This is basically the same as last year's version except shorter, thankfully easier, and harder to switch between the two people. It follows the same storyline, the dialog is just as anti-expositional and pointless, and the building isn't even a different style from the last one. Animations are of course impressive, and finally there is a game that barely tries to fit the theme. However, this is just the original game's slightly more refined twin brother. Why the rerun?
Scores rate how good different aspects of the game are.
Effects is mostly how the game looks/feels. If a game doesn’t have good-looking textures, particle effects, or architecture that is actually plot-relevant, it can get a low Effects score.
Gameplay involves how good, fun, interesting or effective the gameplay is. If a game doesn’t have well-designed puzzles that are something a gamer actually feels they can figure out with obvious end results, it can get a low Gameplay score.
Plot is how good the plot is, how well it fits with the game itself, and whether it is actually interesting for players. If a game doesn’t have an obvious plot or goals, it can get a low Plot score.
Theme is how the game feels and is laid out. If a game doesn’t feel right, doesn't have a theme that fits its plot or gameplay, or is too bland, it can get a low Theme score.
Game Jam Theme is how well the game fits the theme set (this year is "line of sight")
All of these are rated out of ten (#/10), and the final result will combine all these scores out of fifty (#/50).
It's one keystroke (Drop) now instead of two (4 + Punch). I suppose you were trying to switch by interacting, but that's even easier in my opinion provided you're in range.
It follows the same storyline
Well, what I tried to do was use the original concept but actually execute it well. The original storyline was little more than a skeleton and only partly thought through.
the dialog is just as anti-expositional and pointless
I prioritized believability and story consistency in this case, because exposition and gameplay are not the characters' priority, so this is largely intentional. Admittedly, that can make it less interesting if having fun is your main goal, but I made the game to suit my own standards, and I personally value fun comparatively little in a game.
the building isn't even a different style from the last one
The original Artifact hardly even had building, mostly just strategically placed WorldEdit commands with polishing in places. I thought the building style this time was vastly superior in that it actually feels natural and overgrown rather than sterile and contrived.
However, this is just the original game's immature little brother. Why the repeat?
I'm having a hard time understanding that conclusion. The original Artifact had some good aspects (animations, a power system, doors, decent textures), but incompletely implemented (low-quality cutscenes, buggy power transfer, gameplay and story irrelevance, dubious controls). Code-wise, it was all right, but not as good as it ought to have been. This time, I don't have incomplete animations or a somewhat out-of-place power system, and instead focus on actual gameplay and story by only considering triggers and effectors; I also unified the controls so as to actually remove the unnecessary inventory. The code is also a lot better quality (and reusable), and I like the textures and builds a lot better (especially because there are actual decorative nodes now). All told, there's very little similarity to the original Artifact except the overall premise, to the point that it's effectively an entirely different game.
I'll edit my review a little bit, since I didn't know that I could use Q to switch between the two characters
1: Cool, I didn't even see that that was an option, it was on the screen for so short a time
2: Maybe you could modify the original game, instead of just creating another version?
3: A good storywriter would find a creative way to make the players goals the goals of the characters, instead of forcing the players to play the story in a very specific way, making them accept that there is lore, story, and purpose that the author wants to keep for their own experience
4: The building is extremely dark to the point you can barely see, with little colorful light now and then to illuminate the areas the players (or "experiencers," in this case :p) need to go to. It is effectively the same. I did like the bridges and extra parkour, maybe I'll add that in my edit
5: The cutscenes were a little better in the new version, if only because they were shorter and couldn't be shaken around, but really the overall game was similar enough that this is, basically, a duplicate story with slightly different puzzles:
Guy named Key falls into the game in cutscene, gets staff for digging things. Staff is used to open doors and break blocks to remove a girl named Vix from a magical chamber. Girl named Vix does not make completely clear what exactly this structure she is in is, but has magical powers that can be used to power blocks, usually to open doors. The pair walk into giant room with harder puzzle, use combined powers to get across. They meet vaguely mysterious badguy who doesn't like their boring, informal banter and leaves without hurting them. End of game.
Why not just edit the old one to include the new, better features? Wuzzy recently completely upended his old Lazarr, and it's really great now
Fair point, I should probably either make it stay a bit longer or find some way to subtly hint it until you use it...
Well, this may just be me, but I find it much easier to write code than to rewrite code. My real vision for the game was much different from what I ended up creating; I didn't want to be encumbered by the poor design decisions I made originally, and fixing them would result in more work than just starting over, so I just started over from the same premise to save myself the trouble. The result is a very different game code-wise (as I reused very little), and while the experience is indeed noticeably similar, this has diverged enough that I see it as the successor to the original, not an update. (In fact, the only reason I didn't just delete the original Artifact entirely is because I still wanted to keep it on ContentDB for historical reasons.)
My thought process in that regard was that a) people who genuinely don't like the style of the game don't have to play it, b) the gameplay should conform to the story, not the other way around, c) the game should always prefer being good over being appealing to everyone and d) I didn't implement (b) as well as I would have liked and will hopefully end up fixing it (see planned features). I suppose the idea in this case is for the game to be exploration-driven, not achievement-driven, so everything depends entirely on how much the player wants to explore rather than on anything the game does; thus, marketing to anyone other than people who like this sort of game would be pointless. In this case, that's a tradeoff I'm willing to accept as long as the game executes its premise well, though I might attempt something more generic (or at least differently oriented) in the future.
Really? I deliberately made (very nearly) everywhere the player is expected to go fairly bright for exactly that reason, but without making everything as bright as if it were in sunlight. Maybe it's just my setup, but in testing I never even had to look closely to see everything clearly.
I'll admit that the story isn't that different (it essentially just has more detail). However, the way the gameplay matches the story is far different: the blackrod's function is totally different (it used to grant double-jump), and while the energy bursts are (still) rather similar and the levers resemble the switches, the overall design is completely different. In terms of actual features it's still a little similar (mostly just levers and doors so far), but I want to widen that gap in the future.
While I never played the jam version of Lazarr, as near as I can tell it's still at least mostly similar in terms of mechanics and art style, whereas here the entire premise for the mechanics and art style has changed.
This is basically the same as last year's version except shorter, thankfully easier, and
harder to switch between the two people.It follows the same storyline, the dialog is just as anti-expositional and pointless, and the building isn't even a different style from the last one. Animations are of course impressive, and finally there is a game that barely tries to fit the theme. However, this is just the original game's slightly more refined twin brother. Why the rerun?Scores rate how good different aspects of the game are.
Effects is mostly how the game looks/feels. If a game doesn’t have good-looking textures, particle effects, or architecture that is actually plot-relevant, it can get a low Effects score.
Gameplay involves how good, fun, interesting or effective the gameplay is. If a game doesn’t have well-designed puzzles that are something a gamer actually feels they can figure out with obvious end results, it can get a low Gameplay score.
Plot is how good the plot is, how well it fits with the game itself, and whether it is actually interesting for players. If a game doesn’t have an obvious plot or goals, it can get a low Plot score.
Theme is how the game feels and is laid out. If a game doesn’t feel right, doesn't have a theme that fits its plot or gameplay, or is too bland, it can get a low Theme score.
Game Jam Theme is how well the game fits the theme set (this year is "line of sight")
All of these are rated out of ten (#/10), and the final result will combine all these scores out of fifty (#/50).
Effects: 7/10
Gameplay: 6/10
Plot: 2/10
Theme: 4/10
Game Jam Theme: 4/10
Overall: 23/50 🔗
I'm not sure what you mean?
It's one keystroke (Drop) now instead of two (4 + Punch). I suppose you were trying to switch by interacting, but that's even easier in my opinion provided you're in range.
Well, what I tried to do was use the original concept but actually execute it well. The original storyline was little more than a skeleton and only partly thought through.
I prioritized believability and story consistency in this case, because exposition and gameplay are not the characters' priority, so this is largely intentional. Admittedly, that can make it less interesting if having fun is your main goal, but I made the game to suit my own standards, and I personally value fun comparatively little in a game.
The original Artifact hardly even had building, mostly just strategically placed WorldEdit commands with polishing in places. I thought the building style this time was vastly superior in that it actually feels natural and overgrown rather than sterile and contrived.
I'm having a hard time understanding that conclusion. The original Artifact had some good aspects (animations, a power system, doors, decent textures), but incompletely implemented (low-quality cutscenes, buggy power transfer, gameplay and story irrelevance, dubious controls). Code-wise, it was all right, but not as good as it ought to have been. This time, I don't have incomplete animations or a somewhat out-of-place power system, and instead focus on actual gameplay and story by only considering triggers and effectors; I also unified the controls so as to actually remove the unnecessary inventory. The code is also a lot better quality (and reusable), and I like the textures and builds a lot better (especially because there are actual decorative nodes now). All told, there's very little similarity to the original Artifact except the overall premise, to the point that it's effectively an entirely different game.
I'll edit my review a little bit, since I didn't know that I could use Q to switch between the two characters
1: Cool, I didn't even see that that was an option, it was on the screen for so short a time
2: Maybe you could modify the original game, instead of just creating another version?
3: A good storywriter would find a creative way to make the players goals the goals of the characters, instead of forcing the players to play the story in a very specific way, making them accept that there is lore, story, and purpose that the author wants to keep for their own experience
4: The building is extremely dark to the point you can barely see, with little colorful light now and then to illuminate the areas the players (or "experiencers," in this case :p) need to go to. It is effectively the same. I did like the bridges and extra parkour, maybe I'll add that in my edit
5: The cutscenes were a little better in the new version, if only because they were shorter and couldn't be shaken around, but really the overall game was similar enough that this is, basically, a duplicate story with slightly different puzzles:
Guy named Key falls into the game in cutscene, gets staff for digging things. Staff is used to open doors and break blocks to remove a girl named Vix from a magical chamber. Girl named Vix does not make completely clear what exactly this structure she is in is, but has magical powers that can be used to power blocks, usually to open doors. The pair walk into giant room with harder puzzle, use combined powers to get across. They meet vaguely mysterious badguy who doesn't like their boring, informal banter and leaves without hurting them. End of game.
Why not just edit the old one to include the new, better features? Wuzzy recently completely upended his old Lazarr, and it's really great now
Okay, edited (after struggling with the HTML a bit)
While I never played the jam version of Lazarr, as near as I can tell it's still at least mostly similar in terms of mechanics and art style, whereas here the entire premise for the mechanics and art style has changed.