Demondrian: Piet-Based Puzzle Prototype

Prototype puzzle game Demondrian [TIG post] caught my eye this afternoon. As you might have noticed, it takes its visual inspiration from the work of Piet Mondrian, but rather than becoming lost in heavy-handed art references it’s actually a neat-looking puzzle game about shifting shapes and matching colour tiles.

From reading the developer’s post on the TIGSource forums, it was an idea which emerged during the wait period before publishing a different game. I think the latter must be the Steam re-release of Flip (which ALSO looks good and Adam liked in its original form). That would make the dev Sebastian Uribe of Perro Electrico.

Here’s what they had to say about how Demondrian works:

‘Demondrian’ (working title) is a match-1 logic abstract puzzle game where levels are solved by aggregating smaller pieces into bigger ones, until only one is left.

Having watched the demo video what that actually means is you pick a square from the grid which doesn’t share a border with a square of the same colour then click to get rid of it and the next colour block from a row outside the puzzle will drop into play at the top of the column.

If I had to do that exercise where you say “It’s like THING meets OTHER THING” I guess I would say that it is like the block-dropping aspect of Tetris meets the four colour map theorem.

I think the thing I’m most interested in is fail states and whether those would mean you took a lot of time over each puzzle trying to solve it or whether you ended up in a more Bejeweled kind of mindset, skipping from game to game. It would depend on whether it was set up so each game had at least one viable solution.

I don’t think I’m making this sound exciting anymore. Watch the demo[ndrian].

From this site

5 Comments

  1. Llewyn says:

    I don’t think I’m making this sound exciting anymore.

    You are to me, Pip. You are to me.

  2. Dances to Podcasts says:

    Seeing Mondriaan with one a makes me kindof sad somehow.

  3. suribe says:

    Sebastian here. Thanks for noticing the game!
    I think the thing I’m most interested in is fail states and whether those would mean you took a lot of time over each puzzle trying to solve it or whether you ended up in a more Bejeweled kind of mindset, skipping from game to game. It would depend on whether it was set up so each game had at least one viable solution.
    That’s exactly what I need to figure out now…

  4. bateleur says:

    The question of fail states seems to me quite closely tied to the issue of whether boards are always completable. And if they are, with what probability (because completability might depend on correctly guessing what’s coming next).

    Assuming boards are not always completable and that when they are the probability might be less than 100%, the comparison which seems most natural to me is Tetris, which has both properties (where by “completion” we just mean not losing after N moves). As such, one possible fail state would be for the game to gradually tighten the success requirements for each successive board (with the exact settings being chosen from analysis of playtest data). This has the advantage of avoiding the need for timers, which always feel like a bit of a hack to me.

    • suribe says:

      I also hate timers, I did not want them for Flip and neither here.
      Currently I consider either boards to be ‘solvable’-guaranteed or to have a score per board given by the number of pieces remaining + the number of moves. But then also there are other factors like if it’s possible to undo, hints, other possible aids like being able to swap pieces, etc. In the end the hard trick is to juggle all these gameplay elements and objectives together to make the game fun.