Ruinatio Go

[FirstFifty]

Hello L19,

I’m working on a go-themed video game: just a fun little time waster. I would like you to, please try it out and share your thoughts: good, bad, or indifferent. You can play it in your browser if you’re on windows or Mac.

I have placed the game on Kongregate.com (an advertisement-funded site) where you can play it for free; no need to register.

http://www.kongregate.com/games/FirstFifty/ruination-go

The game is built using the UNITY game-engine. Depending on your browser, you might be prompted for permission to install a plug-in the first time you play it. (It’s a pretty quick and painless process. Please Google “unity web player” to allay any concerns you might have about the plug-in.) You also might need to enable Javascript

A puzzle starts with a number of white stones on a board. You must capture them all by placing black stones on the board. (White makes no further moves. All puzzles are solvable.) The no-suicide rule forces you to take some care about the order in which you place your stones. Hey, how hard could it be, right?

This is part of a larger project-probably best to gauge the level of interest first.

[oren]

Smaller pictures, please.

[EdLee]

Hi FirstFifty, Happy to beta test it, but rather not have to install a plug-in:

Unity.jpg (78.6 KiB) Viewed 13906 times

[Twitchy Go]

Review hidden to avoid biasing anyone.

I played through about 10 levels on hard(took ~5minutes) and tried the ruination and one color variant briefly.

Personally I found the game rather boring. But that might just mean this isn't palatable to go players. I know I've wasted a lot of time on very silly flash games before.
The main reason I didn't like it was it is very easy even at the harder difficulties.(when the stones stay in place) You just have to follow some basic ideas such as playing from the outside first. And not filling in any eyespace until you are sure you want to. The backgrounds were distracting. Sometimes they would make it to hard to see the intersections and I would try to make an illegal move I thought would be capturing the group. This was irritating because it was inevitably a dame liberty that I just couldn't see.

The ball is a nice way to distract people and would probably make the game significantly harder for people who aren't already good at imagining circles on the board. With some reading backing you up I found my self easily able to keep it bouncing without slowing down much.

I didn't really test out the ruination mode. I was losing interest in the game concept by then and didn't really want to mess with the funky moving stones.

And I don't think one color go is a very good gametype. Being able to play one color go is all about shape recognition. You know that something is usually good shape and this helps you differentiate between the two players shape. Since this game creates such unnatural situations shape wise. It is nonsensical.

[FirstFifty]

Thank you, Twitchy Go. That kind of feedback is very helpful.

And thank you, EdLee. The plug-in is going to be a deal-breaker for some people. I think it is actually better security-wise, than if I asked you to download and run an executable (which is an option). The plug-in can be installed directly from UNITY, a large, reputable company, while the code I’ve written gets segregated in a sandbox where it can’t access your files. Google Chrome has the plug-in built-in, so somebody using a current version of it shouldn’t need to install anything.

[Amelia]

I think the concept is fine, though it would b helpful to have a non-go player try it. But capturing is easy to understand and some of your shapes make it necessary to plan ahead a bit.

However graphic-wise you are trying too hard. Flying 3D stones is fine buth the background really needs to be more simple so one can see the intersections. The flying words need a bit working on. When someone does something nicely you might want to give them a bonus. For example capturing two groups at once with a double atari. I also think making harder shapes where the order of moves must be planned carefully in order to win or get bonuses is more fun than adding a bouncing ball.

[Toge]

Why did you make this game? What is it that you want to tell us?

It reminds me of the time when I was young and trying out a game-making program. I would add a new feature to the game as soon as I learned about it with no thought if it would actually make sense, and no plan how to game would look like in the end.

Your game is just that. First there's some go-elements. Then there's that simultaneous Pong-pad just because. Explosions and floating, spinning text whenever a small particle touches the Pong-pad, saying Good. Now you're asking feedback, are you serious?

[illluck]

Why did you make this game? What is it that you want to tell us?

It reminds me of the time when I was young and trying out a game-making program. I would add a new feature to the game as soon as I learned about it with no thought if it would actually make sense, and no plan how to game would look like in the end.

Your game is just that. First there's some go-elements. Then there's that simultaneous Pong-pad just because. Explosions and floating, spinning text whenever a small particle touches the Pong-pad, saying Good. Now you're asking feedback, are you serious?

I think this is uncalled for. We have someone taking the time to make a Go-related game and you giving an extremely disparaging response. I have not played the game (on ipad mini) and some points you raised could very well be valuable feedback. However, I think the OP deserves a more friendly response.

[FirstFifty]

I appreciate people testing my game and/or taking the trouble to post here. I’d like to make it clear that I don’t take exception to anything I’ve read, nor necessarily disagree with it. (Well, there’s this cool thing about the ball and paddle…but this is not the time.)

I’m persuaded that, at best, my game is badly tuned. The backgrounds are too busy, the effects need to be dialed back, and the time pressure doesn’t kick in when it should. But, at least now I know what direction to move. So, I’ve made a couple of quick adjustments; the backgrounds will have to wait till I have more time. It will now take a little longer to generate some puzzles. (I’m not asking anybody to test it twice.) I just tried it in hard mode and got hung up around level 7.

It’s never a good sign if someone has to ask “what were you even trying to do here?” Please note that I said this was a “time-waster” in my introductory sentence. Briefly: I was first introduced to go as an AI challenge. (I’m a middle-aged engineer.) I came to believe that the basic rules of go were similar in complexity and feel to the mechanics of games like Tetris, Minesweeper, and the like. These games, when done just right, are very popular. I am targeting that category of game.

[Toge]

I think this is uncalled for. We have someone taking the time to make a Go-related game and you giving an extremely disparaging response. I have not played the game (on ipad mini) and some points you raised could very well be valuable feedback. However, I think the OP deserves a more friendly response.

- Sorry, I'm not a yes-man. I speak my mind and my impression of the game was that it's hilariously pointless. I like my games to make sense and I don't particularly fancy all the bells and whistles that are possible for the engine. That is my honest opinion.

I'm interested in design too. I like the quote by Antoine de Saint Exupéry: "perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away". It's crucial for games to have borders, so they don't become sprawling brain farts. Once the borders are established, it becomes a quest for problem solving. Come up with a good solution and you have a good game.

Problem is like follows: The game is too easy. Solutions: add timer, add pong-pad. Sure you could add endless number of artificial difficulties, but adding things is the disease that makes the game bad. A very good game will provide intuitive reasons for all of its elements. Exploding bomb doesn't demand explanation, but exploding go stones do. When no explanation is provided it will seem like the developer just discovered the explosion effect and decided to use it. This problem is self-caused and can be solved quite simply by removing the explosion effect.

[jts]

I appreciate people testing my game and/or taking the trouble to post here. I’d like to make it clear that I don’t take exception to anything I’ve read, nor necessarily disagree with it. (Well, there’s this cool thing about the ball and paddle…but this is not the time.)

I’m persuaded that, at best, my game is badly tuned. The backgrounds are too busy, the effects need to be dialed back, and the time pressure doesn’t kick in when it should. But, at least now I know what direction to move. So, I’ve made a couple of quick adjustments; the backgrounds will have to wait till I have more time. It will now take a little longer to generate some puzzles. (I’m not asking anybody to test it twice.) I just tried it in hard mode and got hung up around level 7.

It’s never a good sign if someone has to ask “what were you even trying to do here?” Please note that I said this was a “time-waster” in my introductory sentence. Briefly: I was first introduced to go as an AI challenge. (I’m a middle-aged engineer.) I came to believe that the basic rules of go were similar in complexity and feel to the mechanics of games like Tetris, Minesweeper, and the like. These games, when done just right, are very popular. I am targeting that category of game.

I think that over all, this is a great idea. People spend a lot of time learning the ins and outs of puzzle games with more complex rules but less depth. However, from the sound of it, the current game has both too broad a scope and too dumb an AI. Why not build capturing races that gradually ascend in complexity, with the human always favored to win, and just use the Fuego AI to make sure the computer responds competently?

[TheBigH]

Is there a way to get it to work for Linux users?

[EdLee]

I said this was a “time-waster” in my introductory sentence.

1st50, I hope you can create something as popular as Zuma or Angry Birds and which introduces people to Go -- that'd be fantastic.

[FirstFifty]

I appreciate people testing my game and/or taking the trouble to post here. I’d like to make it clear that I don’t take exception to anything I’ve read, nor necessarily disagree with it. (Well, there’s this cool thing about the ball and paddle…but this is not the time.)

I’m persuaded that, at best, my game is badly tuned. The backgrounds are too busy, the effects need to be dialed back, and the time pressure doesn’t kick in when it should. But, at least now I know what direction to move. So, I’ve made a couple of quick adjustments; the backgrounds will have to wait till I have more time. It will now take a little longer to generate some puzzles. (I’m not asking anybody to test it twice.) I just tried it in hard mode and got hung up around level 7.

It’s never a good sign if someone has to ask “what were you even trying to do here?” Please note that I said this was a “time-waster” in my introductory sentence. Briefly: I was first introduced to go as an AI challenge. (I’m a middle-aged engineer.) I came to believe that the basic rules of go were similar in complexity and feel to the mechanics of games like Tetris, Minesweeper, and the like. These games, when done just right, are very popular. I am targeting that category of game.

I think that over all, this is a great idea. People spend a lot of time learning the ins and outs of puzzle games with more complex rules but less depth. However, from the sound of it, the current game has both too broad a scope and too dumb an AI. Why not build capturing races that gradually ascend in complexity, with the human always favored to win, and just use the Fuego AI to make sure the computer responds competently?

I have something like that. The program generates a capturing race puzzle, the player picks a color, then plays it out against the AI. The board configurations are unnatural looking. I suppose I could do something about that.

I have my own go engines. I have my own MCTS go engines. I have a GTP interface to let my program interact with other peoples’ go engines. (FUEGO is, I admit, superior to mine.) None of this is in the little game I’ve posted, although it could be. I’ve gone through iterations of lumping things together and carving things out. I’m not wedded to any particular subset of features.

[FirstFifty]

Is there a way to get it to work for Linux users?

The short answer is “not yet.” The long answer is “it’s possible now, but probably more trouble than it’s worth.” In theory, you could run a windows compatibility program such as Wine, install the windows version of a browser and run it under Wine, make sure you have the UNITY plug-in for it, and follow the link to my program. I haven’t tried this myself.