tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17282500.post6800916150514187440..comments2023-09-11T08:08:47.909-07:00Comments on Evolution Live!: Yet More Intriguing Ideasaxchohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476494070603611505noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17282500.post-82906903094421921722009-07-25T00:50:26.178-07:002009-07-25T00:50:26.178-07:00I have not played Loom, sadly. Perhaps I should do...I have not played Loom, sadly. Perhaps I should do so. :)<br /><br />I also think the second one could be really cool, if it could be made to work. I recognize the difficulty of ensuring that actually correct solutions are recognized as correct by the game. Perhaps one approach would be to have very constrained puzzle levels, in addition to a less strict sandbox where subjective ratings by other players are the main way of being rewarded.<br /><br />Software one would be cool, yeah, though I don't have a clear idea of what it would look like. :) Any ideas?axchohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476494070603611505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17282500.post-38773995223859508902009-07-21T03:40:02.285-07:002009-07-21T03:40:02.285-07:00Again, very cool collection. I especially like the...Again, very cool collection. I especially like the first three. The first one remins me of Loom and everything that can be associated with Loom rocks.<br /><br />The second one is nice since there is a whole bunch of Wahrnehmungspychologie you can rely on. The only problem is that in practice, those rules interact with each other heavily. So it would work for very simple, constrained levels but might be difficult in if you choose a more sandboxy approach. It would be annoying if a design that clearly works wouldn't be recognized by the system as "correct".<br /><br />Finally, I can imagine the Software thing to work very well. There could be hidden bugs, user testing, alha/beta... lots of ideas to draw from.Krystian Majewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11575248324136515649noreply@blogger.com