Hi Rich, and thanks for the critical acclaim.
I should have packed in some 3D glasses so you could have tested the Pseudo 3D, because its a pity you couldn't test it in 3D mode. I have attempted to do monocular 3D which to my knowledge has never been done before. 3D vision is generally thought to be a function of bninocular vision (i.e. both eyes viewing different angles of the same object). I think this is not true because if that were the case a chap who is blind in one eye would never be able to perceive depth. I do hope somebody takes monocular 3D furhter because it would do away with the need for 3D glasses altogether and provide a sense of gameplay and immersion that has still to be experienced by gamers.
Now to reply to the suggested improvements.
Quote: "A little on the slow side"
Depth perception has always been a problem in 3D games. To overcome this drawback, in an isometric view of the arena, I had to slow down the ball speed (compared to the 2D pong version), in order to make the game "playable"
Quote: "The paddles could do with sprucing up a bit"
I had rotating space stations instead of paddles, but it created problems in depth perception (i.e.which part of the paddle would hit the ball) which is why I stuck to the rectangular shapes. Its pointless sacrificing gameplay for a little eyecandy.
Quote: "You can sometimes hit the heart at a strange angle causing an infinite bounce"
I have implemented a pseudo reflection vector that provides for "realistic physics" and as in all real life physical situations you can never get a perfect bounce everytime you hit a ball with paddle. I tried to get an "air-hockey" bounce effect without having the liberty of a paddle that can move in a plane, rather than a straight line. I think physical realism is as integral a part of good gameplay, as graphics is for providing realistic immersion. The infinite bounce was taken care of by re-serving the ball on the 6th bounce.
Finally, I noticed that one of the criteria for judging was "retroness". I understood this term to mean that the original layout of the game could not be altered dramatically as has been done in some other remakes. I faithfully implemented 2 paddles that moved in a linear fashion. Else I could have easily improved the gameplay by making it more like "air-hockey".
All in all this has been a tremendous learning experience. My CONGRATULATIONS to all the winners. But there were really no losers in this compo. Everybody (including those who didn't enter the compo) has won, because we have acheived a wealth of information. 95 games to be exact.
I know that my views are extremely divergent from conventional game design practices. One thing I have learnt from this competition is that games are made for other people's satisfaction and should be designed from that perspective and not from your personal viewpoint.
