games, we can think about the obvious examples as any MOBA or mmorpg with a battle system among other players, FPS, etc. but also when the player is forced "to compete" against the game's world enviroment.
What I mean is that almost every game has this kind of mechanic, the one that is about resource management: be that in a game like a city builder, but also some of the games shown in the video: be it managing "life" resource, or time. That being said, it kind of makes me feel like a pattern in video games, where everything can be summarized into resource management (maybe that's just the way computers work, making complex calculations u_u) which makes me think into the ideology behind the games that i've described as "competitive games" (i know this can be a huge debate, but i'd love to share more of this if any of you want to) which usually engages with players managing:
"life" or "health" of a given character
any form of currency "coins" for example, but it can be any other thing
whatever the enviroment has to offer to the player
so, for this point of view, even the sims is a fully ideological game, and it is (it's about managing some stats and hoard furniture -> hello, comsumism).
but also tic tac toe involves a highly competitive activity.
and what i really appreciate is mechanics that doesn't involve that activities, could it be possible? would it be not a game anymore? (because that given definition) I mean as programmers, or game desingers, people could leave that sort of calculations (because that's the way computers work) behind the courtains and deliver the player that ilussion.
Interesting observation. I always think it's cool when a game is more ambiguous with it's computations, allowing the player to focus more on other things besides resource management. But this would have to be done carefully as failing to provide important information to a player could be frustrating depending on the game.
I believe many puzzle games fall under the category of not involving resource management. For example, Portal and Portal 2 don't show a health bar, because the focus is in solving portal related puzzles.
And some games compromise with a mix of both, for example, Project Zomboid is a rather realistic zombie survival simulator, where you can become tired, need to eat, become bored, be in different levels of pain, be fearful, cause different levels of noise and many other things. However lots of these states don't show any kind of number or bar, but rather keep the calculation ambiguous by simply showing an image in the corner which will change depending on condition. (normal face when relaxed, scared face when fearful, screaming face when terrified. And funny enough, typically this face matches your own when you play) This kind of ambiguity keeps the immersion level high, though it isn't perfect because many other stats are shown readily to the player, such as durability on gear.
So I bet there are games out there like you described, and honesty more games like that would be a good thing, as they would challenge us is new ways. I actually plan on making a game that involves healing or harming other people around you in order to progress, but because the health status of others and ourselves in real life is difficult to see, I don't want to show this with a number or bar but rather through the images of the characters, or perhaps with some other analogue indicator. I think this could be cool, but I guess we will see. :)
I hope someone takes Hinoken’s ideas and properly expands on them
Love this series
I still believe in search of uniqueness is a catchier name
I guess I just like it as a noun. :)
@@Artindi fair enough
even tho as a non native english speaker i don't fully get what you mean xD
Let's go
That review of Return seemed really oddly spiteful. I’m no stranger to being petty, in fact it’s one of my favourite hobbies, but it seems quite out of place here.
Sorry if it felt that way, no spite was intended, I was just trying to drive a point home.
Thanks for watching! One question though: Do you prefer ice-cream on a stick or in a bowl? (assume quantity is the same)
i've never been a fan of ice cream on a stick, for me its either ice cream in a bowl or as a sandwhich with a wrapper
Oh, I forgot about the sandwiches, yeah, those are pretty good. :)
This ice cream on that eatable thing
@@nesraspongx58 An ice cream cone? :) also good!
@@Artindi yeah that
NIce
promosm 🌟
I would really love it if you could check out my game 'Is This Fun?'(made for the wowie game jam 4.0), it is not super unique/original but would still love to see some thought and feedback.
Awesome! I'll add it to my list! :D