Personal advice - please read before playing

He's actually already shown me a couple of frightening screenshots.

I'm only tester for NS for a few months now... Poor me...

(this is either off-topic or back to the original topic)

I'd like to agree with PONTO on his recomendation. As a player (and a game author, but not a beta tester) it was wonderful to be given the chance to play the raw game unfettered by concern for things like aproachable difficulty and hand-holdy tutorials.

I think Nifflas has grabbed on to a really good idea with the way he has split up the difficulties. The split represents a split in his players. One for "gamers" and one for non-gamers (or new gamers). As a gamer I'm thrilled to be thrown in and expected to sort out the world for myself. I'm sure non-gamers are thrilled to not be thrown into that same world. For them it is too much, and that's fine. We all exist somewhere on the spectrum from never-played-a-game to dedicated-our-lives-to-games.

Do you like the Rolling Stones or Acid Jazz? In games I like Acid Jazz (in music I like the Rolling Stones).

Well done Nifflas. It's a great game!

Yay, someone agrees with me!

I agree, too.

I have finished Alternative mode and haven't tried Normal mode.
I liked the Alternative mode. The challenge was well ballanced and appropriately difficult for me. I wouldn't want the game to teach me how to solve the puzzles (which is what I expect it does in the Normal mode to an extent). It's true that I'm not planning to play the Normal mode (nor replay the Alternative mode). Or is there a reason why I should play (or have played) Normal, other than extending the gameplay time?
I like Nifflas' level design in games he released before Knytt - he knows how to make a solid "video game" challenge.
I found NightSky (in the Alternative mode) too long though. Maybe it's because the setting¹, the minimalistic form and the story² didn't particularly appeal to me. The puzzles and the physics are really good on the other hand.

Normal mode is slightly different than alternative, so you can safely play them in order to get new levels that are similar to those in the alternate mode.

I found NightSky (in the Alternative mode) too long though. Maybe it's because the setting¹, the minimalistic form and the story² didn't particularly appeal to me. The puzzles and the physics are really good on the other hand.

i can understand the story maybe, but if you're a nifflas fan and you don't like the settings and minimalism.. well, that just doesn't make sense to me. i guess you're only in it for the gameplay?

playing alternative mode before playing normal breaks the satisfying difficulty ramp-up that is otherwise present

if you just played one or the other then whatever but if you play both and you play alternative first it's ruined

On the topic, I'd personally recommend doing Normal mode first too, if for nothing else than to get a good hang of it first.

i agree with these posts. i haven't played all the levels in alternative yet (just the ones in the demo), and while it is definitely a more substantial experience, it does get pretty hard, pretty fast. i think normal mode is necessary to get a handle on the physics and the way the ball controls, if nothing else. plus, if you want to play both, you're hardly going to get much out of normal if that's the one you play second.

So, what do you want me to do?
* Take away quality
* Increase the development time
* Don't make the game so long

You're not getting a longer game unless I sacrifice something else instead.

If you allow me to get back to this -  if you have to make such compromises, then I say that you keep things as they are. I'm playing through Saira for some 3rd of 4th time now, just because of how wonderful it is. And I don't think I'll 'free myself' from re-doing it every now and then.
There is so much that you can do with 2D games of the kind that you're making, that I'm confident about the future, if you continue to follow this way