Days of work on the city. Then I wanted something to fly around, so i developed this cute drone with my robotics framework to make it look vivid. Not perfect, just experimenting and another way to explore my creation. The self-transforming machinecity will grow till my workstation can’t hold it anymore.
We're an innovative and inclusive virtual pet site that combines interesting gameplay with educational elements and real-life progress!
Our features focus on advancing players, expressing individualization, and exploring community relationships, so our players will better themselves in real life and have fun along the way!
[ID: A banner with the Sensipets logo. On the left is a yellow prulen, a bear-like animal. On the right is a yellow dainen, a dog-like animal with feathered wings. The background is a lush forest. End ID.]
About Us | Discord | Twitter | Instagram | Facebook
Official Merch Store (T-Shirts, Pins, Notebooks, Candles, and Stickers! T-Shirt sizes up to 3XL available)
🌀 Please consider donating so our site can grow and improve! 🌀
Some concepts for a neat bird game project underworks by Banished Crown Studios (commissioned by said studio)
Finally a game about birb people, not enough of em out there. and if you follow me you probably agree. hopefully this will take off and the majority of my posts will end up being related.
(if you liked the pompadour design, don't fret, I’ll hopefully sneak it on another character)
Yesterday it was announced that Psychonauts 2 will feature an invincibility toggle, essentially a mode in which you can play the game without dying. I had no issue with this upon hearing it because it’s simply an option. If you don’t want to play this considerably easier version of the game, then good news: you don’t have to.
As is often the case with gamers, nothing can simply exist without being divisive in some major way. But really, I think it’s quite simple. If the devs want to put an invincibility toggle into their game, then they can.
You also have to consider the kind of game Psychonauts is. I’ve seen comments from people saying things like “and yet Fromsoftware can’t put a single difficulty option in their games.” The difference is that Soulsborne games usually exist to test you. They exist to be a challenge. Psychonauts 2 is not that kind of experience, so an invincibility option doesn’t defeat the purpose of the game.
This is not the “cheat code” I’ve seen some people describe it as. It is quite literally just an accessibility option. Some people have disabilities that make timing difficult. Some people have disabilities that make it hard to hold the controller. Some people are just bad at games. All this toggle does is make it so more people can have fun.
Regardless, there’s no reason to be mad at an option that can only be a good thing. It makes the game more accessible for people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to play it.
Hello, I could have sworn you’ve answered this already, but I can’t find the post, so I’m asking anyway. Is there any validity to the weapons triangle from Fire Emblem? Swords have advantage against Axes, Axes have advantage against Lances, Lances have advantage against Swords. I understand that reach is very important so Lances “beating” Swords makes sense, but I feel like the other two are arbitrary.
I know we’ve touched on this in the past, but it’s probably been years. The answer is, “kinda, sorta, not exactly.” These kinds of simple triangles tend to be more about gameplay, and less about reality.
There are specific weapon priorities. A classic example is polearms offering an extremely effective counter to cavalry. Historically, cavalry dominated forces frequently had serious difficulty when fighting against foes who prioritized spears as their main infantry units. Similarly, cavalry are extremely effective against most melee infantry. So we have two parts of a triangle… except, it doesn’t really close. Sword infantry doesn’t dominate polearm infantry. You can bring archers into the mix, and they will be more effective against unshielded infantry than shielded infantry. Your sword infantry are likely to be using shields, while your spear users are less likely to be doing so (though, this isn’t always going to be the case.) So, you start to have a four sided priority “triangle.” Except it doesn’t work that way, because your shielded infantry is going to get stuck in the tarpit of frontline melee, so, if the archers are significantly behind the lines, they’re more vulnerable to skirmishing cavalry, not the infantry they’re less effective against.
Oh, right, and those spear infantry that are so effective against cavalry? The best tool to deal with them is, ironically, cavalry. Get the polearm fighters tied up in melee with friendly infantry, then get your skirmishing cavalry around behind them, and charge into their rear. (This is why protecting your flanks and keeping skirmishers from getting behind your front lines is so important. Once you have skirmishers, especially fast moving ones, loose behind the lines, it’s over.)
If the above borders on impenetrable, that’s why many games use much simpler triangles. It’s not replicating reality, but it is replicating the concept that certain kinds of units serve different functions, and a battlefield is about getting different units to operate in tandem with each other.
A famous quote from Sid Meier holds that, games are about making a series of interesting choices. That’s the point of the triangle. It’s turning strategy into a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors.
Without any kind of priority, it’s very easy to create mono-unit forces that will steamroll anything in their path. Ironically, some of Sid Meier’s Civilization series are guilty of this. But, I’m also specifically remembering the armies of six Terminator squads, with Assault Cannons in one of the Dawn of War expansions. (I don’t remember which one had no recruitment limits, it’s not Dark Crusade.)
Introducing priority systems (even if they’re a natural interaction of unit stats) can go a long way towards forcing players to make “an interesting decision,” when assembling their army. It’s not enough to just load up on super heavy infantry, or cavalry, and roll the map without a second thought. Now you need to consider what enemies you’re going to face, and set up your army accordingly.
The irony is that, Sid Meier’s advice works for writing. Stories are a series of interesting choices made by your characters. The idea of a triangle is simple, but it’s also good advice for building your characters, if your character excels against one kind of foe, it stands to reason there are other threats out there they’re unprepared for. If your character is some kind of hotshot cavalry officer, putting them in a jungle fight would be an absolute nightmare. If your character is an archer, putting them in an overrun fortress, fighting to escape in close quarters, really plays against their strengths.
Triangles may be simple, but they are an abstract concept you can adapt for your writing.
This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you, and come join us on Discord.
Q&A: What You Can Learn From Weapon Triangles was originally published on How to Fight Write.
When I get violently murdered in a video game and my horse completely fails to react, I’ve gotta admit, that hurts – not because I expect the horse to give a shit about my wellbeing, but because knowing how risk-averse horses are, getting snuffed by something that doesn’t even move the horse to mild concern feels like being mocked.
I was in a game design class, but my high school art teacher was teaching it. Instead of teaching however, she just went to YouTube and put up a playlist of Homestuck comic dubs. After class, me and a bunch of nerdy “fandom” kids went up to her and asked if she read Homestuck. She answered by saying she’s Catholic.
Rule of Rose focuses on telling it’s frightening narrative by ensuring that gameplay sequences are guided by specific visual and story cues. Rather than explicitly stating where the player should be going, the game instead opts to allow them to search each area thoroughly, before guiding them to plot specific points with the appearance of children or specific items that point the way.
Is there a way to flirt with Hades that doesn't require the MC to be bold? He doesn't seem like the type to initiate anything first, but the flirting options for him so far tend to be more forward. Like when he asked to hold your hand, it would make sense for a shy character to be flustered by the contact. I want to romance him but my MC is a shy little bean 👉🏼👈🏼
I'm working on this sort of thing. The trouble with writing these is that it can be hard to tell they're 'flirt options' unless there's super over the top stuttering or face-heating going on, which might not be appropriate to all shy PCs. I'm considering just marking off which options will increase affection with some kind of symbol so I can write them as subtle as I want.
All to say I'm aware there's a demand for this, and working on it.
There are at least a couple such options already, though.
hello! i love the wayfarer so far, there are so many branches and options to choose from! so i was wondering, how do you go about writing something with so many branches? you write all the way to the end in a branch first or do all branches at the same time?
Thank you so much, I'm glad you're enjoying it! 💗
I do thorough flow-charting and planning for branches before I start writing a chapter. While the outline usually doesn't include every single little branch (because sometimes I can't anticipate them until I'm writing the dialogue), the main branches are mapped out.
So, for example, in planning Chapter 1 Route B, I knew that I would have 4 investigation locations, 3 possible final destinations (dependent on how well the player's investigation goes), 3 combat branches for the boss fight (dependent on what the player did regarding the chalice) and the end scene with Zenaida to wrap everything up.
The most important thing when planning branches is to know where your bottlenecks are. Bottlenecks are places where everything routes down the same path and connects back together. You need bottlenecks, because even in a choice-based game, there is always some level of linearity and you need to rope everything back together.
The player character accepting the Velantis contract, for example, is a major story beat bottleneck. It always happens, you can't avoid it--it's the thing that leads them onto the next section of the game.
Outside of the big picture stuff, on the small scale I have two approaches.
For dialogue branches, I usually stick to a rule of three--three choices for the initial branch (A, B, C), three choices for the A branch, and then start thinning them out from there to bottleneck back together. This means the C branch is always shorter (so it usually goes to curt dialogue choices or other things that would organically cause a conversation to get cut short).
Something like this:
And then for combat or skill check-heavy scenes, I usually keep the original choice to 2 (or 3 if it's an timed passage and I need an "abstain" option). This is because every skill check has two results (a pass an and fail), so if I have 2 choices for the player, I'm actually writing 4 results. Sometimes, depending on the situation, I'll do 3 instead and then do 6 results (it depends on what's happening in the story).
Bit tiny, but this is what one of the combat branches looks like (with the bottlenecks circled):
Because I have the injury/knocked unconscious system, the passages where the MC gets knocked out (you can see them here, they're tagged in green and have the little X next to them) don't reach the main bottlenecks and instead are re-directed to the blackout/flashback scene.
I don't write all the branches at the same time. I compartmentalize and work on it section by section. If a section is really large (like the Viridian Lady villa investigation, for example--that sits at around 41k and has 3 internal branches), I'll break that down into its smaller sections and work on those individually. 💜