安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
1 
檢舉此篇文章
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2040045039
A guide I made. The rules are only a small part of it, but once you understand them, they're very simple.
Just beware, I'm not a native english speaker and while I think I manage it well enough most of the time, it's still ocassionally awkward
I've read your guide and left a comment thanking you for the effort, but it I have to say it didn't help me a lot. I finally worked it all out by trial and error and deduction in the tutorial levels, and I have already finished the first diorama. Once you figure out that each number applies only to the cubes right below it, you can start playing.
And I still have absolutely no idea what "Common voxels are part of the solution" means. Is this the same as "if a voxel does not contain a hint it is part of the solution" which turns up in tutorial 3? If it is, then why not say that in tutorial 2 instead of a different phrase? Or is there a subtle difference?
In the end, for me tutorial 2 felt completely like trial-and-error in the face of an instruction that said "you do not have to guess"!
I will add that once I made it out of there and was able to put #3 in context, the last 3 were plain sailing and I am now starting to get going on the actual puzzles. But as a tutorial, it was genuinely horrific. Indeed, I almost think that if #2 had been omitted completely, I might have understood it much better!
(edit: OK, now I'm playing the actual game, it is genuinely fantastic. I still wouldn't change any of my comments above about the tutorial which was truly awful in every respect. The game itself though? Spectacularly good.)
would this have served you more? (I really dunno because I'm a dev myself, ho so games, and I dunno what most users expext
EDIT: lol I shilled it here before, I'm sorry
There is something missing above, and isn't explained in the current tutorial where you need it: tutorial puzzle 2.
Somewhere, you need to explain that when there is a number on the face of the cube (and nothing else, those selected blocks will be touching each other. You sort of allude to that above by stating there are only two cases. I looked at it, and there are obviously 3 cases...unless this rule about adjacent cubes is the case...and it is. That may be a jump some folks will make, but not all.
I also had a random thought: maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to add one stage between tutorial 1 (the match) and 2 (Qbert)? The first is basicaly one dimensional. The second - three dimensional. You could add something two dimensional in between. That would actually make it like a classic nonogram. That could show people how things are different here from usual nonogram descriptions. You could also introduce gaps here (instead of later).
The connection "this game uses the same rules as 2D nonograms" has never occured to me, and the game never explicitly tells me that, so that's kind of a bummer.
Also I thought the rotating cube in the bottom right listed the amount of voxels I need to mark but without any explanations it took me a while to figure out that it just lists the number of rows in that dimension (for some reason). For being such a prominent part of the UI, it doesn't feel very useful, at least for now.
Just encountered the Gap elements in the tutorial and again I had to figure out on my own that when the Gap number said 2 it meant it had TWO gaps and not a gap of "width-2", which seemed a more reasonable idea at the time.
The game concept is really cool and I'm enjoying the following puzzles right now, but the tutorial didn't explain how to play the game properly.