Posts Tagged ‘inspiration’

its not too late (yet)

Posted by
Saturday, August 22nd, 2015 2:19 am


seriously though if something is screwed up in your game there’s still tons of time to figure it out, if its still screwed up by this time tomorrow… you might want to rethink some mechanics

Ludum Dare 31 Inspiration Wallpaper!

Posted by (twitter: @x01010111)
Monday, November 24th, 2014 4:52 pm

I’ve made a new wallpaper for Ludum Dare 31 – feel free to use it! I remembered my first Ludum Dare I felt like participating was like being confronted with a insurmountable mountain, and afterwards I felt like I was on top of that mountain :)


Just click through to the 1920×1080 version!


Why am I doing this?!

Posted by (twitter: @@mattrifiedgames)
Thursday, April 24th, 2014 9:11 pm

I’m mostly writing this as a (super) quick analysis as to why I am doing this 48 Game Jam / Competition.  This will be my first Ludum Dare.  I had heard about it before but had never investigated it closely.  The reason for this investigation now is that for the past 9 months I have been working on a programming book.  This was a long, drawn-out, and boring process; this difficulty was not something I was anticipating.  It made me irritable and actually started making me lose faith in my abilities but more importantly my passion as a game developer.  In conjunction with my current job, it was the perfect formula for stress, resentment, depression, and a bunch of other negative feelings.  The book is done, so why Ludum Dare?  One reason is it’s advertised as a primarily SOLO game jam.  This is an area I think I thrive in actually — no long meetings, no compromising vision (which is different than cutting back on scope), no hurt feelings or politics.  I mostly want to have fun, but I also want to see if I can rejuvenate the passion for making games — not technical text, not concepts, not ideas, but an actually game!  I’ve done the Global Game Jam before, and themes in game jams have always sort of “burned” me; this has been mostly due to the fact that I had gone into game jams with an idea in mind and couldn’t think how to make the theme work with the idea that wasn’t utter bullsh*t.  For this Ludum Dare, I’m trying to go in with no ideas other than the fact that the game will be in Unity3D (or GameMaker is I think that is a better fit).  This isn’t the most exciting post, but I hope to write a few more during the course of Ludum Dare — but not too many as I have to actually focus on a game — and good luck to everyone participating!

Sharing my research

Posted by
Friday, August 23rd, 2013 7:28 pm

I found an idea so I thought I’d share all those I won’t use…

  • Not earth seconds? Can make them last as long as I want…
  • Second = unit of time? Nah…can be whatever the heck I want
  • 10 seconds to complete a level?
  • 10 seconds to live?
  • 10 seconds to complete puzzles?
  • Every 10 seconds…
  • 10 seconds later…
  • 10 seconds love
  • 10 seconds adventure
  • 10 seconds is too long
  • What can we do in 10 seconds?
  • The longest 10 seconds of my life
  • Stop time for 10 seconds (does that even make sense?)
  • Go back 10 seconds in time
  • Rythm, music
  • 10 seconds to save the world
  • Five seconds rule
  • Climax
  • I destroyed my life in 10 seconds
  • X
  • 10 seconds to escape
  • Kiss
  • 10 seconds exploration            exploration of what?
  • Laugh
  • Next fly within ten seconds
  • Sleep
  • 10 seconds day
  • 10 seconds at different points in space
  • Run for the shelter? / Hide ?
  • 10 second to build/make something….
  • Fix time
  • Oxygen
  • 10 seconds delay? no that would suck

Something different from “10 seconds to [do something]”
Come on brain, be creative….


  • Space-time
  • Stop time
  • Decay time
  • Entropy
  • Linear?
  • Energy
  • Time travel
  • Light
  • End of time
  • Expiration time
  • Hourglass
  • Memory
  • Gravity
  • Fractal
  • Anti-time

Some minimalistic game ideas for you

Posted by
Saturday, April 27th, 2013 2:24 am

Anyone reading this and still looking for the game idea? Check out this guy for tons of inspiration. And remember:

creativity rule #1

SlayRadio FTW

Posted by (twitter: @metacozm)
Saturday, August 25th, 2012 3:07 pm

Find retro inspiration here:

A little inspiration

Posted by
Sunday, August 22nd, 2010 4:06 pm


This is what everybody else voted, right?

Posted by (twitter: @AlmostMatt)
Thursday, August 19th, 2010 8:12 pm

It's not too late to change your vote!

Double Zombie Rainbow

Posted by (twitter: @McFunkypants)
Thursday, August 19th, 2010 7:14 pm

Taste the rainbow. Double Zombie Rainbow.

2D Boy’s 48 Hour Game Tips

Posted by
Monday, April 13th, 2009 12:37 pm

Some of you may have already seen this 2009 Global Game Jam Keynote video, as it has been around for a few months, but I first watched it only a few minutes ago.  As we will very soon be taking part in a 48 hour game development competition, I thought I might bring attention to this video.

Kyle Gabler give a number of great tips.  His 2nd Theorum of Destruction is likely very true for a lot of people.  I know for myself, the less I care the better my results become.

He’s watching me…

Posted by
Saturday, August 9th, 2008 6:22 am

Inspiration Owl

KeepRunning (Final Journal)

Posted by
Sunday, April 20th, 2008 9:39 pm

I’ve always been interested in minimalism in other art forms. This of course, opens another can of worms: the great debate as to whether or not videogames are, or could be, art. I actually take a more of a conservative stance than most game developers in that I don’t think games are inherently art. Videogames are a medium, just like film, television, theatre, or music or painting. These forms of media can be used to create art, or entertainment, or advertising. And for the media that are generally regarded as art (painting, music, theatre) there are artists who constantly push the boundaries of the medium. They force people—artists, critics, and ordinary people—to ask questions. “Is this art?” “Can this really be considered music?” “What is the defining characteristics of theatre?” Some in particular do this by trying to create a piece that meets the smallest possible criteria of the definition of that art form.

Samuel Beckett’s play, Breath – 25 seconds long, contains no actors, no movement, other than the curtains, and the only sounds are two cries and breathing. But it takes place on a stage, it has a script, it contains stage-direction.

Napalm Death’s song, You Suffer – Regarded as the shortest song in existence at precisely 1.316 seconds long. But it still contains all the elements of any rock/metal song: guitar, bass, drums, vocals.

John Cage’s composition, 4’33” – A three-movement composition for any instrument (or combination of instruments), made entirely of silence. The argument being that music is composed of sound that is organized in some fashion. Whether or not silence can be considered sound is up for debate, but some people consider the ambient noise of the audience and the performance hall (or location, generally speaking) to be part of the piece. You can even buy sheet music for 4’33”. Does that make it a composition? Does that make it music?

Robert Rauschenberg’s White Paintings – Seven entirely blank white panels. It is still paint on canvas. Is it still art? I’ve seen it displayed in the San Francisco MoMA, so by definition, it must be high art. Some argue, just like with 4’33”, that the painting’s interaction with it’s environment—the lighting, the shadows cast on the canvas, the museum patrons staring quizzically at the empty space on the wall—are part of the piece itself.

One thing is for certain. If we cannot ask these pretentious questions about videogames, then how can we consider them art?

So what is the most basic definition we have for games? Generally, it is regarded that all games must have a goal. This does not mean that the game has to be “winnable”. Take Asteroids, for example. There is no way to win Asteroids, but the goal is to get the highest possible score.

As another example, SimCity does not have a specific goal. It has a lot of numbers that can increase and decrease, but it is ultimately up to the player to decide how they want to play and what they want to achieve. Because of this, SimCity’s designer, Will Wright, refers to it as a “toy” rather than a “game” because there are any number of ways to play with it. But it is still regularly regarded as one of the “best games of all time” by numerous critics. Does that not make it a game? Clearly, even the requirement of a goal is somewhat lenient. Is score purely a goal, or just a metric? If so, what does this say about games, like Asteroids, where scoring is the only goal? Is the goal of Asteroids to achieve the highest score, or merely to survive the constant onslaught of cosmic rocks? If the latter, does that mean the player always loses?

The second requirement of games is that they must have rules. I once read somewhere (can’t find the source off-hand) that game design is the process of adding rules to a system to make it less efficient. The classic example being that if a boxer’s goal is to get his opponent to lay on the mat for 10 seconds, the most efficient way of doing that would be to shoot the other boxer in the head. Thus rules are added to the game so that the boxer can only cause his opponent to fall by using a certain style of punches. Whether or not this is accurate description of game design, or merely a cute sound bite does not change the generally upheld conception that games are made out of rules.

Another requirement often cited is that games must have some form of player interaction. This could be as much as maintaining an entire fleet of spaceships in battle against another fleet, while trying to manage resource collection, empire expansion, and technology development, or as little as pressing a button to jump.

So, if games are defined as a goal and a set of rules with player interaction, what is the most basic, minimal implementation possible? For the sake of this contest, I’m going to limit this argument to “computer games”–that is, games that can be played on a computer.

Even the current version of my game has more than that. Since a game does not necessarily have to be winnable, or have an end-state, I can remove that part of the game, but I still need to have a goal. The current goal of the game is essentially to terminate it as fast as possible. That can still be the goal even if I take out the “game over” message and the ranking system (which take up the majority of the code). Alternately, I could make the goal to keep the game running as long as possible, similar to Asteroids, or Progress Quest. I don’t even need to keep a score inside my game as the operating system and the Process Manager already keep track of how long the game has been running.

Since the goal has changed, and therefore the rules have changed, I still need to communicate the new rules to the player somehow. My game has to have a name of some sort so to get to the most minimal state possible I’m going to make the game’s title the same as the full text of it’s instruction manual. How’s that for usability?

I still need to have player interaction, but does that mean my game has to accept input? Is the input that it takes to start the game and stop the game enough? If so, I can remove the input code as well.

So what is left? I’ve got a game, where the goal is to keep the game running as long as possible. The rules are… to keep the game running as long as possible? And the player interaction is to start and stop the game. I’d say that’s about as minimal a computer game as you can get.

Here’s the final tally:
Platform: Windows (Tested on XP, 2000. Probably works with all x86 processors Win95 and greater.)
Source: 2 lines, 76 bytes (including copyright notice comment)
source v4
Executable: 5,632 bytes. (Future plans: write it in native assembly code, Linux, Mac ports.)

KeepRunning sceenshot
KeepRunning highscore

It all starts with an idea

Posted by
Sunday, April 20th, 2008 3:46 am

(cross-posting from my blog until I can figure out how to get syndication working.)

Okay, I’m registered. Now to start with some inspiration. Way back when Resident Evil 2 came out for the PS1, my friends and I loved it, and played it to death. There were two things that we were particularly fond of. First off, the voice “acting” was excellent. And by “excellent”, I mean perfect for the B-movie motif of a modern zombie movie (er… videogame with extensive cut scenes). The awkward pauses in dialog were further exacerbated by the long loading time for the PS1 to read the sound files off the disk. This, combined with the awkward hand-gesture animations made for some moments that would have made Ed Wood proud. For example the classic, “Stop!… don’t open… that door!” from from the first Resident Evil game. Or one of the initial exposition dialogs from the sequel:

About two months ago…there was this incident… involving zombies…
in a mansion… located in the outskirts of this city.
Chris… and the other STARS members discovered that…

(sinister voice) Umbrella…
was behind everything.

They risked their lives to reveal the truth.
But, no one… believed them.
Not long after that… (with emphasis) all this… started to happen.

But I digress… Our second favorite thing about the game was its constant confirmationitis.
“There is a key here, would you like to take it? (yes/no)”
“There is a lever here, would you like to use it? (yes/no)”
“There is a switch here, would you like to switch it? (yes/no)”

Based on this, we devised the obvious logical extension of the series. At the time, we called it “Resident Evil 3”, but actually “Resident Evil 0” might have been more appropriate. Considering both those title have since been taken, and reconsidering our design of the game, I think this is probably the most apt title:


That screenshot is pretty much the entire extent of the game. Choosing “No” would send you to a Game Over screen. Choosing “Yes” would send you to an identical Game Over screen, which we called “the good ending”. Depending on how long you took to answer “Yes”, and how many times you had to switch the cursor between the two choices, the game awarded you a rank, from D to A. If you chose “Yes” really quickly… I’m talking within a matter of minutes, you’d attain the coveted ‘S’ rank. Achieving the S rank unlocked a bonus part of the game, which played exactly the same as the original, but the menu was blue instead of green. If you beat the “blue version” with an S rank, you unlock the “red version”, and so on…


Posted by (twitter: @fydo)
Friday, December 14th, 2007 12:18 am

Inspiration - fydo

[cache: storing page]