Skip to main content

I Learned 4 Things From my First Ludum Dare

I've done my first Ludum Dare Jam now, and actually my first game jam of any kind. Wow! I am so happy to have finally done this. It was a super rewarding experience and I want to share that, and my game, with as many people as will listen.

My game is Patient Out Of Time. It is an apocalyptic moody shooter about a doctor salvaging power sources from robots in the wasteland to keep the life support of his last patient running as long as possible. The hospital staff have all left, and they are the only two survivors. Keeping this man alive is all this one doctor has to keep him going.

It is a sad game, but it was also a lot of fun to make.


Here are some things I learned this time. I hope to learn more things the next Ludum Dare.

Little Steps Make Safe Steps

I didn't have time for broken builds or half-built code I needed to fight my way back out of just to get the game running again. Every change I made had to be broken down into tiny, discrete non-breaking changes. Every step of way had to be playable. This kept the game constantly in a "technically releaseable" state, which kept stress about finishing the game off my back.

Refactoring Can Be Treading Water

My habits as a developer tend towards building systems. Now, I get a lot of enjoyment out of this and preach the merits of systems as code design, but I'm trying to learn to cautiously apply this form of what is, some times, over thinking things. So, I did my best to permit myself to write "bad" code and move forward.

I didn't have a lot of assets, so as I added them one by one through the process I never built any kind of asset management. That's what old Calvin would have done. You know, to "clean it up". Instead, I just added what I needed to make the new thing work, because spending time to change big things would do two negative things:

First, it would violate the first rule: Little Steps Make Safe Steps. Refactoring is a great way to get lost in the weeds with a half-completed bit of work that'll take you hours just to get the feature set back to exactly where you started. No thank you.

Compromise When You Find a Dead End

A lot of problems we come up against as software developments make the little voice in our heads say "Oh, I know, I'll just..." and then, hours later, we're still struggling with all the pitfalls and unforeseen problems with what we thought would be a totally simple solution.

When you see this, don't forget that you can give up. And I mean that in a good way, because some times it just isn't worth it.

As an example from Patient Out Of Time, I wanted to make the robots chasing you avoid the problem of "clumping" too close, which was common since they all just headed straight towards you. I started experimenting and thinking about different kind of flocking algorithms and coordination between the robots. It was all turning pretty complicated!

Instead, I backed out of all that and just randomized all their speeds a little bit. Problem solved with one line.

Add a Little Bit Of Everything

I had 48 hours. Technically, I had 72 hours, because I'm doing the Jam and not the Compo. However, I do have to work on Monday! And I have a family, and I try to avoid burn out. So, really, my time to put into this was pretty limited. Still, watching the clock, I was sure to rotate my efforts between code and art and audio and design.

Evenly distributing the effort across the different pieces that make the title contributed to that "always releaseable" goal. I didn't wait until the very end to figure out sound. I iterated on my art and animations interlaced with feature tweaks and bug fixes. Everything grew up together.

This also meant I got practice and new experience with everything. I did some audio sample editing. I worked on my pixel art animation skills. My skills with the Love2D platform I've been using were improved a bit. Every muscle got a little exercise.

Have Fun

I highly recommend trying out Ludum Dare some time. If you do, don't take it too seriously. Have fun!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…