1. Why could you still play the game after there are no more eggs or chickens? We didn't set up the logic to detect that. Actually this is a valid criticism, but I don't think you need to ask why... rather as a critic you should have conviction in your opinion, or just state your observation. It feels kind of condescending to ask why... like you are implying I am a total idiot and you would like me to explain my backward logic.
2. Why weren't you punished for eating baby chicks? We rewarded it. I made that decision. You can blame me personally. Actually we debated several mechanisms [instant death, vegan-snake, pushes chicks/chickens aside]. I chose this route because it was the easiest to implement, given the other code that had been written.
3. Definitely going to change the control schema. I notice a ton of people complaining about the movement not happening smoothly... smooth movement it is!
Thanks for the feedback XD
Viewing post in Protect the Chickens jam comments
No worries. I was being a bit overdramatic myself.
I'd like to revisit these elements, but I'm still struggling to sort out how the logic should be.
If I were to take your implied advice on the previous comment and make the player lose when they collide with a chick (or any moving object), I expect that this will lead to frustration for the player, since they can't reliably predict ahead of time if the chick is going to move into their path on the next game step.
I'm leaning toward, if the snake doesn't eat something, it should push the thing instead... but this leads to unanswered design questions: in particular, what happens if I push object A into object B?