Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags

acgaudette

55
Posts
18
Followers
38
Following
A member registered Feb 04, 2019 · View creator page →

Creator of

Recent community posts

but there's still something curious about simply not giving players most of the choices in the game. i.e. it's possible to make a game with relatively high headroom, but low repetition just by having a lot of content that doesn't appear every run.

I think you're getting at what (I believe at least) is missing from the headroom framework. Alex Smith would appear to value player choices only with regards to their relative probability of reaching a final win state, but this disregards how such a probability is actually computed: in general, the chance of victory depends on future choices, such that the value (sometimes referred to as the 'return') of a choice is actually a composite of every future choice in the chain of choices that make up a playthrough.

more plainly, two choices may have an equal likelihood of victory, but differ (e.g. in length, or composition) in how this likelihood is actually computed. despite their apparent similarity, they can actually be quite different, and in fact quite meaningful to the player, i.e. meaning is clearly not fully represented by the 'probability of victory' signal as Alex Smith would seem to claim. to reuse an example from the article: if two characters play very differently--so differently that learning one teaches you nothing about playing the other, say--but otherwise present equal opportunity for success, I would consider character choice to be meaningful: it determines the rest of your game!

there is something orthogonal to the notion of headroom, I think, and being unaware of it can lead to dangerous conflation (particularly 'high headroom' and player creativity). as you point out, the degeneracy of a 'puzzle' experience (there is only one path) is not the same as low headroom. ultimately what seems like poor design, at least in the context of these sorts of games, is making only one path viable. I think that you can give the player plenty of creative choices early on, as long as they have to pay the price for these choices eventually... and that's what I think could be neat about shroom & gloom, at least in the early game.

on the other hand, giving the player too many options probably overwhelms them with choice and/or puts them in a rut, as you say. this would seem to relate to player creativity in general. this post focuses on sandbox games, not roguelikes, but I am surprised to find that it has some relevance here. offering the player three cards and telling them to make a decision feels a lot like giving the player an interesting and functional design constraint.

regarding farming. at some level I believe that farming (and stuff like exhaustive inventory management) is just 'bad', at least in the sense that it's unintentional (i.e. as opposed to a game 'about' farming). regardless of the value of the reward (and sometimes in spite of it), the cost of farming is usually only player time, and player time is a valuable resource. either just give the player what they want, or incorporate some kind of risk/reward tradeoff into farming, right? curious if you agree. I mentioned this already, but one thing I liked about shroom & gloom was that it puts a negative feedback loop on inventory management. if you try to hoard tons of cards in your home deck, you'll just weaken its draw power overall. I would probably enjoy if farming was given a similar treatment.

this segues somewhat neatly into your other comments.

the thing about CCG's in general, is that the random-draw-from-a-deck is naturally great at getting players to improvise . . . I feel like there's got to be a way to disrupt a farming strategy through introducing more randomness, like if the first half of a run involves a lot of farming, but then some event takes place half way that provides an even better approach, that would reduce the overall repetition, and as I see it the repetition itself is the problem.

I would like to push back a little against this, but not much, because it's more important to preserve your take--particularly in a genre game like this.

but I would say that the whole point in building a deck, from the player's perspective, is to make something that consistently delivers exceptional performance. in order to do this, you need to be able to understand your deck in its totality--you need control. deckbuilders feel like a battle against the machine, where the player always wants more control but is (positively) constrained by some aspect of the design. MTG (which I have very little experience in) has a minimum deck size for this reason.

so when a card shows up in my hand, I already know what to do--it's part of the engine. this is because it is common in these sorts of games to have total information when it comes to the composition of your deck. understanding your deck is knowing all the hands you could draw, and this information isn't gated by anything (in particular: time) so investing into this sort of knowledge can be seen as a weakness in the player that is either encouraged or discouraged by the design. a little like farming I guess. so the extent to which players 'should' improvise I think is very low, or at least the game as it currently exists does not encourage this in play. you could however imagine several changes that would (not knowing what's in your deck is the obvious one, but also cards that mutate in the background, or cards that synergize very broadly, etc.). I am sure slay the spire supports large 'grabbag' decks--I am not a serious enough player to know--but there has to be something that makes these viable, otherwise you just draw into a lot of terminal cards.

oh ho. an expert--that's a good one! did get into dominion a little back in the day, but I don't do much with deckbuilding in my own design practice, unfortunately.

some final thoughts. did one last playthrough (it's fun!). was able to farm the positive feedback cards (I think there are two? 'raging edge', which quickly spirals out of control, and something something blade) pretty successfully. it looks like one of you may have capped the total mob count to ~20, or at least it seemed that way, since some squid thing just flat out stopped calling for reinforcements. by the end of it all I was dealing about 400 damage per turn.

there are many ways to combat this kind of thing. slay the spire I think features several enemies with positive feedback loops of their own, making lingering in encounters incredibly punishing. you do a little bit of this with the shield buff squid. but really you might just want to apply reinforcement actions more delicately, and pair them with powerful opponents (which check the player) rather than making it a thing you can always just do.

I'm definitely not against easy trashing--it can be a powerful creative tool for the player. but perhaps if you go down that route, you might consider balancing it against something else. all roguelikes sit somewhere on the control/constraint creativity spectrum, right? i.e. whether you're forced to play the hand you're given (pun intended) or you have the flexibility to always make your own build, no matter what. this has apparently been described as 'headroom' in the past: http://nethack4.org/blog/strategy-headroom.html (kudos to my jam partner Elliot for sharing this with me recently). what I like about shroom & gloom is that the cards feel more component-based and buildable than the typical deckbuilder, but maybe you're not trying to move in that direction. I mean, if you don't, I will! :)

speaking of which: it seems as though there are no tradeoffs to all the stacks you can put on cards. one common strategy I had, which feels degenerate, is just to load everything useful on one uber card that I know I'm never going to lose.

finally, here's a dumb thought. I realized that you guys are one key away from a mouse-only game. don't get me wrong, the W card is gorgeous, but if I could just click to move forward I could throw my keyboard away and put my feet up. the ultimate lazy day.

also hey, very cool logo--don't think anyone has mentioned this yet and it's worth pointing out.

neat concept! I like the puzzly, slow pacing take you gave this mechanic--I think it really works, and I enjoyed it. somehow this really feels like it could be one of those 'hl2 mod but we released it' games. must be the tone, and the turrets.

I do think the pacing contrasts a bit painfully with the lack of checkpoints though. normally I welcome difficulty, but punishing the player so harshly for exploration (which seems to be quite central to how this game plays) seems a bit unintentional. nevertheless, this is a minor point.

the first turret death is communicated well. or at least it makes sense in retrospect--the first time it happened to me I had no idea what was going on.

the invisible zones are neat, and the "don't clear the backbuffer" effect is very cool, but it makes traveling through doors impossible. when you noclip straight through a door (the first action I took as a player) it very much looks as though nothing is happening. took me awhile to realize that wasn't a literal bug.

I really like the orientation lerping. I can see how this might trigger a certain kind of person, but it doesn't affect gameplay and I enjoy the way it feels.

overall, great work! seems like something that would fit well as a bite-sized narrative puzzle experience, i.e. it would seem to depend heavily on content. curious if you have similar thoughts.

a few minor, unimportant polish points:

I often released RMB and tapped LMB at the same time to teleport, which appeared to trigger RMB first (which was annoying). probably not what you want to happen?

if you mark your zip as a windows target on itch, the desktop client will be able to auto-install and play it (as opposed to the webgl build, which installs and bugs out by default on the desktop client)

the vertical axis wobble is indeed the intended input mechanic. the critical observation to make I would hope is that it allows you to decouple the gun orientation from the head orientation, so that you don't have to wave your camera all over the place just to shoot. instead, you can focus the camera on your intended target, and then swing the gun 'through' it, while staying 'aimed' at it the whole time. the purpose of RMB is to stabilize the gun before and after the swing, but not during.

I believe this is reaching the limit of my ability to describe these things in words :) and I realized itch allows you to embed gifs, albeit at terrible quality:

it's quite possible that the sensitivity of the flicking action is just too high by default.

your comments on incremental level design are accurate and incisive.

and yes! catching bullets is a thing. however, it's much harder to do than dodge, and we didn't have time to implement a useful reward for doing so.

(1 edit)

that being said, developer-hard is probably an accurate description! the turret takes two shots to kill. you can either hit it from the top or from the sides. it's somewhat easy to cheese if you crouch under the low cover behind the pillar and lob shots on its head. once you hit it once, there's 3-4 second stagger where you can just directly shoot at it to knock it out.

thanks again for stopping by! if you have any tips for how to improve readability or intuition-building we would love to hear them.

you're good! thanks for playing, and dropping your thoughts. Elliot was responsible for the enemy design, including most of the sounds, and I'll definitely pass on your kind words.

you can swap cover with L1 (or whatever the bumper is on your controller), which triggers the bullet time. this is much more noticeable on the endless level, where you can challenge our high score (which very few remote players have as of yet, because the turret is proving to be the ultimate, impossibly hard gatekeeper).

then again, it's possible you didn't realize that the controller was used for body motion at all (oops!), in which case it would make sense that you were unable to dodge the bullets. on the jumping blocks level, you can dodge more or less 100% of bullets by just flicking the stick in any direction or holding down L2 when it's coming at you.

so, that being said, with regards to your main points:

your note on depth perception is right on the money, I think. it seems reasonable to claim that, in lieu of being able to accurately make a quantitative estimate, the player must fill in the gaps somewhere else. it would seem that this could either come from history (either map knowledge, which I think is significant--think golf courses, right? or a more local sort of history like you point out: just the previous shot) or perhaps some kind of live prediction.

the thing is, the bullets (or the gun, depending on how you see it) have a fixed velocity, and as my partner Elliot pointed out several times, that gives them an inherent 'working range'. the gun we shipped with has a sweet spot, a range (I dunno, something like 4-12 meters) where curves are relatively easy to control and the margin of error is (or so we hope) reasonable. outside of these ranges it begins to get difficult, more like a 3 pointer in basketball, and you have to compensate in other ways. so the golf club analogy kind of holds, in that there's a spot you want to hit which provides its own margin of error (the size of the enemy), and a 'club' that has a sort of working range and height (the gun).

the real question I think you're getting at is whether it's reasonable to expect that, as a player, investing your time in practicing this weird thing has any promise of making you any better at it. you're alluding to the potential existence of a sort of physical barrier--either in humans or in the game's presentation--that means your experience will just eternally be suboptimal and therefore unfun. and how can you know for sure, given that a hundred guinea pigs haven't come before you and proven that it can be done? if I were you, I'd be suspicious.

I'm not sure that I have a direct answer. but I do agree, and you are making a good point, that we pile on a lot at once. stick peeking and particularly stick dodging I believe feels rewarding once you get into it--and motivates the controller as an input method--but for new players, becomes just one more thing to manage while dealing with the already very hard shooting scheme. designing play environments (as you say) around some of these more basic concepts seems like a valuable direction.

thank you again!

thank you for the detailed feedback! it means a lot!

before I get to the meat of your comments, I have a quick response that you may or may not find valuable. from playtesting, I've observed that there seem to be (roughly) two kinds of players: the kind that holds down RMB all the time, and the kind that swings the gun like a 'hammer'. the holding down RMB case was actually how we had the mechanic implemented, period, for the first couple days. at this point I see it as more or less a degenerate outcome (and a reflection of a design flaw if players end up shooting that way). playtesting this game asynchronously (versus watching someone play over their shoulder) has been a little nightmarish, if you know what I mean.

the intended way to shoot, at the very least, is to create and execute a 'swing' with your gun, a little like you would swing a golf club or a tennis racket. first you press (and hold) LMB, then you 'push' the bead up with your mouse. next, you 'pull' the bead towards center with your mouse, and release LMB when you want to fire. because the amount of spin is directly proportional to the velocity of the bead, and this 'swing' is a (relatively) slow process, the margin of error is increased and it becomes easier to hit shots consistently. of course, this takes a fair amount of practice. at this point I can blitz through the intro maps pretty quickly.

I'm interested to hear if this works for you, and if it does (or doesn't) I would be interested in any feedback you have for improving how we communicate this to the player, even if it's as simple as a better description on the itch page or a real tutorial. either way, thanks for playing!

great work! happy to see the itch page up.

did a second run today. pleased to find that my build ended up significantly different than the first one!

managed to beat the game this time around but it felt like a bit of a cheese. picked up the 'everlasting truffle' very early. it's difficult to see how this isn't op; you can easily farm the card on low-level mobs and pick up a huge amount of hp. given that the card title also clips off the sprite, part of me wonders if it was a debug item? it doesn't seem to be more valuable for cooking, either. even if something like this was balanced as a viable strategy (say, by throwing in a bunch of health trading cards), it still seems a little rough to have to grind with it in the early game.

I do appreciate the biphasic decks. having useful items as cards motivates interesting player choices--your draw potential is hurt by hoarding valuable stuff--and the risk v reward feels like good design.

that being said, it was unclear if you can shuffle your 'home' deck? I should have paid closer attention but it seemed as though sometimes I can't draw into what I expected. on my first playthrough I was fairly confused about drawing and shuffling after a fight vs on entering a safe zone. I'm reasonably convinced that it works mechanically but from a readability perspective it could probably use a little love.

the relationship between truffles => the campfire is fairly unclear, but the rest of the game stands on its own so that's OK. feels like more of an easter egg than a mechanic. once I did pick up on the crafting, the items didn't seem more useful than my actual deck. but that was just my initial impression.

having card trashing handy with the pig is nice. that being said, my deck never really felt bloated. you start with very few cards, and because trashing is so easy, you can trivially thin your deck. perhaps this is intentional--it's certainly your choice--but it might put more pressure on the player to make this a less accessible strategy.

the damage cards also feel somewhat fungible. this is again something I like--I'm excited by the idea of modding and mashing up cards in this style of game, and I think it's a powerful design direction--but it's too random to feel like a significant player choice.

ultimately, it feels easy to become very powerful. my draws were almost always good. I can almost always get my cake and eat it too. this is something I like about the game overall. but this might hurt replayability. not sure--I've only played it twice, and this is only a demo. probably though you want a little more deck difficulty, as opposed to just making the enemies harder.

again, overall, great work! happy to answer any playtest Qs, but I'm sure you guys have a local scene there to watch people play live.

shift felt a little more useful on my second playthrough, once I intentionally tried to use it as much as possible. one simple thing to try is just making the vibes counter a bar, or around the xhair, or something more fullscreen.

I like RMB to throw. would love for that to be a thing that does damage as well. guns might be a little harder to pick up than they should be maybe? and easier to distinguish from one another.

solid 7dfps entry! still enjoying the menu music.

ah, that video has changed my life

thanks for playing! elliot will be happy to hear you liked the cubes--those were all him, grunts included.

re: your personal sensibilities, this just feels like one of those games where the difficulty is sort of intrinsic to the core mechanic. that being said, the game does lob you right into the deep end! we could have done a better job of scaffolding and tutorialization for sure :)

thank you for the kind words!

good point. there should definitely be more feedback between mouse click down and mouse click up--maybe an fov shift, gun animation, definitely a sound, blur, could even do slow motion--to indicate that you've begun a swing, are in the middle of the swing, have finished the swing. thanks again.

don't you read wikipedia? best part.

when the music hit I was like 'ay'

really digging this vibe. the carpet is the best part. or maybe it's the way the guy pronounces the word 'french'. voices are amazing. the writing scratched the surface of my soul. I've never seen the movie.

your instinct makes sense--what you are describing was actually our first implementation of the mechanic. the insight that you might be missing is is that it's really the accumulated speed of the bead that determines the spin. think of it like a golf club or a tennis racket maybe--first you push the mouse up to 'send it' up, then you pull the mouse down to 'whip it' down, releasing LMB at some point during that 'swing' to fire.

to get the maximum spin possible, you have to 'swing through' the center of the screen and release LMB right in the middle--that's when the bead is moving the fastest. do you think a different gif on the page or a video or something would help?

the spin is indeed vertical-only, although this is relative to how leaned you are--i.e. if you lean all the way to the side, you can spin 'horizontally', if that makes sense.

really appreciate the feedback. thank you for your time!

great job (both of you), in that case!

just cleared the game again. still fun! I appear to have improved in my sleep, as well.

it depends on the tone you are trying to set [with lighting]. on the one hand, it feels dark in an unintentional way. on the other hand, I now associate the feel of the game with how dark it is (and I like it). there are some parts of the map where this leads to readability issues that are probably too egregious to ignore (stuff you just can't see) but all in all it's a personal design choice. there are no wrong decisions.

realism, physically-based rendering, etc. would seem to clash somewhat with the 'shareware' direction you have cooking. baking vertex lighting into your meshes and leaning into photogrammetry seems like the natural next step--this is why I brought up the revolver: it's one of the few untextured and unprocessed assets in the game (or it at least appears to be), which makes it stand out.

I understand wanting to avoid guns in general--it's something that many of us are feeling these days. at some level it is difficult to overcome the fact that your game somewhat centrally features a firearm in the workplace (i.e. this might be one of those 'lean all the way in' or 'run away screaming' thematic/tone decisions). however, one of the things you can do--if 'comic looking' is indeed your goal--is mess with proportions. the current asset is essentially a scale revolver.

probably the most significant observation I have re: the lighting is that it appears largely to be direct (and quite harsh). you have many light sources, but not much indirect lighting (i.e. not much bouncing, and therefore not much diffuse light). this leads to patches of absolute dark surrounded by patches of brightness. you can resolve this with some kind of GI solution, baking/lightmapping, or just by adjusting your ambient. the latter is the fastest trick in the west and will probably get you more bang for your buck, but given your visual style, baking would seem to vibe more. all this stuff is up to you--how do you feel about the lighting? given that this looks like something from the early 2000s, you might want to go see what you can steal from the era.

you know, I really enjoyed this vibe. map design gave me strong feelings of eye divine cybermancy, and the look--and feel--totally reminded me of frozen synapse / introversion. this music definitely has promise. really though the gestalt of the whole thing--the tutorial, the menu, the maps--felt cozy in a sort of unified way.

the guns didn't have a lot of juice (which is fine) or weight, but they did feel sharp, which I liked. they also felt different enough to be reasonable as player choices, although I'm ultimately not sure how the rifle differed from the pistol?

I appreciated the removal of various standard fps inputs that were deemed unnecessary, like crouch and reload--definitely streamlined the experience. however, 'vibes management' (should be the name of a band) was something I pretty much completely ignored. reading numbers in a twitchy game is really hard, but for the most part it just didn't seem to impact my experience. similarly, I forgot that shift was an action I could take, because it never felt motivated as a choice in the game.

that being said, after playing for a bit I began to appreciate a little that this game could go in two directions, and it seems to me that your intentions for picking one of them are actually fairly well communicated. on the one hand, this could be very fast and juicy, with possession as a line of sight mechanic (that maybe triggers slomo as well) with some nice fast interpolation... this is what I thought was missing a couple minutes in. on the other hand, this could retain its slower, more thoughtful speed. it becomes a kind of tactics/puzzle/even sandbox thing, which rewards map knowledge and creative solutions. after finishing a session I realized that this is where you took the design, more so than the other thing, and I think that's cool.

e.g. the hide => Q => WASD => F interface flow for possession in the beginning felt awkward and interrupting--too long, too many choices, breaks the flow. but later on I began to appreciate it. it's more of a sandbox thing; it gives you more control, slows down play and makes you think.

in that case though, I would like to see more creative constraints on the player. when vibes did block me, it felt kind of arbitrary. I want vibes to be more of a valuable resource: something I spend to try and get past a hard part of the map. shift feels a bit one-sided as a player action: it always seems to benefit me, so why would I ever not use it? where's the risk? all of this feeds into possession, which I think fights a little as a core mechanic with shooting (which one is more important?). I enjoy possession and I think it has a lot of promise, but during play it was sort of unclear when and why I should do it.

I'm sure you took a look at driver san francisco when making this, but it seems relevant enough to bring up. they also managed this kind of dual player desire (taking control of cars vs epic driving action) in a way I recall feeling successfully awesome. might be some learnings there.

overall, great work! will be playing this again (right now).

excellent deckbuilder! looks like you made full use of the time available to you. presentation is consistent and clean--I assume you have some experience working together (wink). really great job.

what is that ambient loop you use for card selection? I have to have it--great vibe, really puts me in the mood. reminds me of an old carmack track.

did one playthrough. made it all the way to the final boss and... wasted an uber buffed card on a shield by 'accident'. totally immersed. sound and visuals go a long way to sell this. will give it another go later and might have more thoughts on balance--on first impression at least, I felt like the difficulty and combos were just right!

gave you all the follows. excited to see more. itch page is still down, however! would love to tag you there as well. great work!

awesome work! left my feedback on the jam entry page.

(1 edit)

I got a around 2K on my second bootup here which I'm sure isn't amazing but I had fun! some more thoughts on the controller.

why not just go the full 360? I mean, I'm sure you tried it in dev but the more I play, the more I want it.

I often miss the chess pieces due to the distortion. this is basically fine and kinda sorta not really a feature--as a player I can (and did) certainly correct for it. might be useful to modulate the distance requirement for pickup based on the vector between the player and the item (to 'account' for distortion).

there's a weird sort of gap between seeing a cloud of heads at 3 o clock or whatever and not being able to shoot at it, because you're managing some other cloud at 10 o clock. again, the game is already fun and it's certainly conventional to aim and shoot in one direction, so it's OK. but I almost wish I could crowd control in such a way that I could manage multiple groups at once. perhaps this is due to the transience of the bullets--as artifacts they have a very short lifetime. if they did some kind of persistent damage, or took longer to reach their target, or something, it might work. but that would mess with the classic mob management shooter feel you have. the solution might be as simple as adding tons of pushback and/or sleep/freeze to enemy hits, to emphasize groups and how you control them in space. yeah.

I love the style, but I can't help but think this would work really well diegetically as a sort of hulking vehicle-on-a-soundstage huge map thing with the full english done on HUD ui and target tracking, and a compass spanning the full footer of the screen.

awesome. one of my favorite games in the jam so far! great work, both of you.

seems like the 'bullets' and hit effects are a bit out of theme, but I'm sure you're aware already. getting devil daggers vibes. chess pieces are cool. palette is nice. balance feels good. need to play with the camera a bit more to develop an opinion on how it feels.

there's a discord? :surprise: where do I find it? :)

needs some polish but I had fun! running out of ammo felt more like an annoyance than a useful mechanic--I often found myself swapping weapons randomly just to find something that could shoot. the experience is also a bit too unloseable and the guns too similar to offer me any motivation to use one weapon over another, it seems. four different types of weapons is a lot! it feels like you may have been able to sell a really clean feel for one, maybe two of them instead in the same amount of time.

teleporting felt a little tacked on, but was actually what I enjoyed most about the game. rmb to hop around space feels very satisfying, and your tune on the AV elements of doing so is great. I would love to experience more of that, particularly in a way that motivates me to do it in combat, or use it to do interesting things with the map.

also, any game about bhopping without scroll up mapped to jump should be a crime (wink).

great work!

left my feedback on the jam entry page in case you retain this site for future releases. good work!

ah I see, the lava rises. difficult to make out!

I feel like the game is really close to feeling tight and clean, but struggles a bit with balance (eyeball spawns) and a few key collision bugs that dampen the experience. you might have to make a decision re: the value of gaining height via eyeballs vs the value of the rocket from the perspective of the player.

slick concept! great simple little game! I enjoyed the handwritten controls text--it was a nice touch.

shift and control both feel pretty questionable in terms of player agency. why would I ever stop holding shift? it only improves my performance. is the small utility in being able to adjust your controller height (unclear if this is from the bottom up or top down, which might have some kind of bhop potential) worth adding a whole extra key--left control--for the player to think about? if you raise the skill ceiling and make the movement system micro in a way that makes these inputs matter, this could be a deep and rewarding experience. on the other hand, you might want to delete them entirely.

one minor point: it's sort of unclear to me what triggers a 'lose' scenario. it might make more sense to just trigger this on contact with the bottom of the well, to improve readability. and/or add a reset key. every so often I get a bad spawn that I'd prefer to redo.

great work!

I really hope the call was improvised--it's really well done! part of me wonders why it isn't just playing during the game. and the lip sync is definitely underutilized--too good.

I enjoyed the level of difficulty. the final map feels a bit thrown in but the second one was tons of fun, with just the right amount of length and punishment. combat felt straightforward and satisfying. tapping has immediate feedback. genuinely had a good time.

the visual style teeters on the edge of being really good. there are too many objects that seem inconsistent and clash--like the revolver--and the lighting needs work, but I was really sold on the squirrel meshes and the possibly unintentionally awesome low tickrate physics. the combination of the derezzed photogrammetry and the stop-motion physics really has some potential to sell an awesome look, I think. paratopic comes to mind?

great work!

at first I found the experience pretty frustrating, but by the second level I began to see the appeal. attracting a large number of objects to a point in space is a pretty impactful interaction, and riding them on a gravity pull is even better! I would definitely lean into that if you can--it's a great experience when it does occur.

blast from the past! it seems as though you can't lose the game, though? sensitivity settings would be nice to have as well.

left a comment on the jam page. great work!

so excited to see a jam entry from blendo! love this concept. the best visual moment for me was catching a frame of what felt like a hundred cars on my tail. I'm not convinced this would suck as a first-person driving experience; there would be many opportunities to make the game more diagetic (using the copilot as a spotter, watching them hook ammo off of a downed vehicle, snapping your mirrors in a wreck) but would certainly change the design space. I'm sure you had your reasons!

it seems as though very few games have done the codriver thing right (sub rosa comes to mind) and I definitely like how you applied this to a single player experience. would certainly like to play more.

the driving model feels quite awkward and orthogonal to my input, almost as though the fixed loop is running fast. every input seems wildly extrapolated, forces and damping unusually strong... could it be that you tuned this for 60hz?

playing this gave me warm and fuzzy reminders of raptor safari, flotilla, on the run, and mad max, in no particular order.

made it to 415s! realized you can cheese the asteroids a little by orienting your view model along the normal of the planet and shooting directly upwards ;)

great work! consistent style and coherent atmosphere. definitely felt a vibe playing this. enjoyed the thoughtful asteroid HUD. game feel is clean and shooting the cannon feels satisfying! solid 7dfps entry.

I spent quite a bit of time hangin out in the cool little space you made without feeling significantly threatened by the incoming rocks. when it takes so long to scale to a larger difficulty, it becomes somewhat challenging to evaluate how difficult the game actually is and respond to this as a player. since this is your core mechanic, it would be nice to be able to feel out its strength under stress, if that makes sense.

I found the flaming trees a little confusing from a readability standpoint--are they indicative of how the planet is changing? just a visual effect? should you attempt to put them out? this might actually be an interesting design direction: what if the player had to manage a little firefighting action on the homefront? would enable you to delete your health bar and replace it with something more diagetic (the health of the planet would be readable from its visual elements) and give the game a layer of micro to break up the asteroid shooting, which can get a bit monotonous over time. might be interesting to develop a little risk v reward: do I go for the asteroid over here, or the fire over there? and see if that can be an interesting player choice. or not.

anyways, I always enjoy getting a chance to play a planetoid game! tried this on the controller first but I'm about to give it a go on kbd & mouse.

thanks for playing!

no problem--a little polish and this can be a tight atmospheric shooter!

always good to see a 2.5d game in the jam--I'm still feeling nostalgic about marathon. I like the wall sprites! the gun needs more feedback, but I understand that this is a jam release. didn't realize I had to freeze the jellies before shooting them at first, but once I did, I had a good time. good work! rare to see a fellow C gamedev. keep it close to the metal!