Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics

Ravery (

A member registered Mar 28, 2017 · View creator page →

Creator of

Recent community posts

Interesting start.

What's the name of the song? It's such a good music to concentrate to.

This is a great game concept!

This was actually quite relaxing.

What do the gold beans do?

Sounds good. Good luck.

I don't see any hover information when I put my cursor over the items. Is it a bug?

(1 edit)

I thought I had the same problem as others here of not being able to click on sprinklers. Then I was lucky enough to spawn the sprinkler recipe, which is required to build the structure.

At least for me it was rather unintuitive and I thought the game was bugged. I think this should be listed in the hover info of the sprinkler.

Is there some trick to buying the upgrades? Cause it takes like hundreds of clicks just to get the first level-3 spawner and after that everything is even more expensive.

How do you upgrade fish or get those upgrades? Clicking doesnt work despite having enough resources.

I think the enemy's shield would use some explanation tooltip. I thought it was the typical type of armor (i.e. reduces all attacks by the stated amount) instead of this game's implementation (i.e. monster is immune against dices with that amount of sides).

I wish you wouldn't lose most of the momentum before a jump.

Cool game. The weapons start to freak out when you got like 25 or so.

Also what's the music? I love it.

Quite cool. I wish there were health packs tho.

"Odd that it's taken 33 turns to get your first one."

I guess I should not go to casinos.

"what browser you're using to play the game?"

Firefox, newest update. On Windows 10. Resolution: 1920x1080.

"Are you playing Standard or Seasonal music?"

I tried both options, maybe that caused the bug. Not sure what settings I had when the bug started, but changing that option didn't resolve it.

"I plan on releasing the full game on Steam, but wanted to gauge peoples interests before moving forward with it."

If you upload a version with the demo turn limit removed, I could give you some feedback that includes the late game.

"It's probably best to get that set up early, however."

The earlier the better. A discord group might help as well.

(3 edits)

A few more things I noticed. Sometimes I get black cards (see image) when I'm searching. Not sure if those are bugs or hints or something.

About the randomness: The picture above shows the state of the game when I found my first stone (not rock!). I've used up all my tools as well as 33 turns until I found the first one. (Actually 29 turns. As I used 4 turns to search the field for animals, but then remembered that I can't make a farm without tools).

Maybe one could start with a card which is some form of proto-Quarry, which has a limited amount of use, but will give guaranteed stone or rock. Simply because these resources are so crucial in the beginning.

"I'll be adding the name Ravery to the list of settler names next build ;)"

Thanks! :-)

Where will I be able to get the full game? Can I wishlist it on Steam?

edit: Found another bug. Sometimes when you are in the menu and "Continue" the game, the background music sometimes plays twice. Sometimes two tracks at the same time. Sometimes the same song two times with a second delay.

I see. Thanks. I'll check it out with Chrome.

(2 edits)

I'm still getting the message:


The following features required to run Godot projects on the Web are missing:

Cross Origin Isolation


You need one of each prestige banners.

Cool game. I hope you'll add more enemy types, more levels, maybe some in-game upgrades.

After a while I couldn't build anything anymore. I could sell stuff, move stuff, but buying new machines didn't work.

I have no idea what does what, how the points are calculated or what these colors are supposed to be. Very confusing. Not fun.

Needs nightmode. Also make your game page be nightmode.

Cool puzzler.

I wanted to give it another try. Is there another way to restart besides the left shift + left ctrl + p combo? Firefox opens a private window and the game doesn't react to the input.

Is this using my computer to mine bitcoins or something? It's so slow despite showing just one graph and a scrolling background.

That's not an idle game, so why use the tag.

That cheat button is a fantastic idea and I wish more idle games had it.

More effects would be nice. Maybe the central flame and molten snow area could shrink/grow when you spend/accumulate flames.

"I was responding to you falsely claiming that I said if NIMBYs went away, all our problems would be solved.  I have not said that at all.  I only said that NIMBYs blocking new housing are causing the housing and homelessness crisis."

"falsely claiming"

"I only said that NIMBYs blocking new housing are CAUSING the housing and homelessness crisis."

"NIMBYs [...] are CAUSING the house and homelessness crisis."

"falsely claiming"


I have no interest in continuing this discussion. Maybe read your own comments.
Just keep that "I mentioned NIMBYs once, and you keep bringing it up." when reading your comments, cause all your comments are nothing but "NIMBY are so bad, they hurt everyone, bad NIMBYs, it would be so great, we could solve housing crisis, if it wasn't for all the NIMBY's.  Nimby nimby nimby!"

Then you say "we're not talking about the game." when your first comment was clearly a reply to my "too many vacant properties" comment, which is a criticism of the game that's just propaganda against NIMBYs.

Also you do nothing but glorifying your idea, dismissing all criticism, ignoring all problems, then simply dismiss all alternatives as "that won't work" out of hand, while obsessing over NIMBYs and keep hating against them again and again, nonstop.

Finally I'm completely fed up with your debate tactics. When I use "infinite" in a metaphorical sense and you keep arguing it as if it was literal, even though I have repeatedly provided hard numbers, then it's just annoying. Address the numbers or let it go, but don't keep repeating the deliberate literal/metaphorical "mixup", even though I've specified not only the numbers but even the timeframe. I don't even know whether your "No one here is claiming that if NIMBYs did not exist that all(!) problems would be solved." is yet another debate tactic that deliberately exaggerates something into absurdity just to dismiss a point out of hand, or if it's just rhetorical filler or whatever. Honestly: I don't even care at this point. I haven't had such a pointless discussion as this one for years.

So here are my final words: If the problem is so important to you and if you simply ignore/dismiss every other solution. And if you truly believe that the NIMBYs are vastly overrepresented in local politics, then start organizing people and outvote these NIMBYs that you hate so much. But keep in mind: If the (assumed) majority won't bother, then maybe adapt your worldview. Maybe far more people disagree with your vision (when it comes to actual changes in their turf) than you think.

"I only started posting about NIMBYs repeatedly after you kept repeatedly posting about one mention of them in one of my posts."

The game is literally nothing else but propaganda against NIMBYs, so why should I not address the point?

"Please do not accuse people of being Hitler...for pointing out negative effects of NIMBY created policy.   Please keep on topic."

Just take it as constructive criticism and change how you sound, cause your "That minority is overrepresented in (local) politics and controls it. They are the single cause for X and they are hurting everyone for decades. Everything would be fine, if only that tiny minority didn't exist." narrative leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

"How would you feel if someone came up to you after you criticized corporations and said "Replace corporations with Jews and see what you get in your speech"?  That would be unfair to you and you doing that to me is unfair to me. "

Corporations aren't people. Introducing or increasing the vacancy tax isn't the same as your "just move to another place, if you want to keep your preferred lifestyle". Expelling some minority if they want to keep their lifestyle is conceptually the same as how Jews were offered to convert to Christianity or Islam (in the middle ages) or were expelled, if they wanted to keep their lifestyle.

So, no, I don't think you can turn that criticism on me. Also it wasn't my intention to call you names. Take it as a suggestion to reduce your fingerpointing against some minority and blaming them for problems which they didn't cause.

"I am pointing out that NIMBYs are responsible for the housing and homelessness crisis."

As I said before. I do not agree with your premise. Take an example like California where there is massive housing crisis. 50 years ago California was just half the population. The NIMBYs didn't import 20 million people that would obviously increase housing demand. So how can you blame them?

If some person watched too many Hollywood movies and thinks that they can simply walk into California to become rich and famous, but then end up a homeless meth addict on the streets, then it's personal responsibility. So don't blame NIMBYs for other people's terrible life choices. The only thing you can blame them for is not doing a better job in getting the growgrowgrow politicians out of office.

The extreme increase in demand is the problem. If you don't address the reasons of the demand, you'll never build yourself out of that situation without going the dystopian, cramped apartment skyscraper route. Also don't forget: An apartment skyscraper with 100 people per floor and 50 floors is just enough for 5000 people. (Look up how many undocumented migrants came into the US since Biden took office and how many migrants come in legally, then calculate how many of those 50 floors condos you need to build per day, if you want to solve the problem by simply building more). Also don't forget that this kind of grow in demand is despite the housing situation you are so concerned about. Simply doing the buildbuildbuild will simply increase the growth of demand.

Africa grew by 316 million in just the last 10 years. (US population in total: 332 million) So you can probably imagine what will happen, if you were in charge and simply started building and offering Downtown-Paris-quality apartments for everyone who wants to live in a nice place like good-weather California.

Your plan is simply and utterly unsustainable, when not putting some cap on demand growth. Especially when you simply go for the cities that are already full.

If you want to build more, then a good solution to the housing crisis is to decentralize. There is so much "middle-of-nowhere" in the US, where nobody lives for miles and you don't even have fertile land. Why not build new cities there or e.g. university campuses. Why not use tax-incentives to kickstart economic growth there. If e.g. some new university cities (plus hightech startups) were treated as self-sovereign regions, you wouldn't even have that much political oppositions from conservative areas, who'd otherwise be afraid of getting outvoted by a massive influx of (often) progressive young people. This would even increase the social/cultural density in the places where these students would otherwise have been as students rarely mingle with local population and don't start "rooting" themselves in local cultures as they anticipate to change locations several times.

The solution to the e.g. housing crisis among students is to have fewer students in overpopulated cities. Having less students in those areas would reduce housing cost for other people. Also this would have a good effect on democracy, if the newly built university cities were self-regulating regions as younger people are less risk-averse and are far more eager to try out radical, untested ideas in politics. I think this would add quite well to the "petri dishes of democracy" idea and would reduce the polarization of society.

"Just allow the construction of much more housing (and as already talked about in here in a previous reply, because it is market rate private sector construction, no public funding is needed for the housing construction) .  That's it, that's the policy. "

That's something I've already said I support. I'm opposing your "It's no longer a personal choice" attitude as it's so connected to your completely terrifying hate mongering and your obsessive blame against random regular people.

"However, NIMBYs tend to be heavily engaged in local politics."

Sounds like your great ideas don't have the support that you think they have, if there are so few people even bothering to politically oppose the people that you hate so much.

Maybe you should focus on forming arguments that point out how people that are already living there will benefit personally from your ideas, instead of going the Hitler path and blaming so many problems of society on some (according to you) tiny minority. Seriously. Replace "NIMBY" with "Jew" in your last comment and see for yourself how you sound.

Anyway. Read this:

And please reread the sentence several times: "There are 33 empty properties for each homeless person in the US"

How will you build these 88 Paris in the next 50 years.

Just respond with an actual constructive, precise answer or let's just end the discussion, because it is becoming more and more pointless as you somehow blame regular people for the housing problem, while ignoring literally everything that caused it. While you push more demagoguery against regular people, you also claim that the majority are for it (so where is the problem coming from) and that nobody will be forced to do anything against their will (so why exactly are they even a problem if their will will be respected).

So, just answer how you'll build those 88 Paris in the next 50 years or don't bother responding. And no. I don't want to read another vague wall of text that doesn't address the actual problems and only bases everything on superficial, uncommitted opinion, while pointing at e.g. Europe as if Europe wasn't full of short and long term problems, which you simply ignore.

Just assume you were in power and people had elected you to "solve the housing problem". What exactly will you do? Write the actual policies. Bonuspoints if you include the cost of construction.

You are starting to become quite incoherent. ("Lisa the nurse from Colorado thinks that NASA's budget makes up 10% of the budget, when it really is much less.  Does that make her a tyrant?  No, it does not." Not only does it not make sense, it also doesn't reference anything.)

When I ask how you imagine to build these 88 Paris over the next 50 years and you respond that population growth isn't infinite, then it's quite obvious that you haven't even considered the scale of things and now simply hide behind vague generalities and deliberate, ridiculous exaggerations.

So, just tell me how you'll build these 88 Paris. How will you do it?

How many millions of people will you force out of their houses each year, just to move them into some smaller apartment, while bulldozing their garden "for the greater good"?

How. Will. You. Build. 88 Paris? How?

Just answer specifics instead of that wall-of-text that is just vague and ridiculous debate tactics ("we do not have INFINITE population growth", yeah, duh).

(1 edit)

"Cuban Americans are a big Republican voting group and the GOP caters to them, but you don't typically get people accusing the Republican Party of catering to Cubans as a tactic to divide white voters. "

Both parties in the US use identity politics and divide&conquer tactics to get votes, just so they come to power and then benefit their (rich) donors: Billionaires and big corporations.

"There is no infinite demand for housing because population growth is not infinite. The entire population of the Earth is not moving to America."

We know that due to migration (as birthrates are below replacement levels) the US has grown from 210 to 332 million in 50 years. That's a factor of 1.58. Even if we assume the same growth rate, you'd have 524 million in 50 years (so an increase by 192 million). Is your "not skyscraper" upzoning enough to house another 192 million? Don't forget that migrants typically move to big cities.

As you seem to be fond of Paris, let's take it for this example. Paris has a population of 2.161 million, so you'd need to build 88 Paris in the US in the next 50 years. Good luck with that.

(Also your polls showed support for duplexes up to sixplexes. That's far less dense than the 5-story vision that you have.)

"American birth rates are above replacement rate, and even if they were below replacement rate, population growth would still continue for a while because of new generations being born."

US birthrates are below replacement levels. Look it up. The last time it was above the 2.1 births per woman (i.e. replacement level) was in 1972. 50 Years ago. 

"population growth would still continue for a while because of new generations being born."

That's not how it works. If you have below replacement level birthrates the population will decline without external influence.

"Who are really the tyrants?"

If you were in charge, I'm pretty sure you'd be a tyrant as you operate based on

- ignorance (e.g. misunderstanding of replacement levels as a concept, and not knowing that US is below replacement level for 50 years),

- tunnel vision (e.g. blaming a very big, complex problem on a certain group of people. Completely dismissing other factors and solutions.)

- dishonesty (e.g. using a poll that supports duplexes to sixplexes, as support for 5-story downtown apartment blocks)

- and quite frankly malice (as you blame NIMBYs (just regular people, who are happy with the state of the community they are living in) for housing prices. And you sound very, very, very angry at them.)

I would never vote for you - as long as you have that kind of worldview. Have you even calculated it out? How much cost will your "88 Paris in 50 years" plan have? How many roads will you have to widen? How much infrastructure do you have to upgrade? Is infrastructure even upgradeable to that degree? What about services? What kind of economy will fuel all of that(can't be services as they are just internal circulation)?Are there even enough natural resources to fuel your vision of so much more upgrading? How do you avoid intensifying e.g. water shortages? What about energy?

Have you even looked at other places where some massive building spree has been done in the recent past? Have you looked at China and how their construction&housing industry do now after they were doing that kind of construction spree?

I think it is good that you want to improve the world, but I think you should expand the breadth of problems which you are considering and tackle the issues with a more holistic approach. Society is very, very complex and we had enough social engineers and tunnel-visionaries trying to do heavy handed improvements to one thing, which caused a bunch of other problems simply due to "unforeseeable" (i.e. dismissed) consequences.

Try to expand your knowledge in all directions. Always(!) listen to constructive criticism against your current positions. Always ask yourself: What are the underlying causes of the problems. Sometimes it might be sufficient to solve these underlying causes.

---"Why should people be able to block where other people want to live?"

If people want to live at your home or in your backyard, feel free to let them live there. I'm all for people's ability to use their property how they like it and I don't want bureaucrats to stop you from subdividing YOUR property. But don't force it on others, who don't want it. Have you already emptied a few of your rooms in your house and offered it on some rent site? (And don't say "no", as "It's no longer a personal choice")

Also, according to your polls and your statements, you believe that the majority are in favor of bigger houses and upzoning, so there shouldn't be a problem to find people who will do the same like you, right?

---"No one is making you or other people live in a high density area. "

---"It's no longer a personal choice"

Sounds like a contradiction.

---"???  Voter fraud is very rare"

My mistake, I mistook the term "Voter Farm" for another English political term. What I meant was that if you have a group of people with very similar life situations, then they are more likely to find common ground and improve their life. But if a party forces in another group that has a completely different life, then that party will be able to manipulate that (now dependent) second group and push laws against the former group through divide&conquer tactics.

---"Upzoning is the opposite of a cap on demand."

There must be a cap on demand otherwise you will never stop the growth of demand.

---"Also, population is not growing to infinity, so there isn't infinite demand for housing."

We are nearly 8 billion people on earth and the coastal areas of the US are quite nice...

---"NIMBY blocking of housing through the last several decades has been enough to cause a massive housing prices and homelessness crisis in the U.S."

Really? Decades? All NIMBY's fault?

Let's say 5 decades. What was the population of the US like 50 years ago, in 1972? It was 210 million.

Now the population of the US is 332 million.

That's a 122 million increase in 50 years. (The birthrate in the US since 1972 is below replacement levels.)

So it's all NIMBY's fault that some magically appearing 122 million people raised prices? It can't be that there are 122 million additional people, who now all have additional demand for housing. (Don't forget: Price is driven by demand and supply.)

Are you really blaming some regular folks, who don't want stuff built in their backyards for increased housing prices? And not maybe the politicians, who did the same "big number = good" game as you are playing, who then - due to their policies - allowed demand to grow by 50 percent, despite below-replacement birthrates? And you are blaming the little guy? It feels like you are hating the regular folks quite a lot, if you blame them for that problem as if it was their responsibility to build 122 million housing units, when they simply want to be left alone and live a peaceful life.

That's why I think you'd end up with countless skyscrapers of social housing. Cause you think just like the politicians, who caused all of that. It's the "big number = good" mentality. It's the "I don't care about the consequences of my actions and will simply blame the little guy for my errors" mentality. You might be solving one problem in the now, but you will be causing a new massive problem a few decades in the future, especially as you are mistaken about the current problems and what caused them.

Please remember that we are talking about people.

Not Sims in Sim City.

When you are saying "It's no longer a personal choice", you sound like a tyrant, who's willing to let his people do the sacrifices, just so that your numbers can go up.

"We're not talking about the game, so I'm not sure why you brought that up"

What? The discussion started with my first comment that was criticizing the game and all my points were mostly addressing "building stuff  in people's backyards against their will" which would also "lower the property value of the surrounding"(i.e. social housing). So you were having a conversation that was completely detached from the context of the game and the premise, while I was criticizing the game and the views pushed by the game. 

This would explain why I had the strong impression that you weren't addressing the central issue: the obvious implication of what the game wants, namely putting social housing in small towns or suburbs.

If your goal is not to build "property value reducing" projects but instead you are for (property value increasing) upzoning, then there is far less disagreement between us than I had thought. As long as the cities put a clear cap on demand and focus on solving their internal problems (instead of doing the infinite growth thing of trying to house everyone, who wants to come to that city) and also only build in areas where the local residents want them to build, then it's mostly fine.

There are plenty of homeowners who wouldn't mind to see their property explode in value and have their local businesses and communities strengthened. But this kind of growth shouldn't be forced on people, who don't want it, because most locals have very good reasons why they oppose an increase in density. Personally I don't care why they oppose it. This can be concerns regarding already overstrained infrastructure, to protect nature, budgetary concerns, being afraid of vote farms or just being against it due to "mere" personal preference. It should be respected regardless.

Some people simply prefer to live in a quiet, cozy place and they should be able to do so, if they want. And if some communities are for growth and expand their housing capabilities to 5 story mixed-use buildings, then there will probably be enough housing for the internal needs anyway. I think it's good, when people can decide what they want to do, without bureaucrats, politicians and development corporations forcing some lifestyle-change on them.

So I will support the "NIMBYs" out of sheer solidarity, no matter what their reasoning might be to oppose the development, simply out of respect for their personal choices. Just as I support upzoning and mixed-use development in areas that want it.

"I just pay attention to local politics in the places I have lived in, and notice a lot of NIMBY opposition to new market rate housing."

Can you share their reasoning?

Let's have the conversation in the other comment chain.

The description points at "affordable housing" (Which means "not market rate", when one of the premises is that the housing is too expensive) and "equitable living". Also one of the texts in the game calls the NIMBYs racist, which is often used as a strawman to smear the opposition to developments like the projects. Finally upzoning would increase property values, but the game constantly repeats "No! I don't want my property value to go down.". (The last point alone is enough to contradict your assumption that the game is about upzoning)

I'm not sure why you even pretend that it's about upzoning and not social housing.

"The majority of NIMBYism I've seen is resisting new market rate housing.  So, presumably people do care about duplexes."

What exactly is your job that you encounter NIMBYs so often to get that impression?

"It should be noted that I've been talking about things like five story buildings and duplexes, yet you bring up skyscrapers when I never mentioned them. Not sure why you are doing this."

I literally asked you what your goal is and whether you want to solve homelessness with your proposals, which you affirmed. Then you said that you want to build housing when there is demand of people wanting to get housing in a city. How many millions do you think you'll house with the buildings you've shown? And what will you do when another million wants to move to your city a year later. And then another million the year after that. And then another million. That's why you

That's why I'm saying that your "big numbers=good" worldview is bad. You can't simply match "whatever" demand by ever increasing supply, especially when one of the "problems" you seem to want to solve is affordability. (So if the new demand can't pay it, you'll have to reduce price even more by building even more housing.)

Anyway. I'm not sure why you are repeatedly bringing up Paris. Do you not know that e.g. the Banlieues exist? Maybe watch a documentary about those, just to remind yourself that not everything is like an upper-middle class downtown street in Paris.

(1 edit)

"I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm talking about social housing."

I literally asked you: "Is this a poll about people being in favor that some development company starts building "social housing" in their "backyards"?"

And instead of saying "no", you simply kept going. Also I asked you directly whether your goal is to address homelessness and you already said how horrible homelessness is and how this aims at addressing it. (Which sounds very much like social housing.)

Regardless. It feels very, very "vague" talking to you as you try to use the urgency of homelessness, but in reality you simply want to house as many people as you can - no matter how many people want to move into some city. It feels like you deliberately misrepresent statistics and polls and misuse the results just to make points, while constantly jumping from one location to the next, changing goals, changing problems, changing everything.

It feels like you are desperately avoiding the actual issue of the conversation:

Literally nobody cares about duplexes and the poll shows it. But that's not what the resistance of "NIMBYs" is about. It's not about duplexes. People don't want "social" housing near them, because people who have lived near some projects knows how unpleasant it is to get mugged by some drug addict or get beaten up by some thug, who wants to prove their strength to their "peers".  Only privileged young people, who were born with a silverspoon up their butt and who were driven around by helicopter parents don't know the danger of having "social" housing in the neighborhood. I enjoy jogging without getting my teeth kicked in. I enjoy a stroll through the neighborhood without getting stabbed, just because someone wants my wallet to fuel their addiction. Do you understand that difference?

I had enough beatings in my childhood and my teen years, when I lived near "social" housing. I do not want any more constant, physical danger and I do not want my children to experience that. And sorry that people like you will be opposed by me, when you do your "big numbers = good" game, but my security and the security of my family is far more important to me than whatever "points" you want to maximize.