[Prototype] Petal

edited in Projects
Hey everyone
I'd like to show you a little prototype I made recently as an exercise in intentional design. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have!


Itch (Windows, Mac): https://renderheads.itch.io/petal (This prototype was made at RenderHeads and is owned by RenderHeads hence the link)

I spent a day up-front trying to hone in on a design. Which resulted in this rough concept:

The idea is you move pollen/petals around to grow over a ruined civilization. You create a chain of flowers that expand where you can see/play (There is an element of exploration in that regard). Simple interactions with a strong focus on visuals/game-feel and sound design. Handcrafted levels.

1. You start by swiping from a flower to create a flow to the next flower. each flow can only be a certain length so you need to make sure it gets petals where they need to go.
2. Once enough petals have accumulated by a flower it activates and it creates a new point to create a flow.
3. There are ruins as obstacles that could present multiple paths and allow players to min/max if they want to get 100%.
4. You can push down some obstacles with petals to get to the next section.
5. Flowers make sounds when they are activated, petals make a sound when they pop off the flower/hit something. Together the sounds form a melody that builds as you continue playing.

image
After feedback, I changed the camera angle to open up some more gameplay possibilities (a horizontal rather than a vertical plane). as well as expanded the flower colors to allow for gameplay like https://bigduckgames.com/flowfree, but in a more continuous fashion. I also defined the core experience: "I want players to feel awe at the world and interactions"

image
This is the result so far. I think I got the general gist of what I was going for but missing some features and lots of polish.

I don't think I've nailed the core experience yet. It could be that it was too vague, to begin with. I also didn't get around to implementing progression/discovery in a way I was happy with. So maybe adding some of that could help? Any ideas surrounding the core experience and how to hone in on it would be super useful!

Comments

  • Looks interesting! Seems like the camera angle change was a smart choice.
    The idea is you move pollen/petals around to grow over a ruined civilization. You create a chain of flowers that expand where you can see/play (There is an element of exploration in that regard). Simple interactions with a strong focus on visuals/game-feel and sound design. Handcrafted levels.
    I also defined the core experience: "I want players to feel awe at the world and interactions"
    This is an interesting direction, but it doesn't feel like that really comes across yet, given what I've seen. I don't have a solution yet, but I'd focus on that (you probably already are!)

    Would you like to show this tomorrow at the meetup? (http://makegamessa.com/discussion/5676/ct-community-evening-31-july-2019#latest) Feels like something the meetup group might be able to give some good ideas for :)
  • Ross if you need time from work to prepare for the community meeting you can
    Thanked by 2Ross francoisvn
  • Hey @francoisvn!
    This is an interesting direction, but it doesn't feel like that really comes across yet, given what I've seen. I don't have a solution yet, but I'd focus on that (you probably already are!)
    I feel like I never really executed on this once I started development. Got too distracted by the flow field and making a game in that. But hopefully, It's still possible to expand to include these elements.
    Would you like to show this tomorrow at the meetup?
    If there is time that would be really great. Ill ask for a slot. Thanks!
    Thanked by 1francoisvn
  • Ross said:
    flow field
    Oh! Do you have a 2D vector field that you manipulate with your mouse dragging? That would make a lot of sense. When I look closely at the video I can see you also represent this on the grass, but quite subtly. It would be cool if that effect was more pronounced, so you could see the grass waving in the wind/field. Side note: the grass should also look a bit less regular, at the moment it looks a bit like someone's scalp after they've shaved ;P
    Thanked by 1Ross

  • @francoisvn said:
    Do you have a 2D vector field that you manipulate with your mouse dragging?
    Yep. It was a toss-up between this or a bunch of splines connecting the flowers. Figured a vector field could lead to some more emergence. Although I don't think I've capitalized on it as much as I could.
    It would be cool if that effect was more pronounced.
    Awesome! I'll look into making it stand out a bit more somehow. A lot of the playtest feedback I've got so far is related to difficulty handling or misunderstanding the vector field.
    at the moment it looks a bit like someone's scalp after they've shaved ;P
    Lol! Yeah that needs some improvement.
  • Some ideas:
    • Some parts of the field that you can't alter. Maybe parts in shade? Then you could also play with light and shadows to affect what is mutable or not. Or maybe static things, like a waterfall and river that affects the nearby field?
    • Some parts of the field that are on a repeating loop. Maybe a large lily pad that rotates.
    • Besides affecting the direction of the vector field, maybe also have the ability to affect the magnitude by dragging faster or something. If you're already doing this, then you could make it more pronounced
    • Maybe you have limited "fuel" for affecting the field, and you get that fuel slowly by completing the loops?
    • Environmental challenges that have hard limits to the field. I'm thinking obstacles that block the field and particles collide with, but it could be more than that.
    • You could play with the particle color, having elements that can change/alter the particle color somehow
    • Level design sources and sinks for particles. So maybe a sink would be an altar you need to charge up, which then unlocks something else. A source could be a specific fixed flower, or a tree, or some static level design element.
    • Ramps or some vertical aspect, like maybe some flowers or redirectors that are angled upwards to shoot particles up and over other paths.
  • edited
    This was cool. I played for a few mins and couldn't get futher than you've shown in the vid. I assume that's the end?

    I liked the playful discovery of figuring out what to do (didn't read your post before I played). Felt good that there was no big penalty when I got something wrong.

    Like other playtesters you mentioned, I also had an issue with knowing which way the grass / vector field was pointing. I assume that's got to do with colour and lack of shadows.

    For the core experience, it felt more "soothing" / "playful" to me at this stage. But I think there is a path to "awe".
    Thanked by 1Ross
  • edited
    I know you've got a bunch of temp stuff in there, but I can already imagine a really great aesthetic going on (although I realise that may not be your focus at the moment). In particular, I've sort of been yearning for a relaxing, meditative game that I could use to unwind after an evening of more competitive gaming.

    I don't know if it'd fit any art direction you might be thinking of, but you're welcome to grab the source of the grass I was playing with in another prototype. (It'd need a lot of work though -- it's in a pretty tech-demo-y state, but it's there in case it's helpful. In particular, it's using geometry shaders, which afaik are likely deprecated on most platforms going forward.)

    image
  • The game distinctly reminds me of Flower, one of my favourite games in the world, and that can only be a good thing :)



    Though of course aesthetics might not be the point of the prototype yet.

    Played it a bit and it looks interesting, I think I can understand the puzzle elements, though I think a lot of ambiguity makes it difficult to be certain whether I have or haven't. For example I was never sure if a target is out of the range of the previous step, or if I've drawn the line too long. I couldn't tell if swirly bits are mistakes or bugs. I think for a puzzle game, having the player be certain of what they're doing and achieving (and hence NOT achieving too) is very important.

    The range of each "reach" could probably be more lenient and still achieve the same puzzles. The real puzzle, I think are in the crossing of the lines rather than the range of lines.

    That is, *if* I'm understanding the game correctly.
    Thanked by 1Ross
  • Thanks for everyones feedback. Ross is gonna consider this all along with the feedback from the meetup and come up with a plan for next-steps, then we will decide if we want to throw another week of dev at this, or move onto another prototype:)
  • Yo. You should totally play FROST. Has a lot of interesting ideas for swarm mechanics similar to what you're trying to do here.

    Thanked by 2Ross francoisvn
Sign In or Register to comment.