Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

I don't think I have an issue with the intent behind the game, but I definitely think that it would benefit from different execution. While the puzzle itself is pretty tedious, I think there's room for games to have a bit of intentional tediousness - those "Sort the Museum/Library/Store/etc." type games have been fairly popular recently, so it's not like that in and of itself is bad. However, I absolutely think that it's in your best interest to make the tedium not tedious, as counter-productive that might sound. Like, I think if the selection and moving stuff was a lot snappier, I could see myself sitting through and moving all the pieces around, even if it took a while. But as it stands now, where I'm also staring down the prospect of going through this process hundreds more times, while there's also time where I just can't do anything for no apparent reason - I just saw the writing on the wall and backed out after about 5 minutes. It's a bit of a shame, too, because the story aspect seemed pretty neat, it sort of reminded me of Yu-Gi-Oh's Millenium Puzzle, and I think exploring that could be very interesting. 

For what it's worth, I thought the music was quite nice as well.

(+1)

Sorry, it's a bad game. And: I need game-testers to see it. Maybe you? I can change the game now. I should use less fields, or? and a better algorithm than that simple match-3-logic?

Well, I don't think it's inherently bad, just could use some improvements. If I were to say what I'd change in your position, I'd do the following:

  • Remove the input delay from selecting tiles (this is probably the most important one in my opinion).
  • Quick transition animation between the two slots (nothing super complicated, tween-ing between the two points would probably be fine)
  • Some sort of effect when completing a match-3 set - getting a cool effect hits the dopamine receptors (or something like that).
  • If for the fields part you just mean how many of the gems there are, using less would definitely help, but I don't think it solves the issue people are having.
  • I think the match-3 gameplay is fine - it's a classic for a reason. You could consider using some power-ups from some of the well-known ones, but it might ruin the counts for each color.
  • I haven't done the math or anything to prove it's possible, but something you should consider is that a player could create an unwinnable game state by isolating a few gems with no way to match-3 them.

Unfortunately, I'm going to be a bit too busy to commit to being anything like an official playtester, but I would be willing to check out future updates as they come available.

Good luck!

(+1)

I have made it without dead-ends, it's solveable. But thank you for your hints, soon I will update that game. And then I credit you as game-tester 

PS: I was on your itch.io-site, you make good games!