Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!

1. Learn about the promo. 2. Sign up for GDNet+. 3. Set up your advert!


Member Since 27 Feb 2006
Offline Last Active Today, 08:31 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: What Color is the darn dress?!

Yesterday, 09:25 AM

Tutorial Doctor: "Regardless of how many videos I have seen, and scientific explanations I still am still not seeing the acclaimed royal blue and pitch black in that photo."

Hodgman: "The only way I've been able to see dark blue and black ... How can so many people not see the pixel colours? Of all the sites posting about this, why is it always black/blue vs white/gold? The JPEG itself unquestionably contains light blue and brown. Is there really an illusion here and I've just spent so long deconstructing graphics that I'm trained in only seeing literal pixel colours without further interpretation? Or maybe lots of people are viewing on bad monitors in direct sunlight??"

I'm not sure many people have said "pitch black", "royal blue" or "dark blue", rather the option is "blue and black".

I say "black" in the more general sense, not strictly a total absense of color - e.g., if someone is wearing a faded black t-shirt, I'd still call it "black" rather than the "dark grey" it may have turned into. I can see brown pixels, but there is no magic RGB value where brown becomes black. For the blue, I can see a range of shades - also bear in mind there have been different versions of the photo with different brightness levels.

I was first asked what colour is the dress, not what colour are the pixels, so I would have taken lighting into account. But I can see the brownness, and even almost golden pixels at the top (depending on the version of the picture), as well as a range of blue pixels.

For people who see gold and white - what would you say is exactly what you see?

The interesting thing is people who have said they saw it as one, and then the other - often noting what a surprise this was to them. So this doesn't simply seem to be an issue of interpreting the question differently, nor deciding to describe the colours differently - rather, what they perceived actually changed.

In Topic: Google Play or Steam Greenlight?

26 February 2015 - 07:38 AM

I don't think Windows games have to be different to Android ones - there are certain casual puzzle games very popular on both platforms. Also traditional PC RPGs like Baldur's Gate have been released for Android. (As for Windows 8, the complaints such as the start menu being different or replacing the button with a hotspot aren't to do with laptop versus mobile device - some people don't like the changes, other people do, but the idea of it being unusable on a laptop is a myth, it's just some people like it and some don't, as with any change - there are plenty of other threads to discuss Windows 8, anyway.)

One does have to be careful though - the puzzle games I'm thinking of for Windows tend to be web-based (including Facebook-based). Steam may well be a different market. But then this is arguably all the more reason to support both.

In Topic: Roguelikes and "dice"-based combat

09 February 2015 - 08:18 AM

There's also a principle that I think can be attributed to Michael Brough (it's there in ZAGA-33 and 868-HACK), that dungeon randomization should already be enough to guarantee variety.  You can have completely deterministic combat and still have every battle turn out differently, because they all start from different initial conditions.  (I think these two games still use randomness to determine enemy movement, but even this could be made deterministic.)  Hoplite is like this too, plus no random enemy movement if I recall.  So it's all just dungeon randomization + the player's input that determines the result of the game.


(I have a roguelike idea in my "idea folder" where it's *only* the player's input that matters.  The player starts in a large, mostly empty room, and the dungeon is progressively generated offscreen using the player's first N movements as input.)


But that's still "random" - I mean yes, strictly it's deterministic, but that's true of all the random number generators in the games being discussed, they're pseudo-random rather than random. Even if it's seeded from player movement, I would still call it random if I can't reasonably predict the outcome from the inputs.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're describing?

In Topic: Do you play your own games? Do you make games just for yourself?

02 February 2015 - 10:01 AM

Given the large amount of playtesting that may be needed, choosing a game one likes to play seems like an important requirement unless it's a trivial project.

I only bother with games I'd like to play (writing for fun, not work), though the risk is that all the playtesting means I end up being bored of it by the end of it. However I have come back to enjoy playing them later.

In Topic: Roguelikes and "dice"-based combat

02 February 2015 - 09:45 AM

There are a lot of computer games that use randomness - seems very common in RPGs (not just the "roguelikes"), also strategy games. It can be frustrating sometimes if it seems unfair ("Spearman killed my tank!", or just seemingly repeatedly losing), but also helps make gameplay significantly less repeatable.

I think it helps to avoid things that are uniformly random, but tie it into things like stats or skills, so the player can improve their chances (as frob says - you can still play tactically with non-deterministic outcomes). I remember years ago reading about a computer version of Warhammer (I think it was) - the tabletop game version had some cannon that would blow up on the roll of 1, which the developers argued worked in a board game where you throw the dice, but would just annoy players of a computer game, so they removed it.