And then you get another level where you have multiple reactors, each with two Waldos. And then you get levels where you have a 50% chance of getting one atom and a 50% chance of another, and you need to design it to deal with both. The next few teach you about bonding and unbonding. The first few levels teach you how to call in, move, and drop atoms. The other stroke of genius is in the way SpaceChem ratchets up the complexity. In a stroke of genius, you can also see how well the average person on the internet did each level, and – how the hell did this guy do it with only 24 commands? Sorry, I’m going to have to rejig my design. They haven’t gotten caught up in trying to build a machine that works, and they haven’t experienced the sheer joy that results when you get it right. You call over anyone nearby to watch, and they look at you with thinly-veiled disgust, but that’s fine. As the game gets more complex you spend longer on each level, trying to tweak it, until it finally works perfectly, and you sit there and watch your creation work, and it’s beautiful. The base design is almost frighteningly simple and very easy to latch onto: with limited commands, use two robots to carry out tasks as efficiently as possible. If you just fell asleep or felt your brain catch fire, then that’s down to my poor explanations rather than the game. Our blue Waldo carries fluorine to the other bonding spot, binds the two together, and then whisks the result through the output point before wandering back to its “Sync” marker so they can repeat the process. In the above instance our red Waldo calls in a silver atom, picks it up, carries it to one of the circles with a plus-minus symbol on it (meaning that a bond can be created or broken there), drops it, and then waits at the “Sync” marker. In the above image, we have silver coming in at the top left (at the alpha input) and fluorine coming in at the bottom left (the beta input). Using them, you need to move, bond, and unbond atoms and molecules. You have two little robots (adorably named Waldos) one follows blue instructions, the other follows red. But improving your designs is half the joy of SpaceChem. But I see a program a machine of staggering elegance and beauty… which, now I look, could have been far more efficient with a few simple changes. Not in terms of art, but in terms of the sheer intrinsic design. It’s one of the most brain-meltingly smart games of the year, and even – you’re not going to believe this – one of the most beautiful. It’s a game about chemistry and programming, but it’s fun. I’ve been worrying about this because, quite frankly, it’s fantastic. So perhaps I should call it a game about efficiency, but even that’s got unpleasant connotations. “A programming game with a chemistry theme” sounds like it’s only good for people with glasses so thick the lenses could be used in military laser experiments, and beards so massive they can’t shave for fear of dislodging a rare species of woodland creature. It’s really a programming game with a chemistry theme, in which you program little robots and make them bond atoms into molecules.Īnd now you see why I’ve had such problems describing it without making it sound horrifically boring. So maybe this is a chemistry game, as you bond atoms into molecules… but that’s not right either. First: how do I describe SpaceChem? And second: how do I describe SpaceChem without making it sound like the most boring game since Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen’s Paint Drying Extravaganza?įirst things first: what is SpaceChem? I could say “it’s a puzzle game,” but that’s akin to asking your other half what’s for dinner and getting the response “food.” “Puzzle” is a wide genre. I’ve had two problems in writing this article. Keep track of our Game of the Year 2011 Countdown
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |