itch.io

I try to make this part of the point of the jam - the compressed timelines show you where you are weak, and ideally, you keep putting games together again and again, resulting in improvements to those areas because the parts you are good at get faster, leaving you more time to work on what you are weak in. For every repeat contributor to these jams, I see an improvement from the first entry to each subsequent one, so I recommend coming back soon and trying to put out another game - I think you are well on your way!

Feedback and critique:

As I said, this was a very well done game. Let’s go down the list:

• Graphics: Solid implementation. I wasn’t able to check everything, but from what I played, everything worked well together and was very smooth.
• UI: Since you were able to implement a main menu and pause (which, fantastic job by the way, I see this neglected too often), I would have spent a little time to make them pop a bit more (minor cleanups and transitions), but the UI system is already very good. I see an about/credits screen: EXCELLENT. Chef’s kiss.
• Controls: No issues here either, everything worked as expected. The only enhancement I could suggest is letting the player rotate their garden using a mouse grab or something, but this isn’t strictly necessary.
• Gameplay: So, you throw the player right into the game with no explanation of what to do and what is going on. Don’t rely on your game page to do this work for you - pretend that your grandma is booting your game for the first time and you’re not around to tell her what she needs to do to play the game. Likewise, the game is kind of… well, very straightforward. I can only really keep planting the skull until I get enough for a head on a spike (?), and so on. This makes the game a bit boring - spice it up with upgrades (more plots, better yields, faster growing times, etc). This creates strategic play. Another thing to consider is giving the player an in game reason to grow their garden - what are they trying to accomplish? Give them goals, pressure, obstacles, etc. This is probably the weakest point of what is otherwise a very well made game.
• Music and Sound: They exist, and they are good. I would have put a sound to signify the end of the growing cycle for items, and maybe even put in some different music (I like making a jukebox system that plays through 20-30 minutes of music with various tracks to add variety). Not saying the music is bad - it fits, and it works. This is just a bit of polish. :-)

Overall: I feel like this is one of the most solid entries that fits the theme of the Jam, for all the potential of what it could be. If your were to add some of the enhancements above, this would take your game to the next level and frankly be a nice portfolio piece. As I said, very well done.

Very interesting prototype! What is the license for your code? I’d be interested in using something like this to build on for a game (though what I’d build, I have no idea at the moment, lol).

Only a few bugs I noticed, like sometimes the ground turns red on decent, and the loading of procedural chunks is a bit jarring, but otherwise exactly as advertised on the tin. Well done!

Trying to get to all the games before the voting period is over, so I’ll be brief:

This was a very interesting concept, and I enjoyed playing it! The game could have had some better polish (UI/manu interface, resolution control, spacing, sound, music, etc), and it seems like the clicks did not always register for ash collection. Still enjoyable, well done!

Very well done! I’ll come back for more detailed comments here in a bit because the voting period is almost over; the only two improvements I would make is an upgrades screen and a brief tutorial, but this was very well done and a very creative approach to incrementing!

Cool deal. The jam won’t take an update, but if you post it seperately, I’ll happily play it and apply my rating to this one here.

I will be brief, as it appears that my much longer comment has now been lost. 😭

The game lacks in polish, but it definitely makes up for it in terms of its twist. I will say that things need to be made clearer, as there are a lot of non-obvious things going on and confusing wording for the incremental part of the game, as well as UI polish (main menu screen being a big one). That said, the game kept me playing and wanting to see what was at the end - points for driving curiosity!

A bit grindy, but not bad overall. Let’s get into it -

Feedback/Critique:

• UX: I didn’t particularly care for the tutorial page up front the way that it was presented (a few typos along the way, btw), but that said, I AM glad that there was a tutorial. User onboarding is too often forgotten in these short jams. I do wish there was a way to revisit the tutorial though, like some kind of hint page that would allow me to relook at it, because once I started the game, I felt like suddenly I had forgotten everything I just read, lol.
• Graphics: It was a bit bare bones, but I will say that I did enjoy your rock animation loops - they were smooth and well done.
• Music: I think this was the most relaxing part of the game. I hated the grind with the first rock, but the music kept me going, so well done there!
• UI: The HUD puts the Ash and timer in such a way that it gets clipped a bit, and it’s pretty bare bones. Also no pause menu, main menu, etc - this would have added a bit of extra polish to the game.
• Gameplay: Clicking through the different rock levels for the first rock was tedious, less so once I started getting more rocks. I would have put an upgrade menu in place for the player to spend their ash on as a way to encourage strategic play and to give the players a way to speed up their game play.

Overall: Gameplay wise, it’s pretty straightforward: grind by clicking. I can think of many ways that you could enhance the game, but the bones are there. Well done!

Feedback / critique:

• Visuals: Dark on dark is usually not a good way to go. Your store page has dark blue on black, and your game had dark gray on black. My eyes are old and strain enough as it is, but even if they weren’t, this is bad practice…
• AI Use: So, this was very obviously done with AI. Using AI isn’t an issue, but I think you left too much to the AI here. An example: at the very top, you have your title “Ashen Garden” and then the subtitle “The ash remembers what the fire destroyed.” I don’t know why, but AI, particularly ChatGPT, seems to have a love for ‘remembers’, especially where it thinks it is being poetic. This is a bit forgivable, but then there is the gameplay. I am not sure that you playtested your own game - in fact, I am sure that you didn’t, otherwise you would have caught several other AI bugs that normally crop up when you aren’t careful, such as the needless toggling between showing empty patches and what is planted whenever the plants are selected, the unrealistic difficulty, the questionable appearences of ghosts that seem to do nothing, and just a general sense of incongruity, along with emoji use in place of real graphics, etc.

I’m looking at your profile, and I am having a hard time deciding if I should just disqualify this submission outright. I think the only reason I am not is because you obviously took the time to make the game for this jam. However, I think you have an overreliance on AI when it comes to AI games. I looked at some of your scratch games - your tag game, for example, is super creative and I think fairly well done, which makes this entry a little more baffling.

I get experimenting with AI - hell, my entry this week is an AI experiment. But I recommend taking some time - an hour, two, three even - to sit down and map out how everything should look and function in the game before ever prompting the AI - your results will be much better. I think that there might be some good creativity here - you’ve got ideas. But perhaps the process needs work.

No offense meant, but is English your first language? Your replies to others here are incongruous with your store pages.

Er… unplayable?

Can’t Find URL: HauntedGarden: . Invalidating and reverting to Default URL. Travel Failure: [InvalidURL]: Invalid URL: /Game/MAINMENU

The cook manifest only includes HectorTheSpector/Content/MAINMENU.umap and Engine/Content/Maps/Entry.umap

So I think you forgot to build it with the level that the game was actually on.

Is there a particular reason you chose Unreal? It seems like overkill for this type of game, but no shade if it was just a way to experiment.

Critique/Feedback:

• Onboarding: Don’t rely on your game’s page to onboard new players. When I first started the game, I had no clue what was going on, what my objective was, or how to interact with the game. Since I’m the host, I took a moment to look at your controls on the game page and see what my objective was, but you have to figure that your normal user will not do this.
• UX: It was frustrating to have $5 knocked off every few seconds when I couldn’t get to the pumpkins. While purchasing upgrades in the skill tree alleviates this later on, I think that a player approaching this will tend to quit rather than continue for what they might think is a bug (Again, nothing tells the player that they need to blow up the pumpkins to avoid the drop in money, and blowing up the pumpkins doesn’t provide a visual benefit to the player). The game also doesn’t pause during skill tree buying, so if I make the exact amount I need but am not quick enough, I lose out on buying the skill and have to go back to grind again for a few annoying seconds before trying to buy again.
• Gameplay: Grinding is right - it was annoying to have to switch between bombing pumpkins and ‘mining’ trees, especially with no hotkeys to switch. Once I upgraded the first time, I just ignored the pumpkins and ate the cost of letting them persist, and I was able to beat the game without blowing up another pumpkin. Once the drain stops being a concern, the race to the finish is fairly vanilla.
• Graphics: I liked the graphics to some extent, but the overall field seemed… cluttered? You had many interesting things in there that only served as decorations, which seemed like a missed opportunity for interesting interactions.
• Sound: I like that the sound was unobtrusive and appropriate for the gameplay. I wish you’d have included music though.

Overall, the game felt very prototype-y. I know I’ve been critical up to this point, so I will say that it seems like this game was going in a good direction - it doesn’t seem to have any bugs, and the bones are there. I think that you could have done more with this. I encourage you to examine your process a bit more. you stated that you used AI to learn the concepts, which I think was the right tact in this case - you didn’t ask AI to do things you weren’t prepared to do yourself yet it seems. I’d keep going with AI in your workflow, learning to use it more effectively while keeping abreast of what each part of the game dev process looks like. Don’t let my critique discourage you - I hope to see improvements and more work from you in the future!

I think Ivandur’s issue is kinda like a ship of Theseus issue - if you replace all the parts of the ship with those generated by AI, in what sense is it Theseus’s ship?

I agree with you on this - as a game dev, you’re sourcing assets and work. Game dev is a team effort, and if that team is entirely AI, I think that there is a distaste for it (“Clankers can’t create” is something I’ve often heard thrown around). I think it’s a slippery slope though. If I’ve directed the AI to create every part of the ship in detail, it is similar to if I’ve directed a team to create every part of the ship. I’m still the director. The end product may be better or worse for it, but especially if I am using AI assets, then I think that I bear more of a creative burden, since I can’t blame anyone else but myself if that ship sinks.

I may have faulted a little formal, lol.

Okay, thank you, I can see what you’re trying to say a little better now.

🤔

Again, I haven’t played any yet, so I don’t know which one is being talked about here; I’ll look through today (yay weekend).

I think what I said still stands - I’ll allow someone to use AI for an entire project. Legally speaking, Using GPT to create the entire game is different than Astrocade in terms of legality. But “CHATGPT, MAKE A GAME FOR THIS JAM: [link]” and using that output as the sole basis is still AI slop. I 100% agree.

But should I disqualify it?

I try very hard to have a reasoned approach to AI (as you can tell, lol). I get AI hate, and I’ll admit my own biases - I’ve spent the last four years working as an AI trainer (I started with AI just before GPT became GPT). So, I have a little bit of love for AI, but I like to think it’s one with eyes wide open - AI is just a fancy autocomplete, or at best, a mechanical parrot.

I say that to say that, yeah, I’m probably a bit permissive with AI use. If someone as a game developer wants to use AI to make their entire game, go for it. However, I have yet to see one game that is extremely well made with AI, and I’ve come down hard on those entries (or at least, I’ve tried to, maybe some have fooled me). But I am reluctant to disqualify people that have entered only my jam and used AI to create the game (I look at each entry’s game page - if I see that someone has spammed jams, ESPECIALLY when it’s obviously pure AI, they get disqualified fast). I guess I’m trying to give the creator the benefit of the doubt.

Let’s say Joe Blow is a budding game designer with big dreams but zero experience. He sees my Jam, and decides to take his brilliant idea for a game to chat GPT. “Chat GPT, make me this game for this jam, I want it to be brilliant and win.” And GPT spits out some code, maybe using the godot engine, maybe a web app, it doesn’t matter because Joe Blow doesn’t really understand the mechanics, he just wants to try to make a game and win.

Now take his counterpart, Art Fart. Art is a lazy and pretentious POS that knows about as much as Joe blow, but has the stones to think he’s brilliant. Art twirls his mustache as he prompts GPT to create his AI slop monstrosity and unleashes it upon my Jam with a gleeful cackle. “That will show them!” He says with a maniacal laugh. “Those game devs are so stupid - making a game is easy now, thanks to AI. But I guess they wouldn’t know, because they’re all dumb!”

Now, over to me. Joe Blow has submitted “Joe’s fantastic wonderful game horray gj lol”, and Art has submitted “Art’s dastardly snub at the art world because I’m brilliant lol”. Lets say neither of them disclosed that they used AI - Joe is just dumb, and Art is just an ass, but I can’t tell that on my end. So I look at their games.

Like I said, I’ve worked around AI for a long time. I use AI daily in my own dev. Even assuming that GPT somehow managed to sneak their entry past their layman, it’s usually pretty obvious to me where AI was used, if not the extent. I have no way of telling Joe and Art apart in terms of motivation, so I have to assume good intentions from both. So this is why I don’t disqualify them. I legitimately want Joe to grow from this Jam. And I am willing to stake a million dollars that both games stink.

I’ve seen AI turn around some half way decent stuff first turn, but it usually is a result of an extremely well thought out prompt, requires a higher functioning model, and if possible also involves the use of references and materials supplied to the model (so a bit of work on the prompter’s part before the model ever starts to work). Hell, the entry that I submitted this week was purely AI (given that it might serve as the prototype for a future game of mine, I have not included any further iterations that I’ve done with this). Is the Asteroid Prototype AI slop? I’d be annoyed if someone said it was - I put a lot of thought into the prompt that went into it, and had some pointed iterations before I cut the release out here from what I thought was a cool little toy. But it is pure AI in terms of the code, graphics, writing - all that is mine is the direction. So did I make this prototype, or did AI make it (and if so, in what sense is it mine?)? Where someone might fall on this is a matter of debate. For what it’s worth, I released the prototype as it was for free because it is an experiment done with AI for something I’ll probably end up using human labor for later. It’s my intellectual property, and the AI was the grunt that actually did the work. In a sense, the AI was my ghostwriter. I am careful to give credit where credit is due - even though I see AI as a soulless autocomplete, AI always gets credit for ‘its’ work, and I am very careful to log what is AI and what is mine.

Ok, I’m probably laboring a point here (and I fear that this is turning into a gmail style communique on my end anyway, lol). But to TLDR this: creative direction is still ownership over a final product, all else being equal. Someone whose sole contribution to a game is a prompt owns that creative direction - the AI couldn’t have made it by itself - that’s not the way AI works. If that is all that the person entering my jam is capable of doing, then I’m going to make a comment about what they produced, and it’s probably not going to be a great comment.

Sigh, I know, I’m long winded. Blame it on my age (I’m in my 40s). Don’t feel like you have to reply gmail style please - what I meant by professional is just a well reasoned “Hey, I disagree because x.” I think I’ve addressed your concern? If I missed the point again, my apologies.

Ivandur112,

Thank you for your comment, though I’d appreciate it if you’d approach your comment more professionally. Still, I think you raise a point that should be addressed, and I do want to give it careful consideration.

I haven’t had time yet to play anything yet, so I can’t speak to how many of the games are AI slop or not. I CAN speak to the number of AI slop entries I have banned that have shown no effort and/or entries that have been done with AI that, when I play them, just aren’t good games.

Here is my philosophy with AI: Ignore it at your peril, but use it at your peril (especially when used uncritically).

The point of this game jam is to learn through shipping. Make small games that can be done within the span of a week, and then publish them for critical reception. I’m hoping that each entry, the submitter learns something from their submissions.

So lets talk about AI slop for a second - what is it? I have seen people call anything with AI in it ‘slop’, simply because ‘it wasn’t made by humans. I think this is grossly unfair. Consider that there are game engines out there that attempt to remove any type of coding from their engines. Does this make the game developer that uses them less of a game designer? There are tools out there that automatically create human meshes, giving them texture and animations. If someone uses this, does this take away from them being an animator or 3D artist? Use of AI, to me, is use of a tool, no more, no less.

That said, too many people treat AI as the thing that solves all their problems for them. If I asked AI to build me a game, and that game isn’t well received - that’s my fault, not the AI. If I put no thought into the systems, no thought into the UX, no thought into design, I can guarantee that the AI will give you an equivalent level of mediocrity. One of the previous games I made, I took hours in the planning stage being meticulous about what I wanted my systems should look like, how the game should be played, what assets would be used, etc. The result was a product that I think was at least halfway good - it played well, and was far better than I might have been able to do by myself in a week. I know it had issues, especially in the writing (because storytelling is the one thing AI seems to be particularly horrible at) - but even here, I didn’t accept it uncritically, and took the time to figure out what tweeks I needed to make so that a user would still enjoy the game without being taken out of the experience by an AIism. My intro for the game was an AI piece because none of the music I landed on fit the theme I wanted, but then I featured two different artists with original, human made music. The music, in terms of theme, wasn’t particularly congruent with my gameplay, but it didn’t break immersion, and in any case, I gave the player the ability to pick what tracks they wanted to hear while they played to soften tat issue.

If you didn’t use AI in your development, that is fantastic. I think it is very important for a game developer to know the entire process and be able to build things by hand. However, this doesn’t automatically make your game better than an AI generated one. There have been many games that have been made by hand that are absolutely horrible (the original ET game comes to mind immediately - does this unplayable ET game rate as better than an AI game if the AI game is at least playable?).

Ultimately, though, we don’t decide if the games we create are any good - the player does. One of the primary reasons I’ll allow someone who made a game purely with AI entry is that, if it is good, hopefully they have learned something valuable about their workflow. If it is bad and people are critical, I hope they learn what failed and why people are critical. “It’s AI and then therefore bad” is a poor argument. “The stilted writing and clashing of music with the gameplay” is a better critique, and if the developer used AI, that’s a lesson they learn - don’t rely on AI to polish your game for you.

If you have a problem with a specific game for having used AI, articulate what the problem is. Was the writing bad? Were the graphics jarring in some way? Was the music obviously just thrown in without a thought to theme? THAT is helpful information. If your only complaint is “THEY USED AI!”, then I’m sorry, I don’t see what the problem is.

Now, there is an argument to be made that game development is an art, and AI can’t create art because an AI can’t feel. I think this is gatekeeping a bit, but let’s ignore that for a second. Photography did not replace people drawing or painting on canvas. Animating through computers did not get rid of hand animation.

I don’t know where your objection with AI lies, so I don’t know if I addressed your concern. I may not have changed your mind either, and that’s fair. But I will not ban AI from submission simply because people don’t like it - I need reasons. I’ve banned and disqualified Astrocade games (a pure AI engine), because none of the submitters own the rights to anything they produce - Astrocade does. I’ve banned people for obviously low effort swill that is spammed to many jams just because the author is hoping it gets notice somehow. So, I do not abide AI slop in the Jam. But my definition of AI slop has a very specific target. If there is a game that you think is low quality - rate it low quality. Nothing is stopping you from doing so. I have yet to see an obviously low quality game make it to the top bracket because people vote it down.

And at the end of the day, if you don’t like my rules, you are free to not participate - there are other jams. This is a low stakes exercise in game design on a short timeline. I’m not giving anyone cash prizes. My leaderboard is an incentive to participate regularly, and I’ve yet to see slop artists make much progress on it.

Now, I see myself as open to a well reasoned argument. If you think I am wrong, I welcome a discussion. I’d ask that you remain professional in your response - all caps doesn’t convince me to change my mind. Like I said, I think you raise an important question, and one I’ve been meaning to get around to addressing (but I also run a professional studio and have other work that I take care of, so I don’t have all the time in the world to focus on this every week like I’d like to).

I await your response. -Jazhikho

Yes! The submissions only lock once voting starts out of fairness, but otherwise you can do as many updates as necessary before submissions close

Professional curiosity: What is Nyx’s AI model?

Feedback/Critique: Let me start with the good.

• Concept: This is very intriguing. As a prototype, I can see the mechanics in this game being applied to a larger game with some cool in-world explanation as to what the grappling mechanic is all about.
• Graphics: While the player dot is simplified, I do like the background and the wall texture - very pretty! And I absolutely adored the particle and grappling effects - well done!
• Controls: So here is where I start with the critique. Z to jump and C to grapple aren’t standard controls, and nowhere in the game are the controls explained. Don’t rely on your front page to be the explainer of things in game - the front page should be treated as a storefront advertising your game, not your game’s tutorial.
• Difficulty: I see that others were able to get a hang of the mechanics and progress, but maybe this was too difficult? Think about player appeal - if the player can’t get past the first stage, what are the chances that they’re just going to quit and look for a different game? While difficult games with precise platforming skills are out there, there is still a bit of an explanation of how to navigate the world so that the player is equipped with the basic skill that they must then master.
• UI: UI is non-existent. There is no HUD, no pause menu, no intro, nothing one might expect in a standard game. That said, I’m not trying to brow beat you about this - I understand that getting the gameplay loop down is sometimes a challenge enough in and of itself, and honestly, in this case, the UI is small potatoes compared to some of the other issues with the game.
• Sound / music: I loved the sound! I do wish you had included music though.

Overall, this isn’t a bad concept. I would have loved to see where this might have gone with more time.

An interesting game!

• Controls / UX: I had to remap the controls right off - the movement seemed 90 degrees off from what I expected. Once I figured that out, the puzzles became a bit easier to solve (in terms of movement). The restart level button was a bit misleading in terms of label - one might think you meant to restart the game instead of the level. I would clarify this. :-) Also, an undo move option would have been a nice addition for accidental movements.
• UI: I love that you made a very extensive UI system. This is one thing that people often miss. The only issue I have with it is that it’s a bit… bare. Liven it up! There are some UI kits out there that would have been awesome additions to this.
• Graphics: Not bad. Everything comes together rather cohesively. 👍🏽
• Gameplay: I do wish more time was spent telling the player how the obstacles and objects behaved. Granted, its a puzzle game, so figuring things out are half the fun, but I’m thinking of games like Portal, where each new obstacle / mechanic that is introduced is given time and attention so that the player understands its behavior.
• Music/Sound: The music was a bit… garish for my taste - I had to turn it way down. The song wasn’t bad, but certain notes sounded very buzzy and grating in my speakers. Separately, I wish that you had incorporated sound in your game a bit - moving objects flowers blooming, switches toggling, UI menu navigation, etc.

Despite my critiques, I think this was a very creative and fun game. Well done!

Feedback/Critique:

• First things first: The ‘I’m stuck’ mechanic fired off a bit too often. It probably would have been better to allow the user to restart the level on their own rather than restart it. In addition, restarting the level didn’t always restore Ned to his original state, causing some weirdness with puzzles.
• Graphics/UI/UX: Not terrible, but not 100% polished. The aesthetic worked, but consider polishing up the gameplay with transitions / tweening rather than hard cuts to the loading screen. A UI menu system would have been nice, especially for allowing the player to have a restart game option.
• Music/Sound: I would have liked to have control of the music - it was a bit loud for my tastes, and it would have been good to put a volume slider in to control it. Also, consider adding sound, like for when the can reaches the flower - maybe a delay between transitions where a sound plays so that the player knows “Hey! I reached my goal!” Before transitioning to the next level.

The concept is a good one - I enjoyed puzzling out which way to flip Ned. I think this game has good bones. Well done for one week’s worth of work!

It looks like there are two contributors to this? You can add contributors to a project by going into the edit game option, going to more, and setting admin rights to the other contributor, this way the game can show up as a joint effort for the both of you.

A simple but beautiful game. I greatly enjoyed the puzzle mechanics behind this, as well as the progressive challenge between each level. Feedback/critique:

• Graphics: A bit simple. What is there is very effective, though I feel that the UI could have been polished up a bit more; as it is, it is currently very plain. Consider background art, having completed pictures take the spot of the plain gray blocks, etc. However, like I said, I can’t complain too much - everything worked very well together.
• UX: Perhaps telling the player to choose block one would have been good in the beginning, so that they know that’s where the tutorial is. That said, I’m happy that there was a tutorial. The logic of the game is a bit difficult to figure out at first, but I think that is the whole point of the game, so this isn’t a ding.
• Sound/Music: I would have considered some muted/low-key sounds for placing mirrors, feedback for dropping off blocks, selecting levels, etc. Maybe some relaxing music to go with this. I think that adding that would have added just a bit of polish to your game that would have carried it over the edge.

Overall, I think this was particularly well done. Good job with this! I hope to see your work in future jams!

Yes, you can provide a link. I know that some games are to big to be hosted on itch, so a link is acceptable, as long as you own the rights to distribute your own game. :-)

Incidently, is that why itch won’t accept your files? Or is there another reason?

We’ll get that fixed here shortly, sorry!

No worries. It’s a technical thing; astrocade in particular has TOS that limit distribution, legally speaking. You probably won’t get in trouble w/ astrocade for it being here (I think they enforce their TOS loosely), but I also want to make sure that the game is your own in that sense of the word - that you retain distribution rights.

It’s honestly not bad for the first prototype, and that’s the whole point of this jam. I just had one of my Forgewalker Studio associates submit his first prototype, with predictably bad results, so you aren’t alone. It’s not easy turning things around in a week (and I include myself in this - I’ve failed many times to turn around things that I have started on). Good on you for at least getting it done and submitting for feedback. :-)

DQ’d again - this time it’s a license issue. Your game is not able to be legally published on this platform, as it violates Astrocade’s TOS.

Removed due to Jam spamming; also, game is not legally distributable on itch.

As soon as he recovers from his all-nighter, I’ll let him know. :-)

Whatever you want it to mean. Weight is somehow part of the game. Its not up to me to tell you how weight is incorporated, that’s something that you tell me.

While produced by me, this was made by KennyLumpia almost entirely as his first game. All praise and credit go to him.

Hey, when you get a chance, please contact me directly, I wanted to discuss something with you. :-)

I meant to get to this much sooner… Feedback: -Graphics: Not bad. It kind of reminded me a bit of chip’s challenge (an old game, I might be dating myself with that comment…) -Music/sound: There is none. :-( -UI/UX: I think this is probably the weakest part of the game. I don’t understand what the bars on top are for (though I get one is probably health). There is no way to restart, no in game menu, no tutorial, so the player is left flapping in the wind a bit unless they read your game page. I don’t understand the damage system, which - if I kill no one, I get no damage in return, but the more I kill, the more damage I seem to receive. Overall: The game isn’t really all that polished. It’s not terrible - I think it might be a good concept, but its definitely in rough prototype stage. I’d like to see it updated.

And when you get a chance, join the upcoming 1G1W jams and try again! We’d love to have you there!

I hear that - I’m splitting my time between work and finals myself, and I am having a hard time participating in my own jams, lol. Just another month!

https://discord.gg/H3UKcSTu