>>
|
No. 44179
>> 44169 > The instructions in the game doesn't have even one example of how to solve a problem. Unfortunately, I'm terrible at explaining things. I could probably type up an example right now, but it would be at least half a page long and nobody would want to listen to it, even with Rina-chan's dulcet voice.
There is an example (see StarStep's reply >>44170).
> The problem is, in order to know how to play, one has to visualize how to manipulate the numbers. But it's hard to visualize when one doesn't know how to play. In-game visuals would help with that, even if it's just for a tutorial.
I think the main problem with adding visuals though (other than that I'd like the game to be complete with none at all) is that the more there is, the more is expected. If there are visuals in a tutorials, I think the player will ask why there isn't any in-game. This relates to your last comment.
> I'm still kind of torn, though. It really would be nice to add some visuals to the game: some backgrounds, a title screen, simple cutscenes, dialogue boxes, the current round/puzzle number—just something to look at. On the other hand, all those graphics would also increase the size of the game, which is already pretty big with all the sound clips.
I didn't make this apparent in my last post (I think I actually suggested otherwise) but the entire game (not only the part when playing rounds) is meant to be completely audio only. That was (part) of the point of making this game.
> Speaking of which, instead of having only instructions, make it an interactive tutorial. Include an easy example to help the player understand the gameplay.
I don't know how to make interactivity really help here though. If the answer is given to the player then they can just type it (and if they are still confused about the rules of the game then not giving them the answer will mean they are stuck, even on an easy example). I had a similar idea (with this not giving the answer version) but then noticed there isn't much difference between that and the first level. Game spoiler: Yes, easier numbers are chosen on the first level. They become harder later. Maybe the illusion of interactivity will help regardless. I don't know.
The other problem with interactivity is that I'd also have to teach the player how to interact (with the interactive tutorial) unless it only allows the same keys as the game itself.
I did consider making a separate (audio only) tutorial for the entire game though. (And this tutorial would talk about the game as if it was actually a game.)
> The four numbers are given one after another in sequence, so when I first started playing, I assumed that the given order was significant.
Now I see. I thought that you meant subtraction and division can be applied in two ways. I can see how this could be a problem (because sometimes there won't be an answer if interpreted this way). The example shows that this isn't the case with these rules but I'd rather not rely on it. That's also part of why I placed them in that weird shape in visual mode.
I'll try to think of a way to prevent this line of thinking.
> When one is solving arithmetical expressions, it's usually assumed that there will be only one correct answer. Obviously, this game does things differently.
I'm assuming by "solving arithmetical expressions" you mean something like "What's 7x5?" (ugh, I hate those). What I meant to ask is how would this affect (their) play, even if the player assumes there's only one correct answer? (I'm not saying this kind of confusion isn't problematic, of course.)
> I think I can understand why you don't want to display any numbers. The game is just as much a memory game as it is a math game, and showing the numbers almost undermines the memory challenge. However, there is nothing stopping players from writing the numbers on paper or typing the numbers in Notepad, and I'm sure some players will do that even if you disable visuals.
The simple answer is that it takes less time to type two numbers than four (or six, really). Alright, so that's a pretty awful joke but its very much true (and relevant).
It may sound ludicrous right now but the time to answer improves pretty fast (and by a significant amounts) with experience. I have no idea how not having visuals affects the learning curve though. In fact, this answering scheme was designed so that typing speed is a less significant factor.
I think maybe about 100 games (1000 rounds) will be enough to get to such speeds. But I think even with much less, it will be better to press + than to write down the numbers (to avoid moving your hand and mind away during the first announcement). I'm not sure.
Of course, there's much worse players can do externally and I hope they won't. I will make it clear that this is considered cheating if multiplayer mode really takes off. There's something I can do to deter it though (but it would cost resources).
>>44170
Basically what Mint Vanilla said here >>44172.
Do you mean to replace the example with this exact sentence?
> you got 4 from 8-4 then 6 from 6/1 those 2 numbers 4 and 6 multiply together to get 24
I thought this is what's already being said (more or less). Except the part where I try to make people forget about expressions and arithmetic as much as possible and only use the word "merge". Doing this also helps with winning this game, I find.
Or maybe I didn't understand what you meant.
> Anyway I had fun with it.
I'm very glad. And congratulations on being number 4 (unless there's some freaky coincidence).
Thanks for all these comments. I hope y'all stick around until at least the entire project is released. The next two levels should be available in about 24 hours.
|