Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paula on April 29, 2008 at 4:07pm

Okay - so Jen and I just played - yes, together! When we finished we never got to see how many correct clicks we received. Steve says the "break 100" thing is a golf term, but I don't play golf so i didn't get it. How about if it was scored by correct clicks minus muffs? Or see if you can play with no muffs - right!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Richardson on April 29, 2008 at 5:08pm

Good insights... I will change the wording so 'Correct Clicks' is clearer. Everyone who finishes the game will automatically have 50 correct clicks (10 per round). Currently your score is total seconds it takes to get the 50 Correct Clicks minus the Muffs.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cindy on April 29, 2008 at 4:10pm

Steve- Having to move/separate the pieces is evil!!!! You got me on level 4 and 5. I love it!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bryan on April 30, 2008 at 10:23am

It would be far more challenging if the puzzles didn't have such complex imagery...made it so there was no need to separate the pieces by the final two rounds for you could just click on the part of the puzzle you saw that matched the rotating piece but I found it entertaining overall. Still unclear as to what is a good score...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bryan on April 30, 2008 at 10:34am

Oh dear...I've played it twice in a row and both times the rotating puzzle pieces follow the exact same order. Far too easy now - should be random as now once I click start I can remember the order to click to complete the round in the least amount of time. I found the round puzzle round to be the most challenging however so definitely change it up some. Also, wouldn't it be more fun if the puzzle pieces didn't have straight edges?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Richardson on April 30, 2008 at 3:19pm

Interesting!! I use a random number generator to select each new rotating piece so I'd better double check this. Thanks for the insight. A good score is under 100. I plan to introduce at least one new puzzle pattern each week and I plan to change all five images each week once we get this up and running. Glad you found it entertaining.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Benjamin Moore on April 30, 2008 at 10:54am

This is really fun. I'll try some later today after work. Excellent idea

Benjamin

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Richardson on April 30, 2008 at 3:20pm

I appreciate the feedback. Glad you like it..... more to come.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by JP on April 30, 2008 at 11:47pm

Hi Steve.

I've played your game a few times, and I think it definitely has appeal. But have you considered adding some rewards for outstanding game play? For example, giving a bonus score deduction if the player makes it all the way through the game with no muffs, or subtracting a muff if they finish a round in less than ten seconds.

Also, if you're planning to add more challenging rounds, it might be interesting to throw an additional dimension into the mix... and I mean that quite literally. Start some or all of the puzzle "wood side up" (i.e., the pieces display the same wood grain pattern) so the player is essentially working from the piece shape alone. Only when a piece is clicked, does it "flip over" to display the actual image. Perhaps in even later levels, clicking a second time on the piece will flip it back over to the wood side. Muffs would be much harder to avoid in these scenarios, so the game's scoring goals might need some adjustment. And there's also the option of having the rotating piece appear as wood side up, where clicking on it will reveal the image for only a moment before it returns to the wood side... and for that peek, the muff count goes up by one, of course. Or apply the same "peek" functionality to the puzzle pieces, and the user will have to rely on their memory as well... a bit like the child's card game where the goal is to find the pairs.

However, these suggestions might just detract from the simplicity and elegance of the current game, so maybe they'd be better if saved for a future project. In any event, thanks for letting us play with your new toy, and for soliciting feedback.

Regards,
John

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paula on May 1, 2008 at 9:27am

Wow! Great suggestions!!!! I thought Steve was the tormentor but this sounds like crazy fun - I Love It!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Richardson on May 2, 2008 at 4:24pm

Hi John, I like your creative thinking.... great ideas, particularly the wood-side up Thanks, Steve

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sebastian on May 1, 2008 at 7:15pm

Liked the puzzle concept.

Towards the end, found myself simply clicking my mouse on matching "landmarks" in the art - pretty much ignoring the piece shapes.

Would be a lot harder with less detailed artwork, and more emphasis on the shapes of the pieces.

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4