I make games by designing them and sometimes programming them. I also am learning to do game art. I heavily encourage criticism on pretty much everything I work on. I can't get better if you stay silent about any flaws you see. Twitter: @WraithDrof, check out 'Drof Dev' on youtube for devlogs.
Playing with value for the first time. I learnt so much by this point that I decided instead of polishing it further, itâd be better to just start a new painting with all the stuff I learnt.
Like, âpaint the stuff in the back first,â which, yâknow, seems obvious now.
A lot has happened in the past week. I signed the lease to a house with two housemates, and I move in on Saturday; I performed a poem IâŚ
Sort of experimenting with medium.com - Iâve seen other stuff like what I write about on there. Iâm not sure what that means for my tumblr, though.
I'd like to get back into the habit of writing regular blog posts for Alchemy Punch. Partially because I think it's good to talk with fans and other developers as the game is being made, but also because development has largely shifted to a one-man affair. I don't like the idea of making big decisions without being forced to articulate myself, so I figured I may as well voice my thoughts on a public platform so others can comment or learn from them.
In fact, to be honest, this very blog post I was wondering whether or not to share as I donât know how readable it is. I usually like to write blog posts with a clear takeaway for people to have, but this might be more useful to someone who is just interested in seeing someone work their way through a problem. Maybe not! Alchemy Punch is a weird project.
I'm going to do a long story short to get you all to understand where I'm coming from:
Alchemy Punch was an idea I had in 2011 and didn't start working on until 2013. It's been frequently neglected due to other projects (read: university) which have demanded my attention. I've realized over the course of it's development that it probably is never gonna be a game which will earn a worthwhile amount of money, but that didn't matter because really I just wanted to make a fun game and learn from that. That included a monetisation system, but the one I've included is quite lite, and now I'm having second thoughts.
Ok. So, let's talk about what this monetisation system is.
Ingredients for the Punch
Part of Alchemy Punch's namesake came from the idea of brewing a sort of potion with monster parts. This potion powers you up, and some ingredients combo well with each other if you are clever. The boosts are meant to go hand in hand with the scoring system â you are encouraged to use them to get high scores, and they aren't meant to feel like a cheat.
It builds up this pacing cycle between games. You grind for ingredient tokens, which you spend after a game to get random ingredients, and then you use your best ones to go for a high score. If you pay some money, then each token instead allows you to choose between two different ingredients, instead of just one. The only way the game makes money is from those who want more control over which powerups they get.
I like this system purely as an addition to the game. It also fulfils one of my original goals of making Alchemy Punch a way I would make any other game, and to learn as much as I can through each step of the process. Basically, I can learn more from a bad monetisation system than a non-existent one. But the crux of this post is that I'm not sure if they're worth keeping.
Why get rid of Ingredients
They're in a bit of a worrying state. Right now there are around 10 different ingredient types and that's not enough, considering you can use 3 per round (with no duplicates) and they are meant to have interesting interactions with each other. The alpha test didn't reveal any substantial information about the ingredients, which makes them basically untested. This is mostly because the game wasn't sticky enough for anyone to notice them, which is a whole other problem in itself. I could expect maybe a month of just testing ingredients to get any sort of idea on where they are at. That includes balancing, adding new ones, removing bad ones, and tweaking them to make them more fun.
The problem is, I want to be releasing as soon as possible. I'm aiming for releasing early May, which means that the beta would need to be out by early April if ingredients really will only take one month to test. So that's a month to finish everything else, and I'm pretty uncertain that I can make that timeframe considering the game's current inability to stick to players.
Like all scoping decisions, what this comes down to is Value vs. Cost debate. Right off the bat, my value estimate is biased as hell. I've had this system in the front of my mind for 4 years. If I try to be objective, I think it fits game design models fairly well, but also works off of a lot of assumptions. High scores are best suited for competing with friends, but I don't even know if the game will be popular enough for anyone to have a friend to play with. Also, this system only augments score competition, which the game already caters for. It's also useless if people don't experiment with different combinations, which is already pretty complicated for a game of this style. And finally, all this meta-game pacing might just be an unnecessary layer on top of the standard game's pacing, which I already think is quite good.
What I'm getting at is that I can say that a lot of it is good, but most of it is probably unnecessary. And I think I'm beyond the point where I can really include anything unnecessary anymore.
Replacing the icing on the cake
That said, it's not an option to just gut the game of the ingredient system and call it a day. That leaves out monetisation and user retention. As much as I want to release early, I also don't want to half-ass my original goals of the project, which is to really and truly release a game that at least has the semblance of an attempt to sustain development of further titles.
But I've been in a tricky position with Alchemy Punch for a while. I've learnt that games which lack an avatar can't take advantage of one of the simplest ways to monetise, which is different character customisation. We could go with a bunch of UI reskins, but I think that's historically been a pretty weak customisation, and could easily take 1-2 months of artwork to do properly. The only obvious options make the game less fun, and I still have too many reservations about Alchemy Punch to say that a good monetisation system will even really make a difference.
Now, a long time ago, I spoke with someone who advised that I just add a tip button in the game. I want to try that. The obvious problem is that a tip jar is probably the weakest possible monetisation system. At least ostensibly, players are notorious for undervaluing mobile games and therefore won't pay anything they don't have to. This isn't a leadup to me saying that's wrong, I strictly do not know. But I figure that if nothing else, the numbers that I'll get back from who tips and who doesn't would be interesting â and the thought of people willingly supporting me is really pleasant. Besides, if I'm being honest, I don't think it's significantly less viable than what I had before. It might even be more so.
User retention will require something a bit more robust. I've always liked the idea of daily runs or challenges, where everyone tries their best for one game and then goes on their merry way. The implementation of it also is exciting me at the moment, and anything that builds up my motivation is a smart choice at this stage.
Takeaways from the Process
This is a tricky one.
Ultimately, big decisions like this need to come down to consulting the original values of the project. Alchemy Punch's values are:
Get the experience of making a game
Experiment and learn things in a space where that isn't punished
Make a fun game that I'll be proud of
Making money has never been on there, and it's too late to add it. I don't see any other monetisation system filling all three of those values without taking a really long time, which would hamstring my first goal by denying myself the opportunity to work on another game. And besides, I'm starting to leave the time in my life where I can just be doing things for free. I'm having to add up costs like food and rent, and ideally I won't have to flip burgers to meet those quotas.
I guess the real advice is to consider monetisation really early and then immediately test those designs. Ingredients were a fairly early concept but weren't tested until almost three years later. If I had spent the time to test them, I would have learnt that they were a lot of design work, and could have shifted a lot to find a better solution.
Anyways, I hope you learnt something from this post, even if it's just a little bit of insight of the workings behind Alchemy Punch. Feel free to hold me up to my promise of doing a blog post a week, or to ask any questions which I might be able to answer in the future. I'd like to do a blog post on the design, and maybe if people are interested, a blog post on the history of it's development since it's now been, what, almost a quarter of my life? Man, that's a depressing thought. Yeah, let me know what sounds good to you.
This is a post I figured I may as well post on tumblr, but this is just as much a reference for my own thoughts. I think, without writing down and working through design thoughts, itâs easy for them to be half-baked or be forgotten.
I played Until Dawn with a group of friends the other night. Very much enjoyed it, and I heavily recommend that you each take ownership of certain characters and pass the controller when itâs time for them to take action. It gets you super attached to the characters and makes it super easy to binge the game like we did, as you usually get a pretty good break from the tension whilst still participating in the experience.
Anyways. Iâm going to start off with some spoiler-free points. This game I found fascinating as it had a big emphasis on branching story, which is similar to The Blessings of Fey, a game I started in uni which Iâm finishing up at the moment. I really wanted to take a look at how they do branching story to see if I could apply any lessons learned to my work.
Iâm going to avoid talking about much of the game that doesnât involve decisions. However, I think there is actually just as much to say about Until Dawnâs theming and narrative design as the more ludic elements. In that, itâs very good. Again, I liked it.
SPOILER WARNING..?
This is sort of a weird spoiler warning. Iâm not really going to be using examples from the game, exactly, but as Iâm laying out what to expect from the game, Iâd consider it to be in danger of spoiling it. If youâre interested in playing it, please play it and gather your thoughts first. If you donât think youâll play it, then this post probably wonât totally ruin your ability to enjoy it if you do play it - I just wouldnât recommend it.
Punishment and Until Dawn
This is the most interesting part about the game, I feel.
If you trace branching stories back to their roots, in choose-your-own-adventure games, youâll find a lot of options which kill the player very quickly. This is because most of the writers wanted to let the choices heavily influence the direction the story went. Each choice carried a great amount of weight.
There are a few instances where a bad choice in Until Dawn will actually just lead to either a jump scare or the game narrowly stopping you short from suffering the consequences. Essentially, they ratchet up the tension. When I encountered them, it did sort of feel fake - usually, it just pushed me towards the path I avoided before. As Iâll get to later, fake choices feel like a ripoff, even if in this context it ratchets up the tension a bit.
There are some consequences in Until Dawn which only come about from several decisions of a certain type, or piled up mistakes. In a chase scene, failing a quick-time event could introduce a new event where you have to fight the pursuer off - succeeding puts you back on the path as if you never messed up in the first place. All these second-chances really make you feel like you can desperately claw your way back to success. Functionally, this is a fake decision, but I consider a special exception as it doesnât make the player feel ripped off - the player understands that the whole consequence is a punishment for not properly investing that thought or perception to avoid the problem in the first place.
Traditional story branching patterns
This is not an all too uncommon concept, which is that you sort of treat your story like beads on a string. Each chapter is a separate bead. At the beginning, your choices spiral out to cover a lot of ground, but eventually they funnel into a single point again. That way, you know how each chapter begins and ends.
Itâs actually I think inaccurate to say Until Dawn follows this formula. In fact, traditionally speaking, I donât really think itâs a branching story at all. Regardless of choices, you end up at the same locales at the same times and are following the same plot points. This is different to say, a traditional choose-your-own-adventure, where âVisit the hospitalâ and âVisit the police stationâ could be two entire sequences which do not overlap at all.
Thatâs not to say that choice in Until Dawn does not matter. Choices often set up the context for future events and often will affect the difficulty of action sequences. Ultimately, the real consequences which change the most are which characters make it out alive. The game wants you to focus on that. It seems the rest of it, like relationships, merely let you know how well youâre doing in that regard.
Smoke and Mirrors
Itâs difficult to go very far into talking about a branching story without getting into fake choices. For example, if you go left, you end up at the same destination than if you went right.
I think itâs quickly worth mentioning that there are certain degrees to which a choice can be fake. I consider any choice which is made redundant at any point to be partially fake, and I donât think thatâs an uncommon opinion. From what Iâve seen, the most frequently commented on fake decision is when you save a character that ends up dying later on anyways.
A player spotting a fake decision is bad. I use the term ârip-offâ a lot, but to unpack that statement, I mean the player has invested thought and emotional energy into a decision being important, and when they learn it was wasted they feel tricked. It discourages them from putting in that intellectual and emotional effort in the future as now they are wondering whether they will be ripped off again. It decreases engagement. Thatâs not what you want.
Of course, this is up to the tolerance of the player. Some people shrug off such instances and others can get furious with them. The blow to engagement is probably measured by some combination of the amount of energy spent, how entrenched in the magic circle the player is, and whether they are roleplaying.
How fake a decision is, is not connected to how much that decision matters. Witcher 3 I thought was really great for having no real fake choices, and thatâs because many of the consequences was a line of dialogue or a nod later in the game. I think players are more likely to be pissed off if you say their decision didnât matter at all, because even ostensibly insignificant choices can speak volumes to that playerâs sense of self-expression, immersion or roleplay.
Invisible fake choices
Itâs worth noting that fake choices are only bad if the player notices them. When playing, I felt that there were many different paths my play could have gone - that the characters I saved shaped the story and the decisions I made gave me the edge required to survive. However, Until Dawn does an excellent job at corralling the story down an interesting path one way or another.
However, I found after watching another playthrough with different decisions, I was a little disappointed as a player. That bubble I held where my choices mattered was shattered, as I realised how the game avoids the scope from spiralling out of control with countless decisions.
This is the tradeoff. An invisible fake choice is great in theory, but youâre going to be hard-pressed to fool a player who has already experienced one playthrough. I remember playing Emily is Away and being shocked after looking things out to discover how practically every decision was fake. Even though I loved my first playthrough, it spoiled it in hindsight and affected my confidence to recommend it to friends.
How to fix invisible fake choices
I think itâd be naive for me to say that Supermassive should have just made less fake decisions. The game already was taking pretty long by AAA standards (it was released 3 years after it was announced) and removing these fake decisions probably would have just resulted in there being less polish. Maybe some polish elsewhere could have been sacrificed? I donât feel qualified to make that call, as Iâm not looking at a budget sheet for the game.
If I go back a step here, though, I think that Until Dawn has an almost perfect set of choices, until the player plays more than once. Designing for a single playthrough out of people is great, and thereâs nothing wrong with targeting that. But even if you arenât expecting players to do multiple playthroughs, there is real excitement when you look up what the best ending is and wonder how things could have possibly been so different. Itâll always be a flaw for focusing on invisible fake choices, and if Supermassive really was focusing on single-playthroughs, then they likely were aware of it.
And I think, at the heart of the game, it is about who lives, and who dies. Everyone can live, everyone can die.
Takeaways for other games
Really think about the reason you are introducing a branching story path. If youâre Until Dawn, it might be because you care about the characters. Most are about self-expression.
Give second chances for choices which are up for interpretation. Sometimes you want to have a choice be ambiguous but make sure you are clear that it is an ambiguous question - these are usually for dialogue options, I find.
Hiding your fake choices is a great way to keep the scope of the story down, whilst not prompting the player to feel ripped off. However, they will see through the ruse if they experience another playthrough.
developed by students of SUPINFOGAME RUBIKA Â | Â Platform: Windows Â
âA 3D action adventure game, in which your actions have a direct impact on the environment and the creatures. The world revolves around a colorful liquid, the Color, that acts as both the life and power source for the creatures of Quur and yourself. Â
"By using Color, you can either fight your way through the world, and watch how youâre slowly destroying it, or try to understand how the creatures behave, and embrace Quurâs ecosystem.â
Update on what the hell has been happening with Honeyvale
Yeah yeah I donât post here often, but every time I visit I wish I had more free time to fill this blog with content. That actually will change soon! Uh, for better or for worse. Iâm doing a Poetry unit this semester and I need feedback on some of the poems. I promise you that theyâre not love poems. Thatâs the end of my promises.
Anyways, if you havenât heard, I do somewhat more official blogs over at HoneyvaleGames.com, and I made a post briefly going over whatâs up with Honeyvale.
Check it out!
Iâm also gonna do a post up there which is talking about the design of Bees Wonât Exist, and Iâm probably going to do a post (probably here, havenât decided) about my journey with level design this year.
Even extrinsic rewards are really just the promise of future intrinsic engagement.
For example: I don't want to have a PhD in rocket science. Why? It's an extrinsic reward. It is a reward specifically for a lot of hard work - maybe work I'd even enjoy. So why arenât I pursuing that career path?
It's because I don't look forward to any of the benefits from that PhD, mostly because I'm unfamiliar with what those are. If, instead, the reward was money, that's a different story. But even then, I donât want money. I want to spend money. Stuff that is intrinsically engaging, even if that's just "the security that I can pay any unforeseen bills" or "the pride of owning a house". The key here is that the reward by itself is not actually what people want. It's what you get after the reward as a result.
This is where a lot of gamified systems fall flat. OK, so I get XP for doing tasks. Why do I care? Because enough XP levels me up. Why do I care? Because levels give me a title. Why do I care? Because... those titles are cool?
But as a player, I don't know that. Even as an experienced gamer, I donât care what some random app gives me in âstrengthâ. I might care about cool titles, but how do I know that titles will be better? Can I brag to other people who will care? Apps that slap on XP and a level and assume users will dig it arenât doing anything more special than this.
Extrinsic rewards must have intrinsic meaning. Thereâs a reason why there isnât a term for extrinsic engagement. Itâs because nobody really cares.
So once every blue moon a few of my friends and I get together to play a session in a campaign I run. As a game designer, Iâm always trying to experiment with the sessions. And for the end of this adventure, I wanted a truly climactic battle!
But I had tried this once or twice before, playing by D&D fifth editionâs rules. Every climactic fight would be too easy and end too quickly. By the rules of D&D, these were not easy fights, but a few lucky hits would find their mark.
This makes it difficult to make a climactic fight. It needed to feel like a struggle, that the players got through by the grit of their teeth. So I made my own custom encounter, with rules for if the character died, and environmental hazards, and multi-stage boss fights, custom powers that theyâd get, and so on and so forth.
It was fun, but even after a lot of hacking, it still wasnât quite where I wanted it.
Fight Swinging
Something that has become really popular in video games which do combat tension very well is to have some form of healing. An avatarâs HP bar might be small enough so they are 2 or 3 hits from death, but with the ability to heal, theyâll realistically be able to take dozens of hits over the course of the whole fight.
Whatâs great is that if you ignore level design, enemy design, even player moves or difficulty of encounters, this is a really fun system. It tracks the interest curve really well - things get more intense after that first hit, as you desperately try to find an opportunity to heal - but every time you do, youâre exposing yourself for attack. It supports climactic deaths more than it enforces death of 1000 paper cuts.
The Core Combat Mechanics of D&D
For the most part, D&D has always been a pool-based hit point system. There are ways to heal, and they are very important, but theyâre often limited, bursty, and donât leave you vulnerable. The whole concept of being able to heal someone else is really an MMORPG mechanic, but the system doesnât translate well to <4 round combats.
In a way, I get this. D&D has a big issue where there can be long periods of inactivity between turns, which means it feels really lame for it to be your turn just for you to say, âI healâ and then immediately pass off. Most healing abilities can be done along with something else which is a concept I like on paper but I feel we lost something in the process.
The result is that few D&D combats feel very swingy. For a combat to feel like the players are just scraping by, death has to feel like it is always right next to you - but for this to realistically happen in D&D you have to constantly be a hit or two from 0, which at certain levels, is a pretty low pool for tanks. Itâs usually a race to see how much DPS can be dealt out, devoid of those compromising, âoh man, do I heal now? I might get hit!â moments.
A broken system that doesnât need fixing
But paradoxical to all that, I think that D&D is fine. You just donât get swingy fights.
Fifth edition in particular prides itself on the overall narrative of being an adventurer. You probably wonât be beaten by an encounter, but the dungeon overall may defeat you by pressing your resources. Combats are quick because theyâre meant to be - theyâre meant to be story beats. Why or how youâre fighting the boss is really more important than the fight itself.
And ultimately, porting more heal mechanics which slow down party DPS or just invite more damage would make combats take much longer. By tweaking numbers, that might not be such a big deal, but you can still have fun with D&D even if the combat isnât great. Because you still can tell the stories of those dragons in those dungeons.
Thereâs something about D&D in particular which people find comfort in fights that arenât too difficult. In retrospect, a lot of those fights that I thought were too easy and over too quickly were still a lot of fun for the players, as it feels like a real power trip.
How to fix what isnât broken
That said, I couldnât resist mocking up a rule hack which would tackle these issues. These arenât intended to actually be put into D&D as they are - in fact, putting them into a game would break it in so many ways. But consider it more the general gist of an idea. Perhaps Iâll use it for an RPG system I design in the future?
You do not receive extra HP when you level up, and damage levels from monsters stay the same. Tanks usually are two solid hits away from 0 HP, and most other classes can be downed in one high-rolling hit.
Every time you drop to 0 HP, you choose to either be knocked out and stabilized, or continue to fight on. If you choose the latter, roll 2d6 on the following table:
2-3: Flesh wound (Regain all HP)
4-5: Just a scrape (Regain 2/3rds HP)
6-8: Injured (-2 to physical rolls until treated, regain 2/3rds HP)
9-10: Stunned (Disadv. on attack and all attackers get adv. to attack you until end of your next turn, regain ½ HP)
11-12: Maimed (You permanently gain a debility, roll on the table (lost limbs etc.). Regain ½ HP)
Write down your result. If you get that result again before a short rest, then you instead remain at 0 and become Dying as per normal rules.
A Caveat
I want to address what may be an elephant in the room for many of you, which is Fourth Edition D&D. I think itâs great! And if you look at it, PCs usually can be downed if they are picked on a lot, but they have a lot of options for healing. Second Wind is an excellent example of a way to heal while remaining vulnerable, and the defense bonus goes a little in making your turn feel significant despite losing an action.
But in my eyes, 4e has an issue with combats taking too long. If the fighting lasted for 10 minutes, then it wouldnât matter - we could keep telling whatever stories we wanted and the combat wouldnât dominate the narrative. But when we were playing it, almost half of our sessions would be spent on a single combat.
When you get down to it, the combat was really more of a board game than it was a part of the overall experience. It gave us insight into the characters, but it simply didnât have the breadth of experiences that classic roleplaying storytelling has. I got bored of 4e combat, not because it was bad, but because it wasnât roleplaying.
And thatâs pretty much the point of this post, isnât it?
I recently played a game of Dungeon World, which if you donât know is a pretty cool tabletop roleplaying game set in a Dungeons & Dragons-esque universe. I wonât go over all the mechanics, but this is how 90% of all moment-to-moment interactions play out:
Player: I do this thing!
GM: Alright, youâre doing this move, and rolling this stat
Player: *rolls poorly*
GM: Ok, well then I get to make this move, which means this happens
Player: Oh no! I do this thing!
What I find interesting about it is that while the player moves usually have mechanical effects (e.g. doing damage) the GM moves are pretty much all in the title. When the GM takes the move, âput someone in a spotâ, they literally just describe that happening, and then wait for the players to react before taking another move.
So in essence, the moves just describe certain tropes of the fiction which play out well. âNothing happensâ isnât a GM move because itâs not interesting, so the GM isnât allowed to let nothing happen when a player rolls poorly. But for now, letâs just focus on the move system from Dungeon World, since thatâs all I want to talk about for now.
Moving on to my experience at the Dance Student Showcase the other night, I found that a lot of it fit into much of what I knew about 3-act structures and a bit of the heroâs journey. But, because it was expressed entirely through dance and music, it felt startlingly unique, despite itâs similarities.
This brings up an issue I have with these two concepts. The heroâs journey isnât really a set of rules, itâs a successful application of 3-act structure. There are alternatives out there which are good examples of 3-act structures but not of the heroâs journey - namely, anything lacking in a hero or a physical or emotional journey.
So then, what if a 3-act structure was the same as the heroâs journey? Not a set of rules, just a successful application of a different set? To bring back Dungeon World, what if we thought of individual beats of the story in terms of âmovesâ the writer is playing?
This isnât a new concept - if I say âdeus ex machinaâ, you know what Iâm talking about; whether I call it a move or a narrative principle isnât really relevant. But I think thereâs something to be gained by looking beyond just tropes and more the choices the writer makes in the moment to moment.
Now Dungeon World isnât really any good at telling a story which isnât about dungeoning and dragoning - at least, not in the way it presents itself. So any move list for dance or games or whatever is either going to be generalized or fits only one specific narrative. And if the moves are too specific, then it seems repetitive. But letâs try a general list of moves:
Introduce a new element (character, theme, environment, etc.)
Make two elements interact
Evolve an element
Change an element
Introduce status Quo
Introduce a question
Answer a question
Provide information which is relevant later
The list, of course, will be massive. More specific moves for, say, a conversation could look like this:
Show an ugly side of someone
Test a characterâs values
Manipulate or trick a character
Escalate an argument to violence
âWait, wasnât this post about dance too?â Donât worry, weâre about to get back to it.
I saw about 6 shows that night, and I found (in my unqualified opinion) the best pieces took each of their steps deliberately, and one at a time. Weâre introduced to a cast of characters, we see their body language, we see their goal, and we see a conflict. If someone literally gave me no other context when describing the piece, Iâd say Iâm interested at this point.
Some dance pieces didnât do that though. I couldnât adequately pin them down to a short sentence or a move. One started off with two separate casts of characters each acting and showing their behaviors at once. Then several members of each cast would split off and start doing pretty much their own thing. There are moves here, but theyâre all happening at once, and the cadence of them - how they flow together - isnât very smooth.
Hearing âcadenceâ brought be back to the theory of level cadence, and realized that we havenât really ever left the area of game design. Introducing mechanics and enemies one at a time are core tenants of game design, as well as the cadence between them. Not much of a surprise, considering we started off this post with Dungeon World.
See what I did there? I used the âreference the beginning of the postâ move.
Anyways, if this interests you, I recommend checking out Robin D. Laws book, Hamletâs Hit Points. It does something sort of similar but in a format pretty much entirely generalized, and only looks at story beats rather than decision-to-decision. It also introduces the hope/fear cycle, which I think is actually a really important factor of the interest curve that Iâm a bit shocked hasnât been more clearly pointed out before.
Much more happy with this one and it took nowhere near as much time. Ruby from RWBY. Again, similar concept for a char in 3D animation - will probably go with this one.
Assassin's creed sketch from one of the posters. Not super proud of it or anything, but this was supposed to be waaay more rough than it was. Drew it because one of the ideas I have for my 3D project looks like this guy.
A hand animated action adventure game being developed for PC, Mac, Linux, and Wii U (and possible more). Â Iâm so in love with the art, and Iâm definitely a little biased with this post as I backed the game on Kickstarter last year.
âAs the enigmatic Hollow Knight, players will journey through the depths of Hallownest, a vast and ancient kingdom buried deep underground. Though long fallen to ruin after a dimly-remembered catastrophe, explorers and thieves still brave its dark roads, its caverns and towers, searching for riches and wonders.Â
âLately though, something has changed. Villagers and explorers venturing into the caverns have stopped returning. The caverns throb and tremble with a savage energy. A sweet and sickly poison is drifting through the hollows, sending creatures mad with rage and robbing explorers of their memories.â
[Follow on Steam] Â | Â [Follow on Tumblr]
via /r/gamedev
Awesome Totoro/Hollow Knight fan art by Super Sini.
Alright, gonna use this to upload some of the things that I work on. Thisâll probably require a semi-proper attempt at re-organizing everything.
The plan is to have this be kind of a stream-of-workflow - my work in various stages. This will probably mostly include art, but expect a combination of that with development - features getting done, etc. The final versions of art will go on DeviantArt. All of the above and along with my every waking thought will go to my twitter.
That might be a lot of work, but thatâs for future-Dylan to decide!
You aren't carrying a 'Dylan' @wraithdrof - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
gamechangershow
ellievsbear
areudirty
pixelskylines
tangentwithtanner
discoholicmusic
titsay