One of my favorite Puzzlescripts is Farbs' Dungeon Janitor: https://www.puzzlescript.net/play.html?p=6866423, along with his puzzlescript adaptation of Pac-Man: https://www.puzzlescript.net/play.html?p=6847686
Personally, I've been favoring gog.com over Steam as of late; they have a decent amount of DRM-free indie games available. I think anyone can submit their game, although I'm uncertain of their content policy, and I wasn't able to find any information on it after a quick search.
It's also worth noting that the actual Internet Archive  has a large amount of games freely available. It's mostly retro games, but I don't think there's any restrictions against modern games. Of course you'd probably only upload your game there if you were making it freely available, since it's meant as an actual archive.
And itch.io's policy is essentially no hate-speech, which I think is totally reasonable to help harbor a healthy dev community. It's otherwise much, much easier to get your game up on itch.io than Steam or Good Old Games. It's completely free to upload even the earliest prototype of your game, without needing to wait for someone to approve the submission.
We don't "intend to police," our moderation policies have never changed.There's a lot of weird stuff on itch.io that will always have a place. We don't want hate speech on the platform.
It's easy to have a gut reaction of supporting free speech without understanding the implications of what that entails. Many of the people clamoring for free speech on gaming platforms still want games to be removed ('asset flips', things they deem low quality, etc.). With my tweet, people conjured up an idea of a morality police force which is secretly making decisions about things people are allowed to say. That image is easy to attack, but it's not even close to how itch.io works, or will ever work.
The reason why I criticized Steam's stance is because they're trying to avoid responsibility. I'm sure you're familiar with how discourse goes on the internet: people with strong negative opinions are going to put in significantly more energy into spreading their message than an average person who just wants to read around. Their amplified message does not represent everyone as a whole though. Sure Steam can ban 'trolling,' but that's too vague. I have a pretty strong feeling that their 'trolling' ban is going to end up policing the morality of message as well. And, their process is probably going to be even more secretive.
Like I said, I'm not much of a gamer, but your response makes me want to give your platform a try. I think if you're willing to have an open discussion about something for which the outcome might be unknown, things are going well. I certainly wouldn't make any claim to know what the kinds of barriers and limits we should have might be. And I totally understand that it can be very challenging to manage and weight all factors. Realistically, you might get some stuff right and wrong at times. We're only human, after all.
Having been in the tech industry for a few years, my big piece of advice would be to try and be as open as possible. I always find it incredibly frustrating when companies try to cover things up (not accusing you of doing this in the slightest). I think as long as you communicate openly with the community, everyone sensible will see that and be willing to take the time to dig into things.
Here's Sokogoban, a cute recent game made with the engine:
I recommend clicking the "hack" link at the bottom to see the code for the game.
Stephen (the author) knows puzzle games. It is interesting to see his games, and the sophistication he has generated with this simple rule set. Terry Cavanagh (of Super Hexagon and VVVVVV fame) has also done some clever stuff with it.
For someone new to game design, it's a great start. And from there you can graduate to Pico-8!
Previous discussions in 2013  and 2015 .
Beyond things like Puzzlescript he's just madly inventive when it comes to making games and interactive experiences of his own. Stephen's Sausage Roll and Slave of God (https://www.increpare.com/2012/12/slave-of-god/) stand out in particular to me but on the whole he strikes me as a guy who has tons of great idea and the talent to implement them. Only issue is he hasn't the time to devote to take most of them beyond being extremely impressive proofs of concept.
And before you say “it’s a different use case” that was a rethorical question.
I'm sorry. This just isn't succinct. You've immediately lost me. The idea is nice, and perhaps it works well within the realm of puzzle-specific scripting, but there's nothing here for a casual reader to interpret.
Yes, it is literally named "PuzzleScript". Also, if you continued reading, you'd find it is succinctly explained.
> briefly and clearly expressed
Brief, sure, clearly expressed? Absolutely not. There's more to puzzles than moving things around.
[ > Player | Crate ] -> [ > Player | > Crate ]
There doesn't seem to be any.
The syntax is seems to be for moving things. Okay. What if I want something to slide over multiple tile spaces? Where's the syntax for this?
What if I want the item to progressively become more difficult to move, say for instance if I'm moving a snowball. Where's that syntax?
So, in short, an entire syntax has been developed for one feature: movement. And it doesn't do it well. Why would I use this?
First differentiate between the syntax and the tool. This isn't a tool that supports every possible game. It is designed for creating movement-based puzzle games. Though it can support many others, that is its focus. You can certainly stretch it to do Tetris or Threes, but probably not Mario.
If you are involved in game technology, it is a masterclass in supporting a very large (but still restricted) class of games in a very small tool set.
> if I wanted something to turn into a different item
[> Player | Box] -> [Player | Contents]
[Action Player | Box] -> [Player | Contents]
> What if I want something to slide over multiple tile spaces
[ > Player | Crate ] -> [ > Player | > Crate ]
[ > Crate | no Wall ] -> [ | > Crate ]
> if I want the item to progressively become more difficult to move
What does it mean to become more difficult, given that moves are atomic actions? (Back to the restricted domain of this tool.) But, for one possible design, we can do:
[ > Player | LightObject ] -> [ > Player | > LightObject ]
[ > StrongPlayer | LightObject ] -> [ > StrongPlayer | > LightObject ]
[ > StrongPlayer | HeavyObject ] -> [ > StrongPlayer | > HeavyObject ]
The ethos of the system is that to change state, you change object type. This is less restrictive than it sounds, because it is possible to layer objects. But it is still restrictive. And deliberately so.
> it doesn't do it well.
Based on the calibre of people who have used this, including for the rule development and level design for decently successful commercial indie games, it might be worth entertaining the notion that it might just be you. A more constructive and educational alternative might be to try and specify the same sophistication of rules in a more succinct syntax.
[ > Player | Crate ] -> [ > Player | > Rock ]
[ > Player | Crate | ] -> [ > Player | | > Crate ]
You'll have to explain what "more difficult" means to answer that one!
I had a play around with this engine and found it quite fun in itself.
Actually I would hope you are trolling. If not, you definitely need to re-evaluate your choices as this may just be one of many opportunities for fun you are actively ignoring.
Its deterministic, has multiplayer, and frame to frame recreation to the tetris-attack mechanics