Skyline Jump And Uphill: Describe Games ✓ Solved

Sample 1: Skyline Jump and Sample 2: Uphill. Describe games.

Design two sample video games that demonstrate the use of mathematical functions to control movement and game mechanics.

For Sample 1: Skyline Jump, explain how the player character runs automatically across rooftops and uses mathematical functions to perform jumps between buildings. Specify how y = x^2 and y = sqrt(x) (or y = x^(-2) as indicated) are used for downward and upward jumps respectively, where x is the horizontal distance from the last click and y is the vertical displacement. Describe controls (right click to jump up, left click to jump down), termination conditions (landing on rooftops or hitting walls = game over), random generation of building heights with constraints to ensure feasible jumps, difficulty levels with increased running speed, and any other mechanics necessary to make the concept precise and implementable.

For Sample 2: Uphill, explain how tapping controls a car's forward movement with speed proportional to tap frequency (speed = k frequency) and how speed decays exponentially when tapping stops (speed = original_speed e^(−time)). Describe the hill profile following y = x^2, collision hazards (birds), win condition (highest height wins), and design considerations for pacing, input responsiveness, and balancing risk/reward.

Produce a single unified write-up that: (1) clearly explains the mathematical functions used and their mapping to in-game quantities, (2) outlines algorithms or pseudo-code for how jumps, movement, and random generation would be computed each frame, (3) specifies constraints to ensure physical feasibility and fair difficulty scaling, and (4) discusses how to test and tune parameters for playability.

Paper For Above Instructions

Overview

This document describes two game prototypes that explicitly map elementary mathematical functions to in-game mechanics: Skyline Jump (Sample 1) and Uphill (Sample 2). For each game I explain the function-to-mechanic mapping, provide per-frame algorithms/pseudocode, define feasibility constraints and difficulty scaling, and outline testing/tuning strategies to achieve playable, engaging behaviors.

Sample 1 — Skyline Jump: Function mapping and controls

Core mechanics: the character runs automatically at fixed horizontal speed v_run (varies with difficulty). The player performs two types of jumps: an upward jump triggered by right click and modeled by a concave rising curve (y = sqrt(x) as stated) and a downward jump triggered by left click modeled by a convex falling curve (y = x^2). Here x denotes horizontal displacement since the last click; y denotes vertical displacement relative to the click anchor. A successful jump ends when the character first intersects a rooftop surface; contact with a vertical wall results in collision and game over.

Interpretation and recommended adjustment: using y = x^2 for downward motion produces steep vertical drop with small horizontal distances; y = sqrt(x) produces diminishing vertical gains with increasing horizontal distance. In gameplay terms, treat these as parametric profiles mapping horizontal travel Δx to vertical offset Δy. The game enforces that the target rooftop height and horizontal gap place the landing point on a rooftop rather than a wall. To ensure physical plausibility, clamp and scale functions with coefficients:

y_down = a_down (x)^2 and y_up = a_up sqrt(x), where a_down, a_up > 0 are tunable scale factors. This keeps jump heights and depths in playable ranges and decouples raw mathematical growth from screen-space units (pixels/meters).

Pseudocode: per-frame update (Skyline Jump)

each frame:


x += v_run * dt   // horizontal displacement since last click


if jumping:


if jump_type == UP:


y = anchor_y + a_up * sqrt(x)


else if jump_type == DOWN:


y = anchor_y - a_down * x^2


check collision:


if intersects_rooftop_at(x_global, y_global):


land on rooftop -> adjust position, jumping=false


else if intersects_vertical_wall:


game_over


else:


y = rooftop_height_at(x_global)

Procedural generation and feasibility constraints (Skyline Jump)

Generate sequence of building heights H[i] with randomness but constrained by jump envelope to guarantee occasional solvable gaps. For each consecutive building pair (H[i], H[i+1]) define horizontal gap G[i] and ensure there exists x_land in [0, G[i]] such that the parametric jump yields landing height within rooftop bounds:

anchor_y + sign * f(x_land) ∈ [H[i+1] - tolerance_top, H[i+1] + tolerance_bottom]

Enforce constraints during generation: maximum vertical difference ΔH_max = max feasible output of y_up or y_down over allowable horizontal gaps, and limit G and ΔH to these bounds. Increase v_run with difficulty levels (v_run ∈ {base, base1.25, base1.5,...}) and proportionally adjust a_up and a_down or permissible gap sizes to maintain challenge without impossible jumps (procedural content generation best practices) (Shaker et al., 2016).

Sample 2 — Uphill: Function mapping and controls

Core mechanics: tapping determines propulsion. Speed is proportional to tap frequency f (taps/sec) so speed = k f while taps continue. When tapping halts, speed decays exponentially: speed(t) = speed_0 e^(−λ t) where λ = 1 in the baseline specification or adjustable to tune decay rate. The track vertical profile is a hill described by y = x^2 (a parabola). Colliding with birds while airborne or careening into obstacles produces a fall and loss. The objective is maximum vertical height reached.

Pseudocode: per-frame update (Uphill)

track tap timestamps -> compute f (e.g., last N taps / window)


if tapping:


speed = k * f


last_tap_time = now


else:


dt_since_tap = now - last_tap_time


speed = speed_at_stop  exp(-lambda  dt_since_tap)


x += speed * dt


y = hill_height_at(x) = a_hill * x^2


check collisions with birds at (x, y)


if collision:


trigger_fall -> end run

Balancing, scaling, and playability

Parameter tuning: choose k, λ, a_up, a_down, and v_run so that required tap frequency and click timing are reachable by human players and provide meaningful skill differentiation (Schell, 2014). Use automated simulations to sample distributions of player inputs and measure achievable heights or jump success rates. Use playtesting iterations to adjust tolerance windows and scale factors (Gamasutra resources on balancing; see references).

Difficulty ramping: scale v_run and λ across levels to increase pace and required tap frequency. Procedural generation must include 'solvable seed' checks that simulate a reasonable expert player model to avoid impossible sequences (Shaker et al., 2016).

Testing and tuning strategy

1) Unit test physics and collision modules using fixed scenarios and edge cases (Ericson, 2004). 2) Automated Monte Carlo play simulations with varied input noise profiles to estimate success/fail distributions across parameter sets. 3) Closed playtests to observe human timing errors and perceived fairness; iterate on a_up/a_down and λ to align challenge with intended skill curve (Schell, 2014). 4) Use telemetry in deployed builds to capture failure points and adjust procedural generator constraints to minimize unavoidable losses (industry best practice; Unity docs).

Conclusion

Mapping simple mathematical functions to game mechanics produces predictable, tunable behaviors. In Skyline Jump, quadratic and square-root mappings create distinct jump profiles that can be scaled and clamped to ensure feasibility; procedural generation with explicit feasibility checks avoids impossible gaps. In Uphill, linear tap-frequency mapping combined with exponential decay yields a responsive, easy-to-parameterize control system that promotes rhythmic input and strategic tapping. Across both prototypes, algorithmic checks, parameter tuning, automated simulation, and human playtesting form a workflow to reach balanced, fun gameplay (Shaker et al., 2016; Schell, 2014; Ericson, 2004).

References

  • Millington, I. (2019). Game Physics Engine Development (3rd ed.). CRC Press. (Millington, 2019)
  • Ericson, C. (2004). Real-Time Collision Detection. Morgan Kaufmann. (Ericson, 2004)
  • Shaker, N., Togelius, J., & Nelson, M. J. (2016). Procedural Content Generation in Games. Springer. (Shaker et al., 2016)
  • Schell, J. (2014). The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses (2nd ed.). CRC Press. (Schell, 2014)
  • Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press. (Salen & Zimmerman, 2003)
  • Millington, I., & Funge, J. (2009). Artificial Intelligence for Games (2nd ed.). CRC Press. (Millington & Funge, 2009)
  • Unity Technologies. Unity Manual: Physics. https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/PhysicsSection.html (Unity Docs)
  • Khan Academy. Quadratic functions and graphs. https://www.khanacademy.org/math/algebra/quadratics (Khan Academy)
  • Gamasutra. Articles on game balancing and playtesting (various authors). https://www.gamasutra.com (Gamasutra)
  • Swink, S. (2009). Game Feel: A Game Designer's Guide to Virtual Sensation. CRC Press. (Swink, 2009)

Related Assignments