every time someone talks about coyote time, i feel, they always forget to mention its often overlooked purpose of combatting input delay. it takes time for the signal of the controller to reach the game. depending on the connection type that might be mutliple game frames. meaning, at the time the player pressed the jump key, the character might still be on the ground, but at the time the signal reaches the game, the character might already be over the edge
In addition to that, there's also the time a human being has to perceive and react to things, which is around 240 ms. There's a very good article by the title of "Designing Game Controls" by Andrew Dotsenko where he talks about the Perception Window and goes a little deeper on the subject.
people don't mention that because it's not the case. controller latency is often negligible and sub-frame, whereas human reaction time is capped at around 15 frames at 60fps.
@@inuinuinuinuinuthat’s nonsense. Input lag is on the order of multiple frames these days, not just because of wireless controllers but also because of the lag in just getting the picture into the display. Modern fighting games have about 6 frames of input lag. This is why Smash Bros Melee players insist on using CRT televisions, it shaves off several frames of input lag.
Great review. Not a word about sounds, though. And picking sounds for player-caused actions/events with care can make a difference. With sound, you can make player 'feel' that huge gun when he shoots. Make interacting with game world more satisfying, even if that's just walking on different surfaces. Help to make those levelups / picking up items even tastier... Or, rather, just annoy the player. Works just like extra care and attention to animations, I suppose. And applies to any genre as well.
My friend was one of the beta testers on Sheepy and he's been trying to get me to play for it for awhile now. The way you described it made it sound really cool. I'll give it a go
Even around all these other great games, your game seems to fit in very well! Its at least at the same or similar level to all the other games you showed off. I will definitely be buying this game when it comes out!
Great video!I'm a fairly new game developer and am currently working on my first game in blender and all the information you gave is much appreciated!I will be applying that to my game and your game looks great!🙌🏼😁✅🙂❤️
Absolutely. Micro animations are fine details. The fine details don't matter if the game isn't already good, but if it is already good, that little detail can turn something good into something GREAT! Game feel absolutely matters. The more satisfying something is to play, the more people want to play it.
micro animations are the most noticeable for me that contribute to game feel, sometimes it’s the difference between loving a game and finding it feels flat and not enjoying it
Get a Steam Deck and keep your latest build on it. Having a handheld device you can use to get your game in front of people is super convenient. We bring the game with us to random events, hang-outs with friends, and even the farmer's market where we ran a booth (see devlog #7). Having an HTML5 build was also really nice in the early stages. We were able to test with all sorts of people over zoom and discord screen shares - a lot of whom we recruited through our online social circles. When doing it online, it was always nice to have webcams turned on too so we could see their facial expressions.
Neat video, but during the comparison section of the microanimations segment, I really felt like it was a really unfair comparison. Yeah the code is the same between the two, but I think to most people what jumps out isn't the microanimations or anything in particular, it's the entire scene, better looking sprites, better looking ambience, more polished visuals in general etc... I think to make the example more effective, a more scientific approach might have helped, with the same frame of reference in everything but the microanimations. Keeping the most recent build of the game, and simply removing the extra animation touches. Because with the example that was used, it didn't really help in illustrating why microanimations are good. Anyways that's really just a nitpick but it stuck out for me and I had to point it out
I think most of these tips (other than maybe the playstesting one) are very 2D platformer oriented, probably the reason every game shown is somehow that. Like, what microanimations would you put in a 3D driving game? Ambience is also a design choice, which you could argue is not exactly a tip ("make your game look cohesive and appealing"). Othewrise, a tip could be "have sounds next to objects that produce sounds". For 2D platformers, I would say that the first four tips are all very valid, although at some point you have to decide what minimum level of skill you want for your game; if you are making, say, Wings of Vi, your game testers will probably not be average players that may or may not like platformers, or, basically, you will never make Wings of Vi.
Mario Kart has fantastic micro animations. Characters are always turning their heads rather than just staring straight, they cheer when they hit an opponent, the wheels turn with the car, etc. Chiming in on the other tips, input buffering is commonly used in shooters for things like reloading or player movement, Valve playtests their games constantly (part of why Portal is so good), intentional movement and momentum are key ingredients to mecha or racing games, etc.
Did you guys change your branding? (I think so but I've looked at multiple past devlogs and I cant seem to find what it looked like before) if you did, i really like it! I love the logo and the colors :)
I really want to know how you guys did your lighting system. I know it has to do with the "hole punch" method, but I don't exactly know how to apply it. I want to make the most out of my game's atmosphere and make it look gorgeous, with all the capabilities Gamemaker has
The trick is to use blend modes and surfaces. You can look up GM tutorials on them. Maybe, if there’s enough interest, we could look into making a tutorial video on the topic. Our method doesn’t use shaders, which I think might be an appealing approach to devs who aren’t comfortable with shaders.
How do you balance the difficulty between highly skill players, and not very skilled ones? How do you know which feedback to take and which to dismiss?
For us, we’ve set up a list of design principles that we always follow. The feedback that gets us closer to those principles is the feedback we take action on. For example, one principle is that TetherGeist should be difficult but satisfying. So if we test with someone who’s at least decent at gaming and that person gets super frustrated somewhere, we know we need to change it up.
Everyone always says to playtest the game, but no one ever talks about HOW to get playtesters. If you don't already have a huge online following finding these "5 different people to play your game" is near impossible. Watching them play IRL even more so, conventions are hella expensive and take tons of time. It would be very useful if instead of hundreds of these "5 tips on making a game feel good" videos someone just made "5 tips on finding playtesters" once.
Good idea! We should totally make a video on that. For us, having a steam deck is a game changer. We keep our latest build on it and take it to events, gatherings, etc. We even ran a booth at the farmer’s market (which was pretty cheap). It’s surprising how willing strangers are to sit down with you and your game if you just simply ask. Having a steam deck in hand makes it super easy to make it happen.
