Code Romantic

The game is very beginner friendly. If you can recognize patterns and compare with the first example they give you, you can get by without reading much, I think. Mina is a little hard for me to like because she leans so hard in her unsubstantiated unlikability (awkward, last-chosen, downer) when everyone constantly corrects her self-talk. But thankfully there are enough cast members to look forward to, including Leon (is it really spoilers if I say Leon is in this?) Also the pacing is very nice, moving the plot forward

A história é bem Malhação com toques de introdução à programação na linguagem C. É muito legal para quem é adolescente no meio para o final do Ensino Médio. Para mim foi bem bobinho, mas ainda acho que vale a pena pra quem gosta de VN e tem interesse na área de programação (mas não tem nenhuma ou pouca noção).

C#做题模拟器

I did not enjoy the puzzles.

Super fun coding game! I have some experiences in coding before and there were a few that are tricky. If you don't have any, that okay! you can definitely learn the basic concept of C. Beside that I really like the storyline and the romance between the two main characters

Cute boys, some programming and riddles, 100% quality time

The visual novel is quite charming and oddly delightful, despite taking place during an AI apocalypse and involving a lot of trauma. The art and animation style is simple but cute. The characters are interesting and well-rounded. The romance is realistic and adorable. For that reason, it's really worth getting just as a visual novel. This is why I recommend it. It's mostly a kinetic novel, in that there are very few real choices; there are right or wrong answers to the puzzles, and that's about it. In chapter 13, [spoiler]Leon said he'd strip for me, but didn't;[/spoiler] I was disappointed. The coding puzzles are very easy, the sort of thing you can do even if you have never coded before. It could be a good introduction to coding, but as someone with some coding experience, I found it boring. Honestly at times it accurately captures the tedium of checking all your parentheses and semicolons... but is that really what we wanted out of a game? More importantly, there is a very significant error in chapter 12, on big-O complexity: the game characterizes O(n^2) as exponential time. No, it's [i]polynomial[/i] time. (Specifically quadratic, which is a subset of polynomial.) [i]Exponential[/i] time would be O(2^n). These are fundamentally different. The game uses the word "exponential" to describe O(n^2) in at least two places, so it's not just a typo; the author clearly did not understand the difference between polynomial and exponential. Polynomial time is usually tractable; exponential time usually isn't. (Consider n=100: 100^2 = 10,000, while 2^100 = 1.267e30.) There's literally a million-dollar prize for anyone who can prove whether it's possible to solve certain problems (e.g. SAT) in polynomial time, which are already known to be solvable in exponential time. So anyone who didn't already know about complexity theory would be learning something [b]very wrong[/b] from this game. That error needs to be fixed.