Post by Itizso in CONSTRAINT #1: CONTROL SCHEME

Viewing post in CONSTRAINT #1: CONTROL SCHEME

I appreciate your position, but in my humble opinion, your argument is flawed because your premise is wrong:

I don't think one can separate the scheme from the gameplay when talking about design... meaning the 2 independent rocker D-pads (UP/DOWN) were always linked to two independent characters in the G&W games., while the 4-POSITION buttons were linked to one character.

Lion uses 4-POSITION buttons to control two independent characters. Manhole uses the exact same 4-POSITION button configuration to control a single character. There is no direct correlation in these cases between scheme and gameplay when it comes to design. Otherwise, by your argument, Lion should have been implemented with rocker switches since it uses two independent characters!

If you want to focus the jam on exploring game design based on the idea of moving two characters/objects independently, then you should define that as the design constraint and not the control scheme.

Please forgive me for being somewhat pedantic here, especially given the nature of this jam and your well articulated goals for it, but I think the question that started this thread illustrates that there is a mismatch between your coupling of the control scheme with the intended design constraints.

intellikat259 days ago

I think we're getting far afield here.

UP/DOWN + UP/DOWN (i.e. Lion and Mario Bros.)

...seems pretty clear. It's asking you to only utilise up and down as the movement similar to the two games given as exemplars.

For further clarification, yes, that would mean two "characters", similar to the two games given as exemplars.

One way to show that some great games can come from this limitation, would be to make them. I was hoping to inspire that in others, as I was inspired to do the same. But I'm not convinced that jam attendees feel they can do this with the given constraint. I'm also not convinced the given constraint is being given a fair chance.

There are some other LCD jams as well as G&W specific ones, so I don't mind shutting this one down. I don't get the sense there's a real supportive spirit for it here as laid out.

Itizso259 days ago (2 edits)

Well, I'm just expressing my personal opinion. Perhaps others feel differently. Personally, I have no issue working with the limitation of controlling two characters/objects independently as the design constraint. I actually have a few interesting ideas. I was just trying to make the point that such a limitation is not inherent in the control scheme.

I really hope you continue with the jam, but since it seems my contributions are not very helpful, I'll be bowing out of participating to avoid any further misunderstanding.

Good luck with the jam and I look forward to playing all the submissions :)

intellikat259 days ago

I think it may be unhelpful once the jam has begun to criticise the theme/control scheme especially to the degree it begins to look like an argument and a bit off the point of the jam. The 5 possibilities for the control scheme were posted beforehand, and that would have been the best time to decide if one wants to participate or not... or we adjust the jam structure accordingly.

At this point, I feel the jam's kind of been torpedoed, rather than we've pulled together under the concept to work on it all together positively. It's certainly sapped my interest in hosting it.

intellikat259 days ago

I invited you specifically for your contributions and your interesting ideas, Itizso...

itch.io

Viewing post in CONSTRAINT #1: CONTROL SCHEME