Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics


A member registered Jan 13, 2019

Recent community posts

While the art and presentation of the game is gorgeous, I personally struggle to understand the core motivation for playing the game. Judging by the rules the player is completely at mercy of random chance and this chance is clearly very biased against survival of the player.

(1 edit)

I feel like this game can be basically boiled down to "Write your own Mary Sue fanfic"

"Keep it in front of you. You can discard this card during any turn to discard a card you turn over, ignoring the prompt entirely."

Does it mean that I can use Ace Clubs to discard the last king, thus avoid game over due to collecting all four kings?

(1 edit)

What will happen if I will use PET with a GM-emulator, like Mythic? =)

(3 edits)

Please, add mechanics that could replace a block tower. I  don't have tower, so I borrowed replacement mechanics from "Way of the goblin: the lone wolf" (

Also, according to the plot the game should last 7 days only. How to interpret situation when the player ran out of days, but have neither achieved salvation (i.e. there are tokens remaining on the ace heart card) nor lost yet (The tower is okay and not all kings have been drawn yet from the deck)?

"a tumbling block tower" Please, indicate that this part is optional.

Link to rules of the original game:

"then Laura does the task well" Who is Laura??

>Treat its universalizing language/imperatives the same way you'd treat "Dada Means Nothing"

In other words, it was purposedly overdramatized and made sound more radical than you really believe, right?

>In any event, I think the Chesterton's Fence reference  is not quite the right one, since I don't think either you or I are really confused about what HP is for

The key part in this case is "Rather, they should be able to show how tearing things down constitutes an actual improvement." Not just "by not using X we would be forced to be more creative about how we do things". I think the person who would said that would need to show actual alternatives for X and that these alternatives are improvement over using X. Otherwise, it's like cutting budget of a film in hope that it will become better due to creators of the film being forced to become more creative with their more limited means.

Theoretically, it can indeed happen, but other outcomes are much more likely:

A) People use their limited means more creatively, but this doesn't make film better compared with alternative world where the budget wasn't cut.

B) People fail to be creative and just fallback on cheaper and more primitive techniques and make shorter, less polished, film

The problem is that HP are so universal construct, that it's very unlikely that there is possible equally universal construct that could replace HP AND be an improvement. At the very best you could show that in such and such specific scenarios a game is better without HP for such and such reasons. So you can't dismantle HP universally if you can't replace it universally.

>the response to the "imagine how limiting hands are" argument would be "imagine ways of interacting with the world that are not bound by what hands alone can do" which would lead you to, you know, hammers and axes and tools and writing implements and so on.

You provided quite ironic examples for alleged results of thinking outside "use-hands" worldview. Because they still need hands to useful, you still use your hands, just indirectly. So, say, sentient handless humanoid aliens wouldn't came up with idea of, say, hammer, at the least not in the form that humans invented, which shows that hammers created by humans weren't created outside of "use-hands" worldview. 

I would rather extend "imagine ways of interacting with the world that are not bound by what hands alone can do" by adding "and if you fail to make an improvement, fall back to hands-using worldview".  This way this turns into a creative procedure that won't make things worse (in the worst case) and can even make things better (in the best case). If we replace "hands" with arbitrary X, we can use this procedure in general to increase amount of originality in our projects.

This is a pretty good example of how applying some of the most basic tools of philosophy can make an argument seem clever even when it's not actually that clever, and also of how finding the flaws in a thing is at best tangentially related to improvement. "X is objectionable in the following ways, and should therefore be done away with" is about as facile an argument as there is to be had, because doing away with X results in some other status quo which may (for all anyone knows, given the limits of the argument) be worse!

This is easily shown. Suppose I tell you that hands are bad. They constrain the ways in which we interact with the world. If only we didn't have hands, we might explore new and interesting ways of eating, or typing, or sexually stimulating one another. Think of how limited the world is, to those of us with hands! If we cannot manipulate a thing with our fingers, we scarcely think it is worth manipulating at all! And certainly it is true that people who lack hands approach the world differently, they have totally different qualia and sometimes see solutions to problems that handed people would never have noticed, solutions that even make the world a better place for handed people! Why, just think of the utopia we could inhabit, if only we got rid of hands.

Hopefully the problem is clear, here. On one hand (heh) there is clearly something to be gained from interrogating our priors, shifting our paradigm, whatever you want to call it. Recognizing those concepts that bind your thinking is potentially a step toward freeing your mind to think original thoughts. But as the pithy wooden-bladed ax meme communicates, just because you're original doesn't mean you're useful. This is related, I think, to Chesteron's Fence, but goes a bit beyond it. Not only should you understand the purpose of a thing before you tear it down, but the burden of proof on those who propose to tear things down is not merely to show that thing is unnecessary. Rather, they should be able to show how tearing things down constitutes an actual improvement. The standard label is "Pyrrhic Victory," I guess (or "baby with the bathwater?"), though that seems sufficiently broad that I want a more narrow label to identify cases where people identify legitimate problems but then fallaciously conclude that the solution is to burn something the ground. Canonical examples might be burning down your house to get rid of your bedbug problem, or injecting bleach into people to kill infectious microorganisms.

In the particular case of Hit Points, they really are just an instance of a score-keeping mechanism for certain arbitrary tasks in a gaming milieu. There are lots of great video and tabletop games that haven't got them, both today and in past decades. Are some game designers limited by HP thinking? Sure, probably. But anyone who claims the problem is universal in game design is mostly just exhibiting their ignorance of the history of gaming.

But there is no game to play ...

Please, make Linux version

(1 edit)

"" also contains Linux version. Please, add Linux to supported platforms to reflect that

I think you accidentally posted pure MacOS version, instead of MacOS and Windows combined version.

(1 edit)

Thank you! I experienced joy. It's a rare emotion for me, as it turned out.

(1 edit)

Symbols chart, in case something happens with link or if people (like me) have to use VPN in order to access due to overzealous government.

(rightclick and then select "view image" to view it at its full size)

Please, make Windows or Linux or Web version.

(3 edits)

Corrections: "straight" doesn't work, heterosexual is used instead.

Other attributes that the game uses, but that aren't metioned.


SPOILERS!!! My solutions:
At first I included everyone who who is self-aware, so I got a monkey and a parrot.

In order to exclude the monkey I added "(black or brown or white or yellow)" (althought it's bizzare that monkey doesn't count as brown, but the parrot counts as yellow)

The parrot is young and doesn't wak, while among the humans presented there are no young people who can't walk, so in order to exclude parrot I added "(old or walking)"

So, I got "self-aware and (black or brown or white or yellow) and (old or walking)"

Solution number 2:

"walking", but this excludes old man in a wheelchair

Then I tried "walking or (old and not walking)", but it turned out that the dog was old too. So finally, I added rational and got "walking or (old and not walking and rational)"

Solution number 3:

"walking or rational"

I played all your games and this is the most favorite one! And to be fair, it's also one of the most atypical of your games. Please, consider making more games like this one!

Are there jumpscares?

(3 edits)

I think that in this current form the game requires too much work.
Instead of taking a book I would rather suggest the player to take a short story and then edit
it based on point system, that gives +1 point for editing the text in certain way. The goal is to maximize the points, while not letting the story to break apart completely.

Incomplete impromptu example:

+1 for every black character (creation of new characters is forbidden)

+1 point for preventing death or capture of non-human animal (like making a hunt to fail)

+1 for adding mutual romantic feelings between characters

+1 for one case of product placement ad

To scry a possible future if you stay on this world, roll 2d6 and consult the following table:
1 - The destruction of the world.

Wait a minute, you can't get 1 if you throw two dice! The smallest number that you can get is 2, not 1.

Please, explicitly set language to Italian in "More information"

(3 edits)

For somebody who lacks affective empathy Lydia is quite a decent (i.e. not destructive) person. She doesn't bully people, doesn't think too high of herself, doesn't cause drama just for fun, haven't committed or tried to commit any crimes. I think she is about as manipulative as gay people have to be in strictly religious countries like Saudi Arabia. She even bothered to read about deontology and utilitarianism in attempt to grok morality logically. I don't think that she has AntiSocial Personality Disorder, despite lack of empathy. After all, lack of affective empathy isn't the only trait of ASPD and it's even not trait exclusive to ASPD . She also doesn't look like having Borderline Personality Disorder or Narcissism. I wonder, what her condition could be?

I also would expect Daniel to be more cynical and experienced at recognizing manipulations, given that even normies manipulate each other.

P.S. Question for you, I hope you will answer. In the game Lydia said that there are few people about whom she really cares. Whom did she mean?

Great educational game! But it has two drawbacks:

1.It has no part about trade secrets, although Lawbook made expect it. I suspect you planned to do this in part 2, but didn't finish it?

2.When choosing what opensource licenses to use, it's possible to choose license that both forbids derivative works and requires derivative works to have the same license at the original. This just can't happen in real life. This combination of properties is logically impossible.

Your game doesn't fit my screen. Even in fullscreen mode

Can't run it on Linux, it says "There is no data folder"

Linux zip has Mac icon and Mac zip has Linux icon, it's confusing

Please, add "Japanese" language in meta of your game.

Very useful knowledge! Please, continue development and make Linux version! I had to use Wine in order to run the game.

(2 edits)

Please, consider making an offline version of your educational game. In some contries, like in mine, it's problematic to play online version due to crude attempts of government to block internet sites.
I personally used to complement this game. Although it was intended to teach OOP in general, understanding Java code at the least some level is needed for this game.

(1 edit)

Does Butterscotch own Toffee? Can Butterscotch sell them? Is Toffee a slave? Or was Toffee hired at some point?

Thank you, Nami!

1.You said that it's opensource, but where is the license file?

2.Why is your framework in category "Assets" rather than "Tools"?

Please, consider removing tag "programming". This tag is normally used by games where the player composes code as part of gameplay

(4 edits)

I was able to complete level 6 by causing division by zero (x=0). Are you sure it's not a bug?

P.S. Please, don't forget to inform your subscribers when you make new levels!

(1 edit)

For an example, due to this error I'm currently unable to play Golem Quest (while another web-game,, was able to load just fine)

My browser (Firefox 82.0) says "The server at is taking too long to respond."

Yesterday I was unable to load Golem Quest, then after some time able to load it.

P.S. While I was typing this message I checked Golem Quest again and was able to load it. Probably because server changed?.

I suspect it has something do with cumbersome attempts of government of my country to block sites. Maybe you can figure out what your servers don't work for IP addresses like mine and give me only servers that I can access?

Please, add "programming" tag

(1 edit)

I understand, but how does it understand what to recommend? Does it suggest something randomly? Or does it send infromation about books to some kind of Internet service? Something else?

OS: Debian 9

The game was unpacked into "/media/collection/MyProjects/Just2fun/Gamer/ITCH.IO/GodAI - Linux/"

It seems like the game failed to recognize that it was unpacked in "GodAI - Linux" directory, NOT "GodAI" directory