This post is the first of a series wherein we’ll try to get everyone up to speed on what the hell we’ve been doing in the 3 years which have elapsed since we made N.
Also, we’re new to this whole blogging thing, so please bear with us as we attempt to find a suitable writing style.. there’s so much “back story” to Robotology that it might take several posts just to get to the present. Finally, we’re not sure if this sort of post is going to be interesting or not — reading other indie developer’s blogs (see links on the right panel) is appealing to us, both as gamers and peers, as it provides all sorts of interesting information. So, we’re going to give it a shot — please let us know if you have any suggestions.
And so, it begins:
We’ve been working on Robotology since early 2006; while it’s still nowhere near complete, we have made quite a bit of progress.
Our initial design concept was simple — a 2d physics-based platformer where the player has a grappling hook/rope that can be used to interact with the world. This concept had been in the back of our minds, not coincidentally, ever since we came across the SNES title Umihara Kawase, which might be described as “a 2d physics-based platformer where the player has a grappling hook/rope that can be used to interact with the world”.
Our intention wasn’t to clone Umihara, because frankly we don’t think it’s all that much fun: the player’s movement is too slow/boring, the springy nature of the rope is too random, and in general one can’t help but have a strong sense of “this should be an immensely entertaining game, but just isn’t for some reason”. Despite its flaws, Umihara is still interesting/intriguing enough to bring me back for a bit of rope-based platforming every few months — proof of the premise’s promising potential, as it were.
This ties in to our modus operandi, the game development analog of (Douglas Adams’) Dirk Gently’s method of “Zen navigation”: start out trying to clone an existing game, but end up getting side-tracked as ideas are suggested by the in-development technology.
This strategy is incredibly useful in that you begin the development process with the best of all possible design documents — a fully functioning game. That makes it very easy to nail down exactly what sort of technology you need to build, which is great if, like us, software engineering and design specification isn’t your strength; the hard problem of “what do we need to build” is made much simpler, leaving only the problem of “how do we build it”, which is much less daunting.
Of course, once you’ve got that technology working, chances are that you’ll find uses for it that are much more interesting than those you originally intended. This probably works better if the game you use as a starting point is at least somewhat interesting, novel, or weird.
Tangential asides aside, Umihara was tragically ahead of its time — it definitely pushed the envelope of what you could do on an SNES back in the day, but didn’t quite realize the full potential of rope-platforming. Maybe it was the silly walking-fish enemies..
Or, perhaps it would be more precise to say that it is our more sincere hope that, provided we do a good job of Robotology, Umihara will be seen as tragically ahead of its tim. And also its time.
Speaking of 2d physics-based platformers where the player has a grappling hook/rope that can be used to interact with the world, you have of course investigated LIERO, haven’t you?
I’m sure you have, only I didn’t see it mentioned. Ignore this post if it’s incredibly behind the times.
we’re definitely fans of liero (and soldat), but that’s not quite platform-y enough — it’s more of a shooter.
it definitely has a fun grappling hook though.
Oh, I like that Zen navigation method of game design, it sounds like a great idea. Though it’s kind of what I’ve been doing already. 🙂 But yeah, I’ll be more aware of it now.
damn it — someone just commented on this thread, but sadly i reflexively clicked “spam” (every comment for the past 2 weeks has been spam.. sigh). anyway, sorry about that — please repost if you read this!
I need to defend my game:
the player’s movement is too slow/boring
Since speed running is the major goal, you will rarely just move without using the line to help speed you up.
the springy nature of the rope is too random
You can’t predict where exactly you will go, but you do have a vague idea – which can be used to predict where you might need to correct your path. No one can shoot the ball straight into the hole in Golf from their first hit, but that doesn’t mean every player plays equally bad.
and in general one can’t help but have a strong sense of “this should be an immensely entertaining game, but just isn’t for some reason”.
and that reason is because your not very good at the game…
I take it by “your game” you mean the game you enjoy playing?
Imagine if in Super Mario, you didn’t have precise control over your jump height — it would be much less fun and rewarding.
That’s exactly the problem with the springy rope — the player can never have precise control over their movement, which means they can never fully predict their movement.. it just seems far too hard to reproduce a given move consistently.
Concerning the movement, there just isn’t that much of a sense of inertia/momentum when on the ground — and using the rope to boost your speed is quite awkward and doesn’t seem intentional.
Certainly it would be more fun if you didn’t immediately lose your mementum — so that once you used the rope once to launch yourself forward you’d keep running at that pace… that would feel much more dynamic and exciting. As it is, you can swing really fast, but the instant you hit the ground you lose a lot of that velocity.
Imagine if in Super Mario, you didn’t have precise control over your jump height — it would be much less fun and rewarding.
Not really…
That’s exactly the problem with the springy rope — the player can never have precise control over their movement, which means they can never fully predict their movement.. it just seems far too hard to reproduce a given move consistently.
Play a game for what it has, not what you want it to have. You can’t predict exactly where the line will go, but you can predict enough to make some moves much better than others. The unpredictability is never to a degree that you can not tell what you did wrong. The game is more enjoyable because the line sensitivity allows for players to get better and better. Randomness prevents gameplay degeneration.
If you want I can show you me or others playing the game, and. What newbies need is a slower line, that can get faster and faster.
Concerning the movement, there just isn’t that much of a sense of inertia/momentum when on the ground — and using the rope to boost your speed is quite awkward and doesn’t seem intentional.
You usually only move on the ground to use the extend technique (if you hold the cast button THEN move). Plus shouldn’t it be intentional that you would want to use the line at all times: You should never try to add something if it results in the game losing its uniqueness or depth. So to your second question: it is intentional. BTW: Newbies will usually be more awkward than experts…
Certainly it would be more fun if you didn’t immediately lose your mementum — so that once you used the rope once to launch yourself forward you’d keep running at that pace… that would feel much more dynamic and exciting. As it is, you can swing really fast, but the instant you hit the ground you lose a lot of that velocity.
You lose it slowly to friction, which is why you would either keep jumping or never touch the ground in the first place… The game is very vertical, I don’t see any area of the game where you need more than a single running jump.
SNES Umihara is a game I’m playing a lot at the moment. Mine is an import copy, and I’m playing it on a UK SNES… it runs at 50hz, so about 17% slower than the game would on a Japanese SNES. As a result it’s probably a lot easier on a relative newcomer such as me.
With that in mind, I’d have to say I disagree with the idea that the rope feels random. It only does when you’re new to the game. I disagree with the above poster’s comments which seem to indicate he thinks random=fun, that’s a bit absurd. Games of chance become boring quickly. Games of complete control, games which challenge this control – like Umihara Kawase – are real fun. Umihara is similar to Mario, it’s just that the learning curve for moving around is steeper. The main criticisms to be levelled at Umihara Kawase are the laborious boss levels, and the unnecessary spawning monsters. In both incarnations of the game these add nothing and detract quite a bit, in my opinion.
Looking forward to Robotology, anyway.
Test message
Sorry me noob…