one dimensional
I’ve been utterly taken by the simplicity of Slayin (free to play online/download there; enhanced version $1 on the iTunes store). In its scope, gameplay, and literal definition, it is almost entirely one-dimensional. And this is what makes it great.
<I want to say at this point that “the game unfolds…” but don’t know what the one-dimensional analogue would be. “Extends”?>
The player is constrained to a single axis of a scene viewed from the side; moving left and right represents the majority of your gameplay input. As the starting character, a knight, your facing is critical: from one side you are a relentless dealer of death, but from the other you are only meat to be devoured. Other than this directional movement, the only other option available to you is a short jump. You go up, you come right back down. There are no platforms, no skybound powerups. Any escape from that one-dimensional axis is short-lived. And so you move and you face and you dodge wave after wave of enemy, each calling for a slightly different approach. Bosses provide more complex patterns but your options remain the same. Take what little you have and handle everything they throw at you.
Unlocking the second character removes the jump button and the direction of guaranteed slaughter in favour of a spellcasting button that turns you briefly into an invincible and damage-dealing tornado. In the moments between bouts of tempestuous fury, you are made intensely vulnerable. Until your next whirl is ready, you can be harmed from any angle. Gameplay shifts dramatically, an entirely different nuance of timing and position is added to the still-single dimension of movement. Familiar enemies call for entirely new approaches. Forget everything you learned in knight school; you’re a wizard now.
Further deepening the experience are the intermittent merchants, offering slight alterations and improvements to the characters’ abilities. Extend your killing reach or add an additional effect; nothing will let you escape your plane, only survive a few levels longer. The third unlocked character, the knave, has a strange relationship with this merchant: with blades on both sides he collects money only to spend it on objects that increase the future money he will earn. Is this singular pursuit a clever microcosm of the game’s own singular focus?
It’s the thorough exploration of a simple mechanic that makes Slayin shine: a single set of constraints is imposed, then pushed against in every direction in an attempt to squeeze out all the hidden possibilities of the gamespace. It succeeds brilliantly. It is at once accessible, challenging, and rewarding on a number of levels. Would that more games knew their mechanics so well and explored them so thoroughly. Elegance is often born of simplicity and, in this, Slayin is the eleganst.
eleganst1 (
l
-g
nst), adj.
1. Most elegant.
eleganst2 (
1. One who is the most elegant
bervquest 
In this day and age, I think you’ll find it hard to find others who share your enthusiasm. Good luck though. It seems like you really enjoy this game.
I disagree! My experience so far in the world of game development has been one of overwhelming enthusiasm and camaraderie. Though Slayin presents a specific play experience that may not be for everyone, it’s accessible and a great example of a simple mechanic well explored. Perhaps the mainstreaming of more divergent efforts like this is a ways out, but I’m confident, in this age of connection, that good ideas well executed will find their supporters.
You know more than me. I’m not a huge fan of video games or computer games. I prefer a good movie, a good TV show, a good comic book, or a good novel.
I think what many of the major console games with their fancy graphics and elaborate game play miss is simple creativity, and wonder. Super-sparkliness and epic worlds are fun, and also impressive, but it’s also exciting to see a bare-bones game that is just as fascinating and addicting.
I remembered the good old atari games. Thanx for sharing. That’s the spirit 🙂
I don’t get it with Slayin. I like colorful games myself!
Oh, it’s very colourful! Do check out the links; the above picture is just a diagram of my own devising.
I need to check it out. Do you have then a favorite color?
How could I ever choose? Though I do tend to play yellow in board games.
That doesn’t surprise me! http://www.segmation.com
Oh hey! Great review and I’m going to for sure check out and play it. I hopped over to that link and that knight is so damn CUTE! Reminds me of Zelda back in the day – yeah I’m OLD. *hobbles away waving 1989 game boy around* Get off my lawn!
A good “base model” for YOU to create your own (brilliant, accessible, challenging, rewarding), “simple” game. I know you want too! Good luck with it, and enjoy the process.
Well, I’ve been playing this for the entire four hours since I read your insightful article. Thank you for my new time killer. 🙂
Yeah, I’ve been motivated me to pick it up again, too. I suspect I shall spend a long time “going to bed” tonight before I actually do.
I too have dropped far too many hours into this game – i like how it locks away the other characters until you’ve really had a chance to ‘master’ the knight. I do wish it was a little more forgiving though, perhaps I am just going soft in my old age but it’s not shy about decimating your health bar in short order on the later levels!
you’ve added the much required colour and dimension to this game – am a fan of games myself but i like strategy/colourful/theme/action games.
congratulations on being fp!
Oh, but I do recommend checking it out firsthand. Colorful it most certainly is.
done. i will.
This is really cool!!
Your description of Slayin reminds me of Canabalt, the free-to-play 2D scrolling game from Adam Atomic: super-simple premise, the player character moves forward across the screen, faster and faster, and all you have to do is press a simple button to determine when he jumps. So much variety though, excellent soundtrack, retro graphics – all the elements come together, and it just works. Frustrating as anything, but hey, keeps me coming back…
Ah yes, Canabalt’s a classic. Made it into the Museum of Modern Art, if I’m remembering correctly! There’s something about simplistic elegance that just resonates with people, I think.
I like the content and enthusiasm; but, one-dimensionality does not allow for movement: there are no axes in the first dimension [think black holes/ singularities] or they are all compressed infinitely into a point.
I was very excited by the title, but before even reading the thing I knew that you just had no idea what a dimension is.This is a two dimensional game, like Mario with the exception of when you get to go behind some objects to find secrets. The second dimension exists when you have at least two one dimensional points connected by at least one line; third, when those lines are given depth to create a cube; fourth, when you can move around that cube to see more than three sides. Experience is four-dimensional.
Thanks for trying.
Thank you for your comment; I’ll be the first to admit that my knowledge of physics/mathematical terminology is that of a hobbyist at best. However, it is my continued understanding that as long as a point in space can be described using a single coordinate (e.g. a point existing on a line), it exists in one dimension. Moving along a line is the freedom of a one-dimensional object. That single coordinate changes to represent a different position on that line.
Those objects that exist without any such freedom are those without any coordinate attached. Necessarily, this means that they exist at only one point and have no range of possible alternatives. These objects are instead described as zero-dimensional.
Ah I see how it could be handy to have this idea of something that can move along merely a line; though, I’d definitely view that as two-dimensional movement. There is no zeroth dimension in the terminology that I’ve always used, but instead a base first dimension in which there’s no movement [there’s only a singular space – like before a big bang or after the last two black holes collide; also, every time in between but that’s not a topic for blog comments].
Thank you for specifying!
Your post has taken me back to the times when playstation or xbox were mere fantasy. I still remember playing and creating those pixelated based games. I agree simplicity is surely to prevail, else how would you explain Snake to have been the most played game on mobile phones. Recently I figured they have come up with a more graphics based version, but its not as exciting as compared to the previous version. None the less just gave Slayin a shot in the browser version. Still playing! Thanks for sharing
I’ve always been a HUGE fan of those old, pixelated, 2D type games, they’re the best, and not just because of the trip down memory lane. I’m not too keen on today’s games on being assassins/mercerneries who kill random characters with realitistic looking blood, not because of the gore (cos I can handle that!) but because it’s BORING. So good for you! I share the feeling!
It may depend upon your meaning, but I think you are mistaken. A one dimensional game would have a horizontal direction and no vertical direction. This game is two dimensional because it has a boxed screen. Please reference this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/aa200983(v=office.10).aspx
Oh yes, you’re absolutely right. I intentionally stretched the concept a little bit to suit my writing. The game in its presentation is definitely a two-dimensional one, though I think it makes very clever use of some one-dimensional mechanics.
this just shows that there is still a market for creativity and fun over elaborate animations. Even simple can be beautiful!