Awesome, thanks for playing!

And ouch at the error. The only other time I've heard of that happening is when someone made a port of it to Mac. Since I hadn't heard of others, I assumed it was a Mac thing. I'll get to working on a solution!

author=Kylaila
I do disagree that there is no luck at all involved, as characters will often power up tact/power when they could easily play aggressive and finish you off. But certainly not enough to get frustrated in any way.

I get what you mean here. But in that sense, every game that has an opposition has "luck" in that you never know what your opponent will choose. The opponent is AI, so you can definitely say the game as a whole has luck because you're not actually fighting a human element (Seymour, by the way, doesn't actually have "AI" and only attacks by picking at random), but I wouldn't say that checkers has luck just because I don't know if my opponent can calculate the optimal move or not. The luck in that instance is something I'd attribute to the opposition, not the game itself. But there's an almost invisible line there when you fight AI because AI is part of the game, so I can concede to that point for sure.

author=Kylaila
The story focuses on finding a way to an absolute winning tactic/procedure, so does your frame of character interaction, and given that there is not much action in there aside from that, it stands out even more.

Yeah, I agree with you there. And as awful as it might sound, a lot of small decisions were made to appeal to the judges who only have a small time frame to play within. The Key Topic System, for example, is a heavily simplified version of the Point of Interest/Gossip System I made in Fleuret Blanc several years ago. I think the Key Topic system is worse in every way, but to implement Fleuret Blanc's system into a game that will likely only get judged within an hour would be like building it directly into a coffin. XD

The Skills also add to what you're talking about in how it's all about basically mastering the one tactic. (Common "solutions" for that are the addition of controlled randomness and asymmetrical battles, but I opted for symmetrical abstract strategy). At the beginning of the game, you might not be familiar enough with the system, but you'll get good quickly. Skills make you capable of using what you're quickly learning even if you start Discourse at a level disadvantage. You end up knowing how to play well enough to be defeating people under-leveled, and that's definitely the intention. I didn't want to make a game about grinding when I have to think about judges. Using a system that can be learned to success and still upgrades within the game is a satisfying idea to me, and hopefully it'll pay off in the hour-long testing phase of the contest. (There's also thematic intent, but that's not entirely as relevant.)

And again, thanks for all the feedback. It's good to hear what's wrong with everything just as much as what's right. :)

Wow, you finished it! XD That's definitely a nice gesture. Thanks. :)

The only issue I feel like defending is your continuous insistence that it comes down to Rock Paper Scissors.

RPS is a game of pure chance. The Tones used in the Discourse System are circular in nature, just like RPS, but it aligns more with an Elemental system than RPS in that there is informed strategy. Discourse may be too simple for your liking, and I really have no problems with matters of taste in the slightest, but the system itself comes from the abstract strategy genre: no luck, no hidden information (until later on when you don't know what Skills your opponent has equipped, which makes only minor, inconsequential hidden information).

In an Elemental system, you still have one element that defeats another in the circular RPS way, but coming across a Fire enemy and using Water spells is hardly the same as picking a spell at random and seeing if the enemy randomly chooses the weaker element to defend with. Likewise, the Tones are 100% informed decisions. And to make the system even less like RPS, once you choose to produce your "element," you take on the affinity of it; your strength this turn becomes your weakness the next.

Like I said, there's no arguing taste and I won't assert that you're in any way wrong in disliking the system or finding it too simple. But I do want to squash any implications that the system is somehow a matter of luck when it definitely isn't. By saying it's a multi-facted RPS you are (possibly unintentionally) saying the system is glorified luck, and that's a point I can't agree with.

Sorry if that sounded edgy. My voice sounds a bit challenging when I'm riding my High Horse of Justice! XD

Hey, no worries! I appreciate that you tried it out and gave me your honest feedback. :)

author=argh

Show

I was mulling over it and thought that the resolution with Chatters was a bit lacking. I felt like what Whitty did (basically ruining his life) was disproportionate retribution. It was dickish of him to mindcontrol his guests, sure, but he wasn't just doing it for the lulz, there was a specific purpose he had to accomplish to ensure his own safety. It's likely he would use the Last Word for offensive as well as defensive purposes, and such a weapon is too dangerous in anyone's hands, but Whitty doesn't really discuss that, she's just like "Nope screw you I'm outta here." And it's rather self-serving of her to deny him the Last Word on the basis that it's too dangerous but keep it herself. I liked that you made Chatters more complex than a typical strawman mad scientist, but it feels like the plot treated him as if he was that shallow archetype anyway.

Also, I'm kind of curious why a one-way intercom is such a difficult invention. Surely a two-way intercom would be the one that requires additional work? I guess you could just say that things work differently in that universe.