gmtk game jam 2020 quick takeaways

so the jam was fun...

it was also my first. I was very relaxed about it at first and at second, but at third I got a little bit obsessed and pulled and all nighter because it felt better than having to wake up early on sunday to finish the game.

some takeaways from the faradays:

- don't leave sound for last as this means you probably won't do it;

- playtest to make sure the difficulty doesn't have a huge spike on the second level;

- make sure the restart game function WORKS without breaking the game;

but seriously i'm happy I finished a playable project that had a somewhat interesting implementation of the theme given. I'm happy with the simple art solutions I came up with. Also I liked the overall process of the jam, the fact that the game doesn't have to be perfect or very polished is liberating and in the end everything is good training for finishing games.

the game: crowd control

Exploration and colonization in Reap

Reap, by Daniel Linssen, manages to convey an incredible sense of exploration with very simple systems.

I find that the key mechanic in this is the map. The map in this game works like a real paper map, it doesn't show your location in real time or at all. You have to look at it then look around you for reference points in the environment to try to situate yourself.

This means that without the map is very easy to get irreversibly lost, and probably die. Whenever I left the confort of my turnip plantation to explore the island, I felt as if I was jumping from a small boat in vast open water, the map being a flimsy safety rope to guide me back. 

Exploration feels truly risky, but in a fair way, because you can make it less risky by taking a series of precautions. This ties to the second strong sense that the game conveyed for me: colonization. By colonization I mean the sense of taming one's environment, the sense of transforming a patch of wild land in something like home.

Because to make way through the landscape you have to chop down trees, build bridges and boats and, most importantly, keep a sustainable plantation of turnips. You have to master your surroundings, you need to make them recognizable so you won't get lost, you have to make them less dangerous. There is no level up, the only improvements in your condition are the changes you manufacture yourself in the world your character inhabits.

In this sense, the exploration and colonization parts of the game complement each other perfectly. By giving you the possibility to make a spot safe, it enhances the sense of danger the wilderness around it evokes. And when you are rushing back to your plantation from a ill planned expedition, you will feel true relief once you see a familiar bend in the coast, or a trail through the forest that you opened before.

And all this is achieved with remarkable elegance, the controls limited only to the arrow keys and two buttons. 

Also, the art style is creative and pertinent (the colors resembling an old, weathered map). It was actually what first caught my attention.

It's well worth a try. Both for playing fun and to serve as inspiration of how simple choices can achieve a lot.

some thoughts on Into the Breach and problem solving

This old video-essay from GMTK on puzzle solving x problem solving got me thinking in Into the Breach.

The main point of the video is that, while puzzles usually involve a single solution for an abstract and arbitrary challenge, a problem often means that there are multiple solutions to the challenge, and many times it resembles more a real-life situation (like how to setup a efficient factory, transport system, etc). This distinction in itself warrants many fascinating debates, but it made me think of Into the Breach's design (and other games like it, including FTL).

For me it's clear that ItB approaches things more from a problem perspective than a puzzle one.

Each turn is a problem that can be solved with multiple solutions. There isn't a single right solution, but there are some solutions much better thant others, because in them you don't take as many damage to the grid, or because it puts you in a much better position for the next turn. You can also say that each battle is a problem, made up of smaller problems (the turns), or even that the biggest problem of all is the whole campaign, made of many battles, made of many turns.

And this points to a second important aspect of the game's structure: your solutions, with all its qualities and flaws, carry over to the next problems, be it the next turn or the next battle. ItB is very good in making you deal with the consequences of your strategic decisions, and the success or failure of a campaign is decided by the aggregate of these decisions. You lost too many grid points in this battle? You will have to be cautions from the start in your next battle. You will arrive at the boss fight with weak mechs? Maybe you will have to choose a more risky battle that awards more upgrade points. The game is full of choices like this.

What is awesome is that this dynamic fits perfectly with the game theme of a war campaign. In history, wars were rarely decided by single battles. What happens more often is that the compound effect of many battles and other variables decides the outcome of the war.
In ItB you don't have to play well in every turn, but most certainly you will have to deal with the consequences of your choices later.