[sdwr]

As a nerd, I hunger for consistency. This wasn't - it took snapshots and handwaved them together.

Can't help but feel it would have been a lot better with constrained physics and automated submissions.

The current version is probably more fun to be on "the inside" of, evaluating submissions and stitching them together, but at the expense of the finished product.

[sfink]

As a nerd, I love to see carefully maintained illusions that give a convincing impression of something much more grand going on than is actually happening. Games that push for more and more realism make me wonder why I don't just wander around the real world. Games grounded in realism but augmented with nonrealism (magic, special powers, added knowledge, selective relaxation of physical laws, ...) are fun.

Your "constrained physics" seems to mean adding constraints to make it implementable. I want constraints aimed at making it cool or fun, and implementable. Which is what this project did.

Plus: if you tell me something is smoke and mirrors, I get excited. "Ooh! How did you time the smoke? Oh, this mirror is half-silvered?! That's awesome, I wouldn't have thought of that! What would happen if..."

[NBJack]

I may be missing something, but that seems to be an apples to oranges comparison.

How is your turn based app example analogous to a complex physics simulation? And what exactly do you consider about the app's multiplayer to be the bar?

[sdwr]

Edited since, but what that game does is let you participate asynchronously in a completely distributed way. It's a real miracle of game design.

This one is kludging from every angle. They're cheating with the physics, they're cheating with who sees what, they're cheating by handpicking levels. It results in an experience that isn't grounded, because none of the foundational dimensions are real.

[NBJack]

As much as I hate to spoil the illusion, the kludging you mentioned is basically the sum of the natural drawbacks faced in virtually all game design. Whether it's a skybox, an NPC, or a virtual bullet, it's all basically cheating through constraints and illusions.

Great example: Space Engineers, a very popular game in which you can build ships, bases, etc. with an incredible consideration for automation, moving things around, etc. One of my favorites. But the game intentionally (1) limits the top speed of all entities to 100m/s, (2) doesn't actually simulate orbital mechanics despite having planets, and (3) forces you to construct things on a 'grid'. All of these constraints are arguably shortcomings, but they also enable the physics engine to live and collisions to work.

[junon]

You're asking a lot from an April fools joke from a comic creation team.

Also, what you're asking for is very hard to do with physics engines as they exist now. Simulating a bunch of non-static elements like that is incredibly expensive.