billeclipse 2017-12-05 01:03
Really cool puzzle game, gets really challenging the more you progress :D
Foon → Ludum Dare Explorer → LD40 → One Final Task
By huvaakoodia
| Category | Rank | Score | Count | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 498 | 3.52 | 51 | |
| Fun | 404 | 3.49 | 50 | |
| Innovation | 585 | 3.15 | 50 | |
| Theme | 927 | 2.90 | 48 | |
| Graphics | 820 | 3.04 | 50 | |
| Audio | 608 | 2.74 | 47 | |
| Humor | 370 | 3.33 | 48 | |
| Mood | 667 | 3.16 | 48 |
Really cool puzzle game, gets really challenging the more you progress :D
Nice game, the narration is a little long I would prefer to spend more time doing the puzzles but I think that is just my preference. Nice take on the theme.
Really nice game. The game is so clear that it doesn't even need a tutorial. It would be nice if the puzzle restarted instantly if one box glides off.
Also loved the robot narrative and emotions, great job!
Nice puzzle game. Difficulty on the last puzzle rumps up a little bit too much and the replay button would have been nice to have, but in everything else this puzzle is fine. Selfmade sounds are also really cute. Reminds me of "And Yet It Moves".
Very nice puzzle game! I quite enjoyed playing through the first levels until my brain exploded. I appreciate the humor around the levels. As others mentioned it doesn't make sense to continue playing if a box falls off the board, so an instant restart or a button to restart would round it off. Thumbs up!
I really liked this game. The only real criticisms are it needs a reset button, and it needs to be longer. :D
i can think of a few improvements otherwise. 1. add a level editor. user created levels are always fun. 2. maybe add a level solver, too. Have the AI actually try it with you, maybe a version where you have to actually beat the AI at a puzzle (and maybe that AI doesn't know a thing about it) 3. maybe add a final puzzle where you beat the AI at its job, winning your job back.
The last level was well put together. It took me quite a few tries to beat, but once i understood the pattern, it was fun! Each new component was introduced rather well. Easy, but forces you to learn what each part does. No real complaints, other than wanting more! :D
Nice game! I enjoyed playing, until the second level with the yellow arrows, then it got too much. Without a restart button, it is too much of a hassle and then there is not enough room to experiment. I pressed 'R' once to try if that resets the level, but I found out it resets the game... I like that the package are customized with stamps etc., nice touch. ^^
@nerketur **Point 1:** If I ever get to implementing some of the advanced mechanics I had in mind, then I will also consider a level editor. I don't believe I've ever made one directed at users so that would be a interesting for sure.
**Point 2:** I happen to have an AI system which could easily solve these levels. Problem is a human could not beat it. When it comes to deductive logic it is impeccable. Something akin to your suggestion could be faked though, but I don't think I'll be going there.
**Point 3:** !> There is a reason you can skip levels...
On another note, I will be adding a reset button. I decided against it (or forgot it, I forget) back in the jam, but now that I've seen people play the puzzle in real life (and heard your requests of course!) it is obviously a quality of life improvement worth adding.
The game could have used an undo button, without it making one mistake is much more punishing than it needs to be. I stopped playing at level 4 because restarting the whole level over and over again became too tedious. The webGl build runs nice and smooth (and pulling that off is easier said than done :p). It has the potential to be an nice puzzle game, but right now I’m more frustrated than entertained.
Really nice level design and progression. Congratulations ;)
I feel that puzzles games are hard for jams, because puzzle design becomes much more important, and you generally have to make a lot more levels. In its current state, it feels like a very standard "rush hour" game. You've got a great starting progression and difficulty curve, and then the last puzzle, and that's it. In lieu of a thought-out assessment, here are some quick thoughts:
-The intermissions between the puzzles don't really add anything, it just interrupts the puzzles.
-I don't like the last puzzle, it's just a stew of everything thrown together. It reminds me of [this custom puzzle](http://i.imgur.com/UyQboiq.png) from The Witness. Filling every space with some mechanic just feels like artifical difficulty.
-Quality of life: Obviously an undo/reset button would be nice. Also, I'd like to be able to have multiple boxes moving at the same time.
-I'm not really sure how it fits the theme? Feels like a very standard puzzle game.
@benburgh Thanks for the thoughts.
I tend to make short and quick jam entries on purpose, because it is those that I like to play. There's one tutorial level and one proper level per mechanic. There could be multiple proper levels of course, didn't think they were needed. Implementing the mechanics and all the levels took only the first 6 hours of the jam. The rest was used for audiovisuals, testing, etc. I had more mechanics in mind, but didn't have enough time left for those in the end. Jam priorities.
I like to add some personality to my titles, you can see that with my prior entries too (not that they are puzzles, mind). I guess not everyone cares for that. As far as I know no-one has found the hidden ending either.
There is a *give up* button now, it pops up when a box is lost. Did it not work or is it not fast enough? There is a reason why skipping levels is an option every time. The next puzzle I make (and I do have some ideas already) will have more obvious choices so that undo and quick reset are a better fit. Infinite undo is the best after all.
Thematically pretty much every puzzle and every game fits the theme. More mechanics and/or more opponents means a worse time for the player. Sure enough its not innovative or anything, I just felt like making a puzzle this time.
Thanks again for the critique, it helps!
🕵️♀️My logic was too much for this game🕵️♀️
First of all, that give up button that you added is very necessary, because you can start a new level with new objects and not know their "rules" so you need to learn the rules of the new objects. I just played the level with the double yellow arrows - amazingly, I beat it on my first try. I say amazingly because I'm still not quite sure of the full scope of rules for those (just from playing that one level with those objects).
So, when I got to the final level, which had double arrows, along with everything else, it was a bit overwhelming. I did not beat that final level. However, I did get "An End" fwiw.
If you were to expand this, or whatever, I think it'd be good to have multiple levels to learn and get acclimated to new object mechanics. Early on, it's fine. But, the further you get, I'd say more levels per new object. Also, I was never sure about the difference or non-difference between regular boxes with different stickers. For example, I know I "broke" one of the fragile boxes, but I'm not sure that affected the outcome. I don't think it did, as I still progressed. I still don't understand the full rules of the double yellow arrows. I'd say starting with the stop signs, give a couple levels to get acquainted to those. And then a few to get used to the double arrows before throwing it all together, maybe. It does get overwhelming at the end. It kinda hurts the brain a little, and I like puzzles. I liked this early on too, but... I don't know, I just didn't quite get the rules of the double yellow arrow. I think it was a bad thing that I beat the first double yellow arrow level on my first try, cuz it didn't let me get used to them, at all. I was actually surprised when I won that level and progressed.
@cubeeo
Thanks for playing!
The last level is a doozy! I might have gone too far in a few places.
It is, indeed, the yellow arrows where many, many players lost the plot! The first intuition would be that it chances the movement direction of the box for good, but no. It only moves the box once and after that the box will continued moving in its original direction. The tutorial level for that mechanic should be less easy to blitz through. Will have to remember that next time introducing a non-intuitive mechanic.
Lastly the stickers on the boxes are nothing but graphical variation.
I really enjoyed this game. It wasn't the most innovative puzzle I've ever seen but it had really good graphics and effects. There were a few sound effects, but I do like some music even in puzzle games. The puzzle mechanics worked really well. Most of the levels were simple to grasp, although a few were a bit tricky, largely owing to the unfamiliar blocks and remembering what each one did. I think the theme link was "more blocks = trickier puzzle" but not sure. A robot has taken my job now anyway so I'm retired from the block-pushing industry :)
Very nice entry! Nice meaty sense of personality to the game with the AI, his flickering moods, and his (its?) glitchy faces. In the end, my services were no longer required.
I thought the end puzzle was perfect difficulty. That is, hard but doable after a serious number of retries. I thought, when the early version of the AI blew a capacitor trying to keep up, that there might be some future for humanity. But the machine was relentless, and my biological future bleak.
Speaking of bleak, I must convey one significant splinter in the experience. I was playing, and I made a mistake. Or perhaps it would be fair to say I discovered the way something wasn't going to work. And, having previously flung my packages off the side to fail and invite reprimand and restart, I decided to improve upon this by pressing R to see if it might instantly restart. Well, yes. It did instantly restart. THE ENTIRE GAME FROM THE BEGINNING!
However, your game was good enough that I played the whole thing again to get back to where I was, and then pressed on to finish.
In addition to strong puzzling and personality, there were many nice touches. The shader (?) on the faces. The babbling sound as text was displayed. The way I could (upon second play through) cancel past text-babbling instantly with a click. That the heavy box had a different sound effect when moving. That I could shovel multiple boxes quickly into motion at the end of a puzzle without waiting for each to complete its move, yet I could not set multiple boxes in motion mid-puzzle which would have created invalid results. These and others were small details of craft, which I noticed and appreciated.
Very well done!
Take my job? Pff. You just try, little floaty holo-face thing! ...This game was, for whatever reason, kind of mind-blowing. Honestly, it's perfect. I do not have any complaints. The AI wasn't really annoying, in fact it seemed rather necessary, as the game itself didn't have (as a puzzle game perhaps ought to be), a really potent atmosphere.
That said, the nuances were spot-on. The textures (of which there were very few), kept the eye pleasantly interested, full stop. All the art was very clear and added charm to the experience, without ever feeling unnecessarily overbearing (that may apply to the game in general). The sounds had a certain vibe to them. They sounded like they were made with someone's voice/mouth, not that it's a bad thing.
The puzzles were very well done, and the various added elements were mostly intuitive. The yellow arrows were the least clear mechanic, but it just took one click to see what they really did.
Now, about that 'hidden ending..' It was mentioned, and I tried my best to find it. My guess is it's not in the game, but in the cutscenes somewhere. That's because I played through more than once without a single mistake (after many failed attempts, of course!), hoping to find it... but alas, no luck.
Ha, anyhow, for a weekend jam, really excellent job, and a rather enjoyable little puzzle game, with a human (AI?) element that made it feel more meaningful. (even if I did lose my job!)
@pkenney Thanks. Your appreciation is much appreciated. Little things count!
@pvtroswold
The sounds were indeed made with my mouth! Tried to obfuscate that with Audacity effects, but a few of them wear their origin on their sleeve.
I' m glad to see the hidden ending is truly well hidden. Try not doing so well, the AI is learning from your successes after all.
Thanks for playing.
A new variationg of a retro puzzle game. It's interesting and challenging for me.
Awesome game, takes a while to start seeing patterns. I liked the narration with the AI (reminded me of Portal ^^), but an immediate level reset would be nice to have.
Great puzzle game! The mechanics are introduced very well in simpler puzzles, after which they are used in a harder one. I only failed to solve the final puzzle, but that's mostly my own fault I think. One minor complaint would be that the walls mean insta-death, rather than just stopping the crates as one would expect.
I absolutely love the AI character; it adds so much charm to an otherwise fairly dry game.
The sound effects are nice. Pity there is no music, but there's only so much one can cram into a weekend eh?
An interesting movement/sliding puzzle game. The amount and variety of the different effects, makes the puzzles interesting to ponder and solve.
I like the relatively small scale of the different levels, which made it feasible to solve the puzzles in your head before making any moves. Which, due to the lack of single-step undo, is probably a good thing. The last level felt a bit overwhelming compared to the previous levels. A more gradual ramp-up would have made for a smoother transition.
The visuals and audio are clear, effective, and act as good feedback to what happens during the execution of the puzzle. The effect of most of the special tiles could be deduced from their art, which was good. The exceptions were the "move once" arrows and the fact that some tiles were consumable, while others were not. Combined with the lack of a "legend"/help function meant that the first try in some of the levels was to test how the special tiles worked, which in turn, really underlines the need for retry/undo functionality. The "give up" button in the second version worked well in this regard.
I personally prefer puzzle games to be wrapped in some kind of theme lending context to the puzzles formed, rather than being purely abstract puzzles. I therefore enjoyed the story/concept and sequences in-between levels very much. It lent both personality and humor to what is otherwise a relatively simple puzzle game.
Speaking of theme, the game fulfilled the theme in an "mechanical" if not especially "creative" way, but you still hinted at a "becoming overwhelmed" theme in the reactions of the AI in the cutscenes as well. So, a good use of the theme!
I really enjoyed the feeling of polish of the game, in the various small details, variety of the graphics, the AI "emotes", and the fluid motions. The hidden ending was also interesting, especially as it rewards playing the game in a counter-intuitive way. The biggest detractor from a gameplay perspective, was the lack of "quality of life" rewind and/or instant reset functionality. Additional levels would also be nice, but that's just part of the constraints of a game jam.
All in all, this was an enjoyable and challenging puzzle game. The mechanics worked, and the side-story and small flourishes raises the game from a simple puzzle game to a genuinely enjoyable (if short) game.
>Tricky conundrum: >Fulfill your obligations, >and lose everything.
*Welcome back, Ducky!*
@Somnium Thanks for the thorough review (again!) I guess I have to make an exception to my LD rules and try your entry in kind. I usually play a random('ish) set in LD for the sake of fareness.
Your analysis is pretty much spot on. If I hadn't come up with the robot character and the hidden ending then I would have implemented an infinite undo. I dislike puzzles which don't have that, for instance a limited undo makes no sense.
Now, I did not bother arguing about the **¡Warning!** with these other people, as I don't know them at all, but I'd like to throw a bone your way. Give it a fair shake.
Puzzles and games are fundamentally different: Puzzles are deductive logic challenges (you have all the data and logic available and as such can think through the whole problem before lifting a finger) while games are inductive logic competitions (there are some unknown aspects to the problem, for instance the thoughts of your opponent(s), and as such it is not possible to deduce the best possible action to take. Guesstimations have to be made.)
Due to this fundamental difference mixing the two is *generally* not advisable. Puzzles are deductive logic all the way through and as such the player can always get stuck. The problem is not going to solve itself and taking the wrong actions simply forces the player to undo or restart and keep thinking before acting. Yet if the player knows what they are getting into, they are not going to give up easily (the **¡Warning!** is there to set expectations too)
In games getting stuck is not an absolute implication. Each action taken is irreversible and by making thoughtless decisions the player is simply making it worse for themselves and easier for their opponent(s). Eventually someone will win and the player can restart the whole game, hopefully with new found knowledge on which actions to take and when. They are better at estimating.
Separating the two mediums (or categories, or types, the word doesn't matter) makes it easier to design puzzles and games. It is now possible to make very definitive statements about both (for one, the prior statement about getting stuck), which are not possible if the two are regarded the same.
Certain game design best practices don't translate to puzzle design at all and vice versa. Take infinite undo. Fits puzzles like a glove, yet a game with infinite undo is trivial to win. Made an obvious mistake? Rewind! Why would I want to play that! I'm not learning anything or getting better at playing the game, simply brute forcing my way through? Brute forcing works in puzzles too, but due to the sheer amount of combinations possible it is often times easier (and more enjoyable) to try to figure out the problem the human way instead (try brute forcing the Rubic's cube!)
The last thing worth mentioning is the way of talking about these two mediums. If puzzle is considered a genre of game, then the terms get muddled together in a confusing way. When considered separate mediums it becomes easy to talk about both in a logically consistent way.
Example of non-consistent sentences: *"I made a box-pushing game. It has 5 game mechanics, 8 levels and about 30 minutes of gameplay on average."* *"I made a box-pushing puzzlegame. It has 5 game mechanics, 8 puzzles, and about 30 minutes of gameplay on average."*
The same sentences, said consistently. *"I made a box-pushing game. It has 5 game mechanics, 8 levels and about 30 minutes of playtime on average."* *"I made a box-pushing puzzle. It has 5 puzzle mechanics, 8 levels, and about 30 minutes of playtime on average."*
This is how I think about these particular interactive digital mediums, which has been very useful to me so far. Of course there are other mediums too: interactive simulations, my favorite; the many forms of interactive fiction; and digital experiences. No room to talk about these here.
I'd like to hear your honest opinions on this topic. Does it make sense, does it not make sense? Take your time.
@huvaakoodia I appreciate that you made an exception, in order to leave a rating and comment on my game!
And I'll be happy to share my thoughts on the topic of puzzles vs. games! Let me initially clarify, that when I use the word "puzzle game", I use it as a shorthand for "game which is mainly driven by puzzle elements", or even more specifically, "game which primarily has puzzle-driven gameplay, but which include other elements than puzzles in its magic circle)
I think that it definitely makes sense to view "puzzle" as a distinct concept (or even "type of activity"), since that allows a discussion of the specific characteristics of puzzles (among them, as you wrote, that you have all the data and logic available and as such can think through the whole problem, independently of actually interacting with the puzzle).
Or, phrased differently, that both the starting game state and the game rules have to be available to the player when he is presented with the puzzle.
This definition also has the implications that the rules have to be deterministic, and that the goal state has to be clearly defined as well. Then you can use the rules to manipulate the game elements from the initial state through a series of steps in order to reach the defined goal. The magic circle in this case, is then limited to the above interaction.
As you say, thinking of puzzles in this way means that you can discuss their mechanics from a purely puzzle point of view, and not have to take other elements into account, which is very useful when designing the puzzles.
If you modify the puzzle, by either obfuscating parts of the state and/or the rules of the puzzle, adding non-determinism to the puzzle, or by adding game elements to the puzzle which depends on the outcome of said puzzle, I would say that the puzzle then turns into a puzzle element ("Element", in the sense of "Element/part in a greater whole"). Or by your definition above, it would become "gamified"/turn into a game.
*The new LD site apparently has a character count limitation - continued below*
A few examples of what I mean: Outside the magic circle (and the game): + An annoying sibling hides a piece of a traditional picture puzzle. Now the "game" involves finding the missing puzzle (or persuading your sibling to part with it), so that you can finish your puzzle. + Using the game elements and rules of chess to play a regular game of chess, instead of using it to solve chess puzzles.
Inside the magic circle (i.e. "part of the game"): + The outcome of the puzzle (whether you fail or succeed) causes a state change in the game (e.g. triggers a specific game ending out of many, advances the plot, unlocks a new part of the story, etc). This because the state change is not part of the puzzle itself, but is still experienced as part of the game experience / magic circle. + The introduction of non-determinism into the puzzle rules. For instance, adding a timer, which adds an arbitrary element to the rules (you are now limited not by your ability of logic deduction, but by how fast you can perform logical deduction). Or addng random chance (turning the puzzle into a probability analysis/"guesstimation" game) + Obfuscating the state of the puzzle. E.g. a detective game, where you have to collect the clues (i.e. puzzle pieces) through other game elements, and then, when you have all the pieces, you solve it like a puzzle. + Obfuscating the rules of the puzzle. E.g. you don't know the effect of all the elements "outside" interacting with the game (for instance by reading the rules/tutorial). Then you have to first interact with the game, in order to discern how the rules work. And *then* you can restart, and think through the whole problem (but not before).
With the above definitions, I can elaborate on my comments on your game: By my definitions as stated above, I experienced "One Last Task" as a puzzle game, not as a puzzle, for the following reasons:
+ While most of your game rules are intuitive, some of them require experimentation to discover. The "move once" arrows for instance. I would also argue that since your tutorial consists of actually performing the action, and then learning the use of the game elements from this, there are arguably "unknown aspects to the problem" the first time you solve it. Granted, for the first tutorial puzzles, you cannot "fail" the action, but I would argue that you are still actively interacting with the game to learn the rules (as opposed to learning them "outside" the magic circle, and then deducing your actions from that).
+ You have a game which adds context around your puzzles, and which are affected by the puzzle outcomes. Not only does the game has an ending if you follow the rules, your alternate ending explicitly assigns an outcome to *not* following the rules of the puzzle (i.e. the "achieve the predefined goal" part of the definition of a puzzle above). This might have been what BenBurgh meant in the above about feeling interrupted by the intermissions. BenBurgh might have expected a pure puzzle game, and from that perspective finding the plot elements to be superfluous.
This is what I meant with my statement about preferring context around the puzzles. I.e. by the above definitions, preferring puzzle games to pure puzzles. From your "warning"/notification I expected a pure abstract puzzle, but what I got was a number of interesting puzzles, wrapped in an interesting story, with re-playability in the form of two different endings. Which for me, due to my personal preferences, was actually preferable.
So, more accurately, my final conclusion should have read: All in all, this was an enjoyable and challenging puzzle game. The mechanics worked, and the side-story and small flourishes raises the game from a simple *puzzle* to a genuinely enjoyable (if short) *puzzle game*.
Does that make sense?
I really love this game. It has to be my favourite so far.
Just a couple of things I might change.
I really like how you can click to skip through the messages, but it might be good if you could click to make the animations go faster as well.
It might be useful to, instead of a give up button, just make it a restart button, which is available at all times.
It would be great to have some more puzzles :).
Other than that it is a really awesome game, and probably one which could be developed into a paid for game with a lot more puzzles. You could even possibly develop the storyline in a climactic way like in portal perhaps? Idk, probably a crazy idea.
Anwyay, good job! :)
Really nice puzzle game. Solving pocess reminds chess puzzles, where you have to calculate moves in advance. Graphics look pretty simple, but the work really well in this game. There weren't many levels, so difficulty curve was pretty steep, but I believe that's intended for typicaly short LDJam playthrough. Alternate endings are always a nice thing. I don't know if you created puzzle rules yourself or used an existing ones, but I believe if you add more levels and concentrate less on the theme, this could be a pretty popular web or mobile game. Good job.
only complaint was that a few of the symbols weren't explained and you just had to experiment (and take a few failures) to figure them out.
@somnium I'm glad we can see eye-to-eye in a few ways:
- Mediums can be mixed. You can have game elements in a puzzle and puzzle elements in a game. Yet I cannot think of a single title where, say, extra puzzle elements genuinely improved my enjoyment of a game. Usually this type of mixup feels unnecessary and even annoying (getting stuck due to the puzzle elements, for one). If you have any successful examples of mixing mediums then do tell. - Chess is a great example as it is traditionally a 2 player strategy game, but you can also use the pieces and rules to setup 1 player puzzles. Will use that as an example in the future. - Non-determinism and randomness are indeed poison for puzzles, adding those does render the puzzle into a game (or something else, it depends!) E.g, Tetris is a game due to the random selection of pieces you get. If there was a limited amount of pieces always dropping in the same order then you would have a puzzle (with an added dexterity challenge, more on this later)
On the other points I have to politely disagree. Here are some clarifications:
- The way you learn something does not change that something. If I teach math to someone, it does not matter if I give them a textbook, a lecture, interactive exercises or one-to-one tutoring. In the end they learned math. To teach someone to play a game I could give them a list of all the rules or an interactive tutorial. This choice does not change the game into something else. To teach someone to solve a puzzle I could give them a list of all the rules or an interactive tutorial. This choice does not change the puzzle into something else. I could have given a list of rules for One Final Task, but decided that an interactive, non-verbal tutorial is more effective. That does not change OFT into a game all of a sudden, it is still a puzzle. - Extra context is not unique to games. Take stories, they are told in novels and movies so adding a story into a project clearly does not turn it into a game! If you take a simple game, like Pong, and add a story to it, does it stop being a game? What if you take the story away from a game, like Diablo, does it stop being a game? A story can be an enjoyable addition, but in both cases it is not a crucial part of the game. As such a puzzle too can have or not have a story (or other extra context giving content) and still be called a puzzle. - Interactive elements aren't unique to games either. It is easy to say that stories are not unique to games, but how about dexterity challenges. Imagine a game with a single level populated by the playable character and a lone platform. All the player can do is jump on and off the platform. Would you call this a game? I would say something is missing. Platforming elements alone don't make a game thus they are not unique to games.This platforming prototype could be developed into a game by adding game mechanics or into a puzzle by adding puzzle elements! There is no reason why you cannot solve deductive logic problems and have a bit of running and jumping on the side (as long as the running and jumping are purely for getting around the level, adding in death traps and enemies is mixing mediums again which I don't recommend!)
My short definition of a puzzle is *deductive logic challenge*, here's the long one: > A system of rules the player interacts with by choosing actions in order to solve a deductive logic problem.
The implications of this definition: - As long as these elements are present you can call the project a puzzle. Additional elements which don't remove these elements don't turn the puzzle into a non-puzzle. - A puzzle offers no active resistance. It waits until you solve it or give up. There is no way to lose. - Having all the data and logic available is needed to solve a deductive problem, but as said before having to learn those first is a separate thing altogether. - Infinite undo and instant reset are great UI elements for a puzzle as there is no losing.
I feel I'm getting better at explaining these things. I hope you can get something out of this too!
Relly Nice Game :D
What I liked: - increasing difficulty as the levels progress - more mechanics/"movement patterns" being introduced in each level - the mechanics themselves and their uniqueness - the little details (rubber duck sticker on the boxes) - the game made me think about how the puzzles could be solved using a program :) (and how a level generator might work)
What I didn't like that much: - being slightly overwhelmed with too many things to comprehend in the last level (nearly all fields in the playing are non-empty, some fields contain even more "elements") - the between-level dialogues - inability to restart instantly
I was missing some kind of progress indicator (how many levels there are, how many puzzles have I already solved). Also saving and loading state of one puzzle (or undo button) would help, but it would make me think less and "mash buttons" more...
This game is perfect for touch controls on mobile devices, it could be really successful with more levels (and even quite profitable with paid hints and more polish with flashy images/animations :neutral_face:).
It reminded me of playing Sokoban many years ago... Good job making something familiar, yet unique.
Well designed puzzle.
I finished it but the last level was way too much of a difficulty jump up, it took ages to work it out. I resisted the urge to brute force it with combinations and did work it out eventually, but the difficulty ramp was waaay too high, it felt like going from level 4 to level 300. Also felt a bit like.. the puzzle was like an act of randomness, like things were just placed until they ended up working rather than being designed from the ground up as something you can clearly work backwards from or deduce pretty easily. Far too many moves ahead were required to be kept in mind.
But apart from the last level (which wasn't that bad, it was the difficulty curve which was the major problem), mechanics are cool. Feels a bit like Chu Chu Rocket. Had fun with it.
Also, being able to press R to instantly restart would be very valuable. A. it's weird that you're forced to "lose" before you can click restart, and that you even would need to click restart at all if the game has already deduced you've lost, instead of just showing a "you lose". Then the dialogue is a bit much for every single restart, it'd be nice to just jump back in the action.
I only have so many criticisms though because otherwise it's a great game. Good job.
Awesome! I really liked the puzzles. That last one was super hard, too. I liked all of the elements, the box types and special spaces. I liked the dialogue. I do wish there was an instant restart button all the time, but that's a tiny thing. Great work!
Really nice game. The puzzles are well designed and the individual mechanics are taught effectively. The dialogue is nice and adds a bit of extra personality to the game. The overall presentation is solid too. Like others, I wish there was an instant restart button.