Sooooo. This year I decided to ask my friend, Ant, to join me in this game jam! I've been super busy and haven't had time to write up our devblog, and Ant is too shy to start the first post. Which is why we're only writing this now 😅 

We started off reading all the verses and their chapters to get some context, and ended up choosing Ephesians 4:32

 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

I wanted to do something more meta and not overtly Christian this year, after last year's entry. Ant wanted to do a multiplayer game. Ephesians 4:32 was particularly nice as it fit both our needs -- a local multiplayer game with manufactured conflicts between the players, where communication and patience with one another is key. Your teammates will make mistakes, but how you react determines how the game goes.

It was really fun brainstorming this game with Ant, and we even have a design doc (albeit a really messy one) to show for it. Maybe we'll clean it up and show some snippets of it in a later post! That's it for now, it's late and I've spent way too much time coding today 😴

P.S. Ant isn't a Christian, so be nice to him!

The timing of this post lends it to be more of a retrospective than a true Devblog. Instead of a real-time log of thoughts, I instead get to provide a brief history of how this game came to be. Just because I tail-load all the writing doesn't mean I'll spare any development details - so I expect that this will just be the first post of many.

Of the 3 passages provided, we chose Ephesian 4:32 because it gave us a template for an idea (the general process being: "Step 1 - Read the verse. Step 2 - Wait for inspiration."). We were further inspired by an earlier phrase, Ephesians 4:25 - "for we are all members of one body". Compassion and kindness are universal virtues, preached among many faiths. So is the idea that humanity has to be united as one body.

The initial idea was to create a multiplayer game to illustrate both the struggles and rewards of being kind. We had no specific mechanics in mind, but wanted to create a game that rewarded players for betraying other players, yet still rewarding them even more for forgiving those who had betrayed them. However, it seemed inappropriate to try to incentivize players to co-operate for selfish rewards. And after a day of brainstorming, we couldn't find a mechanic that was fun.

So we shifted gears and tried to make a co-op game with the following guidelines:
- It had to be couch co-op, i.e. all the players had to be physically near each other (slightly so we didn't have to deal with networking, and also to make it so real-life interactions were integral to the game)
- Players had to all working towards a common goal (i.e. a true co-op game, not some co-op game where each player has hidden side agendas)
- Each time one player made a mistake, the price would be paid by the other players
- Players had to be occupied enough so that coordinating with other players required trust and efficient communication - we didn't want players to have the time to micromanage their teammates - trust and communication was required.

The final guideline (underlined and bolded) was the most difficult - we had to make something that toed the line between challenging and frustrating.

I didn't expect the final form of the game to have clouds, stars, and the player controlling a sun-like object. I didn't expect it, because the initial design doc had clouds, stars, the sun, and the words "objects are all placheolders until we decide what they are". Perhaps I shouldn't be that surprised that we were too lazy to replace the placeholder objects.

The game's mechanics, though, were changed many times, and the final version's (at least, the version we had at the deadline) mechanics turned out to be very different from the initial design doc.

Next up: Actual iteration and tweaking of the game's mechanics

Mechanics evolution

The initial mechanics of the game were intended as follows:

- Player 1 (henceforth known as the "Typer") would have to type letters, which had to match the letters on an enemy object that:

- Player 2 (henceforth known as the "Targeter") had targeted using the mouse. All the while:

- Player 3 (henceforth known as the "Mover") would have to ensure there was a clear path between the player and the enemy, while avoiding bullets.

If you look at the final version of this game, many things have changed. The first thing to change was how letters behaved. They were originally supposed to be extremely fast, and firing in a straight line. But when the first prototype came out, letters moved slowly, but followed the mouse, kind of like being beamed down from a spaceship. Not at all how I had envisioned it when writing the design document... but somehow a much better interpretation.

The initial movement mechanic allows players to freely use the arrow keys to move for a short period of time (in any direction), then switch to the numpad for a short period of time, and on and on. This didn't feel as frantic. We wanted players to have to change direction often, and yet keep track of which input mode (numpad or arrow keys) they were using to go in a single direction. Once that was done, it was a matter of iterating to ensure that movement felt smooth and forgiving enough such that players felt like they could move smoothly when they did everything right - and the challenge was to do everything right (rather than just being angry at unfair mechanics).

The targeting reticle underwent the most drastic change. Letters used to just be beamed from the player to wherever the mouse was pointing. Then we changed it so that letters would follow the targeting reticle (allowing you to lead them around obstacles), and this was pretty fun. But it made it a bit too easy, so we added momentum and drag to the targeting reticle - to move great distances, you had to accelerate it. And to stop on a dime, you had to de-accelerate it by moving in the opposite direction.

The targeting reticle mechanic has been rather controversial. Some players love it because operating the cursor in a precise manner requires a high degree of skill, and a small amount of forethought. Others say that mouse movement is expected to be snappy, and the sluggishness doesn't feel good.

On challenging vs frustrating

Much of the challenge in this game comes from controls not working like how they normally do in other games. The mouse moves like a spaceship, not like a pointer on the screen. Moving the player requires more coordination than normal, and changing direction is sometimes the only way to stop moving. We were very worried about making sure that players felt the controls were fair.

Playtests revealed that most teams got significantly better at this game over time - but their first few games were incredibly frustrating as they had to learn the controls. Originally, the game started out difficult, and then scaled up to become pretty much impossible. Having been familiar with our own game, we failed to account for the fact that players who were brand new to the game wouldn't be able to do much without getting used to the controls - and since the game was punishing from the start, they didn't have much time to get used. So we drastically tweaked the difficulty of the game down early on to give players time to ramp up - but the difficulty still ramps up quickly enough to get challenging very quickly.

One problem from testing our own game was that we only really tested one aspect of the game at one time. Individually, we felt like each player's job was equally difficult.

Unfortunately, it turns out that despite the game trying to promote kindness and forgiveness between players, the game itself is extremely unforgiving to uncoordinated teams. This is kind of by design - a single player under-performing makes the game almost impossible. But it can be problematic not everyone has easy access to two other friends who are willing to embrace failure and learn together. In some ways, this does necessitate that players be forgiving to each other in order to get better.

On UI

As much as possible, we tried to convey information visually. Letters change color when they're slower. The targeting reticle does as well. As you take damage, the light you emit gets dimmer. This started out as a way to debug what was going on, while deciding on the best way to convey this information to the player. As with most things, we ended up being too lazy to come up with a separate mechanic, and just use what we already had.

I think that, as much as possible, conveying information to the player is best done by just changing the existing elements on the screen, without words or numbers. I think we could have done better about making the color changes more obvious - especially because there's a certain point where if you make too many mistakes, your controls actually get reversed.

The one thing we didn't get to was clearly indicating why bad things were happening (e.g. when the Mover presses 2 consecutive arrow keys in a row, the Targeter is punished by having the reticle move slower). A visual "wave of badness" flowing from the player to the targeting cursor would be a nice way to represent that the Targeter's job would be more difficult because of a mistake from the Typer. But we didn't have the time to get to it.

On the Passage

Ephesians 4 is also very applicable to the whole of our development process. Having never used Unity (which this game was developed on) prior to this game, I was the beneficiary of much kindness, compassion, and forgiveness.

Our schedules didn't manage to line up well over the 2 weeks, so there were many cases where we would discuss something, and then it would get implemented by the other person in a completely different way. This was in fact, a really good thing. One idea could unintentionally spawn a completely different idea! While we wouldn't recommend businesses apply our practice of "innovation by mis-interpretation", I'm pretty pleased with how we were able to roll through and change things as different ideas came up.

Viewpoints were diverse. I like games that swiftly obliterate any hope you have of winning within the first 10 seconds. Sarriest does not. As Ephesians 4 suggests, we are all on the same team here, and a difference in viewpoints means we have more to work with.

Time for review. This year I am making videos of me playtesting the game, here is yours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToN_xt1SurE (Just realised my videorecorder havent recorded sounds, have to check that)

Usually when I see a game submission with a picture that hints something about a word game, I dont have much expectations from the game at that point anymore, but remembering sarriest previous years excellent game, that I personally think should have won the whole competition perhaps, my thought was instead "cant wait to see how she treats that concept".

I am most likely going to write another review about this game at some other point, since right now my review (and the video) is based upon me playing that game alone, and as that game is meant for three players, well, one player sure doesnt give it credit.

It is actually bit of a shame since your game might underperform in voting due to 3 player aspect, since I guess many wont be able to try it out properly. However, at same time. What an interesting idea to go for an actual 3 player co-op game. Fantastic idea! and a real shame you might get punished from that.

Playing alone, this game was quite terrible experience, however, with two people, one on keyboard, another on mouse, I think this is already playble. Of course the idea is then that shine just keeps still and games will be short, but I think it will anyway be playable, that you can aim for highscore in one one minute play.

This also brings me one problem with your game you didnt take into consideration, and one which is very difficult to even think, unless you have one of these special keyboards. For basically I am waiting for my daugter to come home from childrens camp to give this game a try on two player mode, but I could ask some friend of hers to play as a third one, except, not with my keyboard. I have this Kinesis Advantage 2 keyboard, and it doesnt have numpad nor the arrow keys place the normal way. My 4 arrow keys are in two different places. On right hand size, under "," I have up and down key, on the left side, under letters "v" and "c", i have left and right keys, when then having numbers only on that top column, you can see how unpractical mobing shine is with this keyboard, and even more, if one player is typing at same time, then it becomes already practically impossible. Solution to this would be to give a possibility to reconfigure keys to some different place. Basically I could reconfigure my keyboard, but I am not familiar with this keyboard enough yet, so I am bit too worried how to reset it back to my current setting if I do that, hence I wont try it.

Anyway, this is something that doesnt come to mind, until you actually start using one of these special keyboards, and in practice the three player aspect is impossible with my keyboard and it is a slight minus to me, although very understandable thing to miss.

Trying to play this alone was possible, but very very difficult. But it did at least give some impression of the game.

Game looked very nice and good. I am however bit suspicious that game might be too difficult. For basically what I was looking is, that this game would be great on some childrens/youth camps/evenings. That people would be divided into teams, and then all these teams would compete against each other on who gets best high score. I think this would be great for something like that. But I am afraid this might be too difficult for elementary school kinds, espeacially the typing part.

However, at same time I am quite doubtful people would enjoy playing this game much at home. I dont think it has enough to interest them for more than couple of minutes. That basically they try one time, and next time they probably wont start the game anymore. But for something like camp/evening thing, I could easily see how this team competition would be set up many times and each time people would like it as much as the first time. This would be great material for something like that.

This would also solve another problem at same time. For basically I really like how you went on to interpret the verse. The idea is real gold. However, implementation does fail in that you get half the message done only. You do get the part that you need to work in team and body of christ etc. but to actually forgive etc. that doesnt come out in any way by just playing the game. However, I could once again see if this would be in some childrens evening, that then they could speak afterwards in way "So did it help being angry at other? no. Then did it feel good to be forgiven? yes. Also, when you patiently gave your team member time to learn, despite him not being very good at beginning, didnt it finally pay off?". This way this games message would really hit gold. Right now it gets there only half way and for that reason unfortunately fails. But the idea and approach was fantastic, although execution fell short.

Music and graphics were both very nice and working. They both worked. Clear graphics and fitting music. Also those little details, like things moving in instructions made the polish level shine so much brighter.

All in all, so far it seems like highly interesting idea that I have to get to try with at least two players to truly see how it works. I believe the slow mouse works well with more than one player, but with one player it was real terrible, because there was already enough trouble playing alone, yet alone making it even more difficult, but basically direct mouse in multiplayer might be boring for the one with the mouse, since that one then be just targeting and do nothing else, with mouse acceleration thing, it will be more challenging and fun.

I really liked this entry, although it is hard to determine if this is actually good yet or not. When I get to play with my daughter, I will comment about this again.

I have forgot to comment this again. I tried this with my daughter, but unfortunately that already happen days ago enough that I dont remember well enough to write about it anymore. Only that it did seem better with two, but it really would have needed that third one too it seems. I thought it would work somewhat fine with two already,  but no, it does require the third one too to really know what its worth, as while it was better with two players compared to one, it wasnt much better anyway. But I suspect everything changes when there is third one too.

Anyway, here is the gameplay video of that two player playing session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQsqvLZtICs&t=1s