Scary Girl and the bane of platformers that is physics.


Scary Girl got quite a bit of attention at the tail end of GDC ’09. It’s out now, and it’s free, so I decided to give it a go.

scarygirl1 Scary Girl and the bane of platformers that is physics.

Yes, it's pretty.

The game’s aesthetics are definitely its high-point, somewhat aping the twisted surrealism of Beetlejuice. Scary Girl even does some interesting things like the animating dialogues — something that I’ve been meaning to throw into a game ever since reading demian5‘s When I Am King.

As a platformer, though, it’s simply bad.

scarygirl2 Scary Girl and the bane of platformers that is physics.

I also found myself scratching my head when my character wasn't picking up the collectibles she was overlapping.

The issue with Scary Girls is what’s endemic to so many indie games: an overabundance and over-reliance on physics.  For every Armadillo Run, there’s ten titles like Pac-Man physics. This particularly hurts platformers as the whole genre relies on “tight” controls and precise movement (even in the easy games).

Yes, Mario, Sonic and Mega Man all had physics,  but they weren’t realistic. The algorithms behind those games were MIN/MAX-ed to attain a certain “feel,” and the level design reflected that. There was usually no need to involve mass, the Coriolis effect, or the actual trajectory of a human jumping ten times his own height in an earth-like environment. Instead, the physics were meant to be fun and intuitive, and the architecture of the levels supported them and the player’s goals.

scarygirl3 Scary Girl and the bane of platformers that is physics.

You need to jump to get the cross of collectibles, but hardly any of the possible trajectories will achieve that.

Sure, N was quite a departure from that, but it wasn’t your typical Flash platformer either. It had a very zoomed out view, a high resolution, lots of different surfaces, etc. The game still wasn’t my cup of tea, but it was aware of its strengths and used them to build unique and entertaining playgrounds. Most physics-based platformers, though, seem to occupy a space somewhere in between N and nostalgic games like Mario, and they’re rarely any good.

Scary Girl’s second stage is the ubiquitous underwater level, and, naturally, it’s even slower and floatier than the on-land action. It also uses tank controls, i.e., left/right to rotate, forward to advance, and it’s a mess. Even though you have to dive, the buoyancy of the water is constantly rotating your character to face up. What’s worse, there’s an air meter, water currents, and painfully slow step-like diving movements. It’s pretty much the complete opposite of fun.

Despite its good looks, the game’s an awkward struggle with no flow. I doubt I’ll ever play it again.


reddit Scary Girl and the bane of platformers that is physics. | gamedevkicks Scary Girl and the bane of platformers that is physics. | stumbleupon Scary Girl and the bane of platformers that is physics. | delicious Scary Girl and the bane of platformers that is physics. | digg Scary Girl and the bane of platformers that is physics. | facebook Scary Girl and the bane of platformers that is physics.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Tonypee on April 16, 2009 - 10:34 pm

    FYI – we do NOT use a physics engine for the game physics, they are all faked, like older games. We realise that people are having issues with the feel of the game and are working to address it at the moment. Hopfully we can make a few tweaks and have the game a little more controllable in a day or so.

    cheers

  2. #2 by The Management on April 16, 2009 - 10:56 pm

    That’s interesting to hear since the end result is rather floaty — a frequent side effect of platformers that rely on earth-like gravity. Any particular reason why you specifically aimed for this feel?

    Either way, I don’t think the moveset is Scary Girl’s sole issue, but good luck tweaking the game.

  3. #3 by Tonypee on April 17, 2009 - 12:29 am

    We havent aimed for this feel, the gamplay has evolved as become what is just through testing. Floatyness i guess was a factor of giving the user more time to control themselves in the air, supposedly making the play easier – i guess the fine line of testing has failed :(
    I think, on out computer is feels better than on a slower computer (remember the old quake bug of ID testing their network play on a T1 connection), so the floatyness is accentuated for other people.
    I have nearly completed reworking the feel of the game, the gravity, and the keys. I think you should find them a lot better- will be updated in a few hours.
    Tarwin is working on changing the swim mechanic atm, hope if can be done in a few hours too. :P
    Thanks for your interest in the game and we appriciate any more comments

  4. #4 by Tonypee on April 17, 2009 - 12:31 am

    note – we did beta test the game for 2 months, from the start of the year, and most people found it fine – so we werent totally unprepared, but obviously not all things work as planned

  5. #5 by Tonypee on April 17, 2009 - 7:23 am

    we have submitted some changes – key setup, underwater swimming, floating, general feel, are all updated and should be greatly improved

  6. #6 by The Management on April 17, 2009 - 9:17 am

    OK, sure. I’ll give it a go a bit later and e-mail you my comments.

  7. #7 by Keith Weatherby II on May 14, 2009 - 1:20 pm

    Wow, I thought only *I* used the word “floaty” but I guess not. At least we’re both using the term to mean the same thing.

    Keith aka Uhfgood

  8. #8 by The Management on May 14, 2009 - 4:21 pm

    Really? Pretty much anyone I know who’s played platformers in recent years has used the word once or twice (which is probably indicative of the trend itself).

(will not be published)