48 replies to this topic

[Aaron]

For the Mini-Game compo this year I thought I'd do a version of an old calculator game called DStar.

The idea is to collect all the blue rings, but the trick is that you always move in a straight line until you hit something. Also you can alternately control a block to help get around the level. Anyway, play it, it's not that hard to figure out.

Fire switches between controlling pac man and the blocker, which you'll need to finish the level (not detected yet).

Attached Files

•  astar.zip   1006bytes   180 downloads

[batari]

Aaron, on Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:30 PM, said:

For the Mini-Game compo this year I thought I'd do a version of an old calculator game called DStar.

The idea is to collect all the blue rings, but the trick is that you always move in a straight line until you hit something.  Also you can alternately control a block to help get around the level.  Anyway, play it, it's not that hard to figure out. 

Fire switches between controlling pac man and the blocker, which you'll need to finish the level (not detected yet).

I like these types of games. Still trying to figure out how to get some of those blocks near the bottom...

How will the score be determined?

[Aaron]

batari, on Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:14 AM, said:

How will the score be determined?

Hrm, do people actually care about a score in a game like this? I didn't think it would be meaningful.

[djmips]

Well, like in Jammed, you can solve it or you can solve it in the minimum number of moves.

Nice game.

Edited by djmips, Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:48 AM.

[Zach]

That was a fun puzzle. Nice job. It didn't take too long to solve the first level. I trust you will be adding graphics for when Pac-Man faces up or down, or will you do it Todd Frye style?

[TMR]

Aaron, on Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:01 AM, said:

batari, on Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:14 AM, said:

How will the score be determined?

Hrm, do people actually care about a score in a game like this? I didn't think it would be meaningful.

Oh goodness yes, it needs scores - that's a large wodge of the replay value right there! In a game like this you can have a score per item, a bonus timer ticking down that gets awarded at the end of a level and a moves counter that gives a few spare to multiply by ten for a second bonus to make sure the scores aren't fixed per level. Running out of time or moves needn't be fatal, although i'd make the timer fatal myself to add a bit of urgency to the proceedings.

i'll have a play of it when i'm at me own computer, i'm at work right now so can't have a game.

[Aaron]

TMR, on Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:48 AM, said:

Oh goodness yes, it needs scores - that's a large wodge of the replay value right there!  In a game like this you can have a score per item, a bonus timer ticking down that gets awarded at the end of a level and a moves counter that gives a few spare to multiply by ten for a second bonus to make sure the scores aren't fixed per level.  Running out of time or moves needn't be fatal, although i'd make the timer fatal myself to add a bit of urgency to the proceedings.

Ok, sorry, but I really think urgency in puzzle games is a Bad Thing. If you're looking for that sort of thing, go take the GRE or something.

I guess a moves counter would work though...

Zach said:

That was a fun puzzle. Nice job. It didn't take too long to solve the first level. I trust you will be adding graphics for when Pac-Man faces up or down, or will you do it Todd Frye style?

Yeah, I'm sure that would look better, I just hadn't decided if I ought to keep Pac-Man in the game or not. But since we all know the best way to become popular is to leech off the popularity of others...

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Aaron, on Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:36 PM, said:

Ok, sorry, but I really think urgency in puzzle games is a Bad Thing.  If you're looking for that sort of thing, go take the GRE or something.

I guess a moves counter would work though...

Agreed. Those games work best if you can take your time.

A moves counter should do. Just let it count backward from the minimum number of moves.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Aaron, on Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:36 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm sure that would look better, I just hadn't decided if I ought to keep Pac-Man in the game or not.  But since we all know the best way to become popular is to leech off the popularity of others...

I suggest using a marble/ball. That should simplify animation and save a lot of space.

[TMR]

Thomas Jentzsch, on Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:57 AM, said:

Aaron, on Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:36 PM, said:

Ok, sorry, but I really think urgency in puzzle games is a Bad Thing.  If you're looking for that sort of thing, go take the GRE or something.

I guess a moves counter would work though...

Agreed. Those games work best if you can take your time.

A moves counter should do. Just let it count backward from the minimum number of moves.

Me, i like urgency but that's me... but a bonus timer can still go in, you just don't end the game if it runs out so players who go through the levels faster score more points - it means that, as people learn the game, they get better and get higher scores so there's another facet of replay value innit. =-)

[djmips]

TMR, on Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:03 AM, said:

Me, i like urgency but that's me... but a bonus timer can still go in, you just don't end the game if it runs out so players who go through the levels faster score more points - it means that, as people learn the game, they get better and get higher scores so there's another facet of replay value innit. =-)

You might like Ricochet Robots it is a similarly themed board game, but competitive, with a timer and everyone has to analyze the board at the same time and come in with lowest bid on the number of rebounds before the timer is exhausted.

[Aaron]

Here's an update. Added a moves counter, an icon for what you're controlling, and some more levels (the one was just hard-coded in before).

Thomas Jentzsch, on Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:02 AM, said:

I suggest using a marble/ball. That should simplify animation and save a lot of space.

I decided to keep Pac-Man in. Or rather, Non-Infringing-Yellow-Pie-Shaped-Man. He just works too well in the role.

Thomas Jentzsch said:

A moves counter should do. Just let it count backward from the minimum number of moves.

The problem with that is, I don't know the minimum number. There are very likely multiple ways to solve each level - just about every time I've placed a ring so far, I've found out there was an easier way to get it than what I had planned.

So it counts up from zero for now. But anyway, here are my "par" counts for the levels so far: 49, 46, 39, 30. I'm sure someone can do better.

Attached Files

•  astar_22Jul05.zip   1.54K   143 downloads

[supercat]

Aaron, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:13 AM, said:

Here's an update.  Added a moves counter, an icon for what you're controlling, and some more levels (the one was just hard-coded in before).

Very nice. It would be useful, though, if you could add some sort of 'undo' feature. I know multi-level undo isn't likely on a stock 2600, but even a single-level undo would be very handy.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Aaron, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:13 AM, said:

The problem with that is, I don't know the minimum number.  

Then cheat and write small program which finds the optimal solutions for you. Then you have the numbers.

[Zach]

Thomas Jentzsch, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:46 AM, said:

Aaron, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:13 AM, said:

The problem with that is, I don't know the minimum number.  

Then cheat and write small program which finds the optimal solutions for you. Then you have the numbers.

Coincidentally, there is a common search technique you could use called A* (A star).

Edited by Zach, Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:58 AM.

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

Thomas Jentzsch, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:46 AM, said:

Aaron, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:13 AM, said:

The problem with that is, I don't know the minimum number.  

Then cheat and write small program which finds the optimal solutions for you. Then you have the numbers.

Personally, I think *not* knowing the "best" solution is probably more fun for the players.

Greetings,
Manuel

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Cybergoth, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:17 PM, said:

Personally, I think *not* knowing the "best" solution is probably more fun for the players.

Really?

They wouldn't know the exact solution, only the minimal number of moves. IMO it should be pretty motivating to find the optimal solution and getting awarded by the game somehow then.

Hm, maybe the game shouldn't tell the player before?

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

Thomas Jentzsch, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:07 PM, said:

Cybergoth, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:17 PM, said:

Personally, I think *not* knowing the "best" solution is probably more fun for the players.

Really?

Yup. Basically, as long as I haven't figured out the "best" solution, the game is constantly telling me that I *suck* each time I play the level

I rather prefer it that when I improved upon my previous personal best, I can think: YAY I DID IT AGAIN!

Greetings,
Manuel

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Cybergoth, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:34 PM, said:

Yup. Basically, as long as I haven't figured out the "best" solution, the game is constantly telling me that I *suck* each time I play the level

I rather prefer it that when I improved upon my previous personal best, I can think: YAY I DID IT AGAIN!

For me it's completely different, I always want to get as close to perfection as possible.

[batari]

Thomas Jentzsch, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 9:55 AM, said:

Cybergoth, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:34 PM, said:

Yup. Basically, as long as I haven't figured out the "best" solution, the game is constantly telling me that I *suck* each time I play the level

I rather prefer it that when I improved upon my previous personal best, I can think: YAY I DID IT AGAIN!

For me it's completely different, I always want to get as close to perfection as possible.

I can vouch for that... I haven't yet managed to improve on Thomas's code, and believe me, I've tried

[supercat]

batari, on Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:14 AM, said:

I like these types of games.  Still trying to figure out how to get some of those blocks near the bottom...

For the rightmost ring in the penultimate row, move the block down, right, down, right, down. Then move the slotted hockey puck down and right. For the other one, the block and hockey puck can build out from the left edge near the top until the hockey puck is in the right column, whereupon it can go down.

[Albert]

Excellent, another puzzle game for the 2600! The system definitely does not have enough puzzle games (Okie Dokie, Jammed, Crazy Valet, ... ??) and it would seem well suited for them. You have my encouragement to continue development!

As far as telling the player the minimum number of moves required to solve the puzzle, I would much prefer to see that also (just as with Jammed). While I may not be able to solve the puzzle in the minimum number of moves, I'd at least like to know how far off from the target I am! Otherwise I have no way of knowing, unless perhaps the game notified me if I did solve the puzzle perfectly (after the fact). Although I think it should do that anyway, as a reward of sorts.

..Al

[Aaron]

supercat, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:04 AM, said:

Very nice.  It would be useful, though, if you could add some sort of 'undo' feature.  I know multi-level undo isn't likely on a stock 2600, but even a single-level undo would be very handy.

No problem.
For now reset works like you'd expect.

Thomas Jentzsch, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:46 AM, said:

Then cheat and write small program which finds the optimal solutions for you. Then you have the numbers.

Any good ideas for an algorithm for that? I don't think brute force would work when dealing with 8^40-something possible moves. Maybe something with flood-fill...

Zach, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:54 AM, said:

Coincidentally, there is a common search technique you could use called A* (A star).

I thought someone might notice that. I don't think it's really (directly) applicable here though, or maybe I'm just being stupid...

Cybergoth, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:17 AM, said:

Personally, I think *not* knowing the "best" solution is probably more fun for the players.

See, I can understand that. It's kind of a downer when you're told up front "this is the best you can ever do".

So I was thinking of instead including par scores that you could potentially beat, but then they would probably be a lot of work to figure out...

[djmips]

Aaron, on Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:09 PM, said:

Any good ideas for an algorithm for that?   I don't think brute force would work when dealing with 8^40-something possible moves.  Maybe something with flood-fill...

Zach, on Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:54 AM, said:

Coincidentally, there is a common search technique you could use called A* (A star).

I thought someone might notice that. I don't think it's really (directly) applicable here though, or maybe I'm just being stupid...

Although A* is often associated with pathfinding on a map it is more abstractly a graph search which can be tuned to find the shortest path. A colleague used the algorithm to search through a graph for choosing the best strategy for the computer opponent in a turn based strategy game.

Even though you have such a large set of possible moves, pruning will reduce that.

Of course if all else fails, you could try brute force and a distributed computing application approach.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Aaron, on Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:09 AM, said:

Any good ideas for an algorithm for that?   I don't think brute force would work when dealing with 8^40-something possible moves.  Maybe something with flood-fill...

Not out of my head. But using a big hash map for recognizing repeated patterns plus A* should help.

And the Jammed puzzles where selected (for diversity and compression ratio) out of millions of puzzles generated by a PIII-800 (at my office) running over night. So IMO brute-force for a few hand-generated levels is not completely out of scope.