I've had the pleasure of working on Wordlike on-and-off for just about two years, and I don't plan to stop any time soon-- but the dust has long settled on the original, consistent development run that took place during the back half of my Master's degree. Recently, I was struck with the urge to record my thoughts on something desperately missing from current iterations of my game.

My reason for releasing Wordlike without this type of feature is well-summed up in an excerpt from my Major Research Project documentation:

Scope creep was not the issue--  it was that the minimum viable product was too great a burden for me alone to bear. I spoke at length with my supervisor about this, and the conclusion we reached was that I would attempt it to the best of my ability, and see where I could get. I harbour no regrets over how the project turned out; to attempt less would have been disingenuous to its stated purpose.

By 'minimum viable product', I am referring to the original design goal set out Wordlike: creating a research-backed game capable of improving language skills with first-language learners that retains the production value and design standards of a commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) game, essentially alone and all within less than a year. Really, the intent laid somewhere between masochism and martyrdom. I wanted to see what could be done with the time I had, and make a point about how much support is needed to go about making these games the right way. I'll save my grievances with 'serious games' for another blog post, though.

As the title implies, I do know what is missing! I always have, even during the initial proposal.

Wordlike mainly suffers from a lack of conveyance. As mentioned in the v0.3.2 update log, the Combat Log was added to offset this need, but it's far from a replacement for the real deal. I'll link my research paper here, since to detail my whole process would take way more space than I'm giving myself here;  the most relevant bits are derived from the work of my scholarly idol (James Paul Gee) and in turn from pedagogical theory as it applies to learning through play. He has this to say as part of his 2005 article on the principles of good learning games:

Human beings are quite poor at using verbal information (i.e. words) when given lots of it out of context and before they can see how it applies in actual situations. They use verbal information best when it is given ‘just in time’ (when they can put it to use) and ‘on demand’ (when they feel they need it).

 While Gee then goes on to compare this to the trend at that time of situating game manuals within the game world through examples such as System Shock 2 and Enter the Matrix, I was keen to compare it to a more modern example: Nintendo games' tendency to include tutorials in their UI, either game controls corresponding to buttons or non-interruptive looping videos to demonstrate new game mechanics as they become relevant.

(Pardon the watermark on this pre-existing GIF-- I had intended to record my own but realized I no longer have my copy of Super Mario Odyssey downloaded. Buy physical, kids!)

There are so many other aspects of conveyance I could discuss about this GIF alone, from the way that Mario's arms stretch out to indicate that he has reached top speed (which is also a callback to Super Mario Bros. 3), to the rotating circle on the save icon to indicate that the game hasn't frozen even if all other graphics are missing, the disappearance of fog in close proximity to make sure the character remains seen, or even the little wiggle the UI does as it rolls in, as if to say 'Look at me!'

I have heard some developers refer to these technical details as 'juice'-- much of it goes unnoticed when implemented, but their absence can be overwhelmingly obvious, even when most player's can't quite put their finger on what's wrong.

One day, I hope Wordlike can live up to the standards of great solo indies (such as my recent favourite, Balatro), but for now at least, the unspeakable elephant must remain in the room.

'Til next time,

~Jack