I don't have an immediate answer to that but I can think about it.
1 Like
It's ok, it was more of a rhetorical question. It's my job to answer it.
1 Like
I have a difficult time foreseeing the consequences of ideas until I implement them, so if you're like me just keep experimenting with things.
2 Likes
Btw ty too for the feedback. Sorry I was too distracted by other discussion to read this.
1 Like
@31.214.227.13-10350 Final comment: I know you're disappointed and appalled by the state of this demo, but I only put in the work/extra crap to make it presentable to the people here and a bit more fun for people that I want to play and test it like Toprak.
It's just a tiny expansion from the first demo (which you liked) with most of the work being under the cover refactors.
I genuinely thank you for all the criticism and will do my best to make it better.
1 Like
The "bejeweled" aspect should maintain consistency both through the dungeon and the battle scene. It should be the same fucking bejeweled game: the dungeon should have a character you swap throughout the field to move him towards the exit through a (potentially relaxed) swap mechanic. If you keep the "battle scene" there is an interesting opposition between the two states: within the battle scene, the goal is to complete matches. Within the dungeon, the goal is to NOT compute matches as the new blocks that enter the game can potentially have monsters.
1 Like
Having the swaps be "relaxed" for the map is a good idea. I didn't consider it because it felt opposing to the main goal of constant bejeweleding but I will experiment with it.
I think the current way that you enter fights (adjacent to enemy tile) is pretty bad and uninteresting so I will try to change it.
I think if you're going to have a seperate battle state the adjacent mechanic is fine.
My favorite part of the game is when the exit changes position because a monster moves with it. That's the best part of the game.
3 Likes
Current idea: Enemy tiles try to gravitate towards matches during the enemy "turn" (after you make a move) and you can move anything on the board.
So you have to find a balance between moving your guy to the exit and unmoving the enemy tiles, because if the enemies match it starts an encounter?
1 Like
Then the encounter feels like punishment instead of game, thats not good.
I think the bejeweled crawling through the dungeon idea is far more interesting and if it's implemented as to the spec I think it should be, you're going to feel like the fights are completely pointless.
Yeah, that's what I think aswell.
I think it's much more interesting to have some sort of "spellbook" and have you attempt to make clears in a sort of order to cast a spell in order to deal damage. The enemy does this aswell.
Score should be completely linked to the number of enemies you defeat.
IE Fireball: 2 Red Clears in a row.
2 Likes
I actually have this written down in my notepad, like matching "mana" tiles to fill up your mana bar.
have you seen this? the spellbook mechanic reminds me of it.
I think that the two different states: crawling and fighting should be very different in terms of what you do on the same bejeweled board; you don't want one just being a shitty version of the other.
1 Like
This is half the reason to make the board 10x10: maintain UI consistency between the dungeon and the battle screen (if you've included a battle screen).
Agreed. this is really overly ambitious for a first game project but I look to HoMM3 for a lot of inspiration.
Have you seen it?
