Skip to main content

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

I can respect that, but you should know that it's equally unnatural to have your entire momentum ricochet in the opposite direction upon pushing the other direction button, which is how your game works right now. My original suggestion was twofold: 1) ground movement already responsively stops your momentum completely upon letting go of forward (even though both characters are running and would realistically slide forward a bit upon abruptly stopping), so duplicating that for midair movement would add congruency to the controls, and 2) you make the player jump on several one-tile-wide platforms in a row, thus making the player quickly push left/right alternating to avoid overshooting/slipping back instead of simply letting go of the button. This is annoying, not challenging. 

You reference Mario 3, but that game merely slows you down at first upon holding backwards, thus eliminating the back/forth issue since you can just hold back for a bit to stop all momentum. Plus, Mario 3's ground movement also has momentum, meaning the player doesn't have to learn and instantly flip between two different movement physics within the same game. Even Super Metroid doesn't quite work the same as your game, because if you tap backwards quick enough, you kill your momentum and fall straight down (and even holding backwards, it takes a split second for you to actually move in the other direction).


By the way, both of your examples have run buttons, giving the player even more control over movement/momentum. Your game doesn't have a run button.


You want physics? You want momentum? Then COMMIT, because right now, your game's controls are much closer to all those indie games you take umbrage with than either of the two games you brought up to defend yourself.

Well to be frank: I wasn’t necessarily “defending” myself, but rather giving you insight in regards to the decisions that went into the current state design. My apologies if it rubbed you the wrong way. I will add though that some people tend to forget: developers (in most cases) aren’t just “work horses” disconnected from the actual gaming space; I am a long time old-school gamer myself, so I’m certainly not going into this “blind” and just applying random values that may or may not look nice on paper.

What I’ve playtested so far felt good enough to me, as well as to a bunch of other people who didn’t complain. Maybe they did so because they were friends and didn’t wanna upset me; maybe they simply didn’t know better. Whatever the case, I didn’t think much of it and left the mechanics as-is. That’s really all there is to it.

Again, I apologize if your opinion differs. After all, everyone is entitled to their own tastes and preferences, that’s reasonable. I took note of everything you brought forth and have you know that it’ll be considered moving forward with this project. I just don’t want to make any promises I can’t keep, is all.

Cheers

Okay, I see where you're coming from. To explain myself, I've noticed people tend to make games "inspired" by those old-school classics without fully understanding WHY something worked in those games. It's less "work horse/you never played them" and more pointing out minutiae you seem to have missed or forgotten. Also, keep in mind that your game only has one simple area right now; your friends most likely didn't bring the issue up because it isn't a huge issue YET. 

Sorry if it feels like I keep harping on the same thing, but your response seems to ignore the other point I tried to make in my last post: if you're gonna keep the physics, you should change the level design to make that section less annoying.


Think of it this way: how often do Mario 3 and Super Metroid make the player jump on multiple single-tile-wide platforms in a row, if ever? How much time does it take for the player to reach those segments from starting a new game (without sequence-breaking)? How long are the segments themselves? What total percentage of the game do these segments make up? Are these segments mandatory, or is there an obvious branching path the player can take instead? How do your answers compare when the same questions are applied to your game? 


To be fair, there IS an old-school game franchise that has single-tile-wide platforms early on like your game does, but that franchise is Mega Man: a series where your momentum dies completely upon letting go of forward in midair--the very thing you're trying to avoid (so you should avoid the early single-tile-wide platforms, too).

I understand why you made the game like this--no need for more insight--but do you understand why having so many single-tile-wide platforms in a momentum-platformer isn't a good idea? Do you understand why your inspirations rarely did this and never did it so early?