<sarcasm>I am working on a truly addictive small game:

You start with a blank space with falling blocks. Each block would be made of 4 pieces arranged in everything from a straight line to an "L" to a square. As the pieces fell you would be able to slide them left or right and rotate them also. When a row is completed across the entire space, it disappears. The object would be to create as many lines as possible before the screen filled to the top.

I will call the game Tetra ( because every block has "4" pieces) or maybe something else close to that.

Alexey P.
</sarcasm>

Who necessarily says that "smaller" games are small? I think too many games try to push the macro limits of the game encompassing an entire universe, traveling between the stars, etc. But there is just as much "size" on the microscopic level as there is the macro.

Think of it this way. A game takes place in one house, or one room, with two or three people in it. This "small" game could be huge if you make the three people incredibly in depth with a long history. The room itself could have countless numbers of puzzles and secrets.

If the game was from the point of view of a mouse or knat then the "universe" is suddenly huge.

People like wide spaces though so everyone goes for that.

quote:Original post by stevelat
Think of it this way. A game takes place in one house, or one room, with two or three people in it. This "small" game could be huge if you make the three people incredibly in depth with a long history. The room itself could have countless numbers of puzzles and secrets.

This pretty much describes Facade, which was interesting but still far too lacking in content and interaction to be really playable. I''d like to see more people do stuff like this, but it''s tricky to pull off.

You can check out my small games at http://deltacode.cjb.net
Maybe you''re just not looking in the right area, I see alot of litte games being developed all the time.