Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

asherv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–218 of 218 posts

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#211

Post by __david__ »

anon4 wrote: post #204
alagappanr wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the web version is ad-free. The iOS version has ads. Its longevity I believe will be greater compared to the Threes game. What makes you think otherwise - that Threes will stay on the top for longer than 2048?

2048 is Solitaire. It's exactly the same kind of game - the algorithm to beating it is dead simple and you win or lose by the whim of the RNG. As per the words of a person who plays Solitaire every day: "I don't play it because it's challenging, I play it because I need to play with something that requires no thinking for a while". Also, I don't have an iDevice or a desire to pay for a simple puzzle game, so I have n…

> 2048 is Solitaire. It's exactly the same kind of game - the algorithm to beating it is dead simple and you win or lose by the whim of the RNG.

You're probably thinking of Klondike or Freecell. Neither of those require much thought and both (Klondike more than Freecell) are quite at the whim of the RNG.

But there are many Solitaires that are almost always winnable and require thinking and not rote algorithms. Try Spider Solitaire [1]. It's almost always winnable, but it will take you 20 to 30 minutes if you're good, and 40 minutes if you are not. I also quite like Sea Haven Towers [2]—it's like freecell, but the rules make it a little tougher. It requires some nice lateral thinking at times.

In those games the RNG only decides the difficulty of the game, not whether or not it's beatable (obviously occasionally it isn't, but it's very rare for both of those games).

[1] http://greenfelt.net/spider

[2] http://greenfelt.net/sht

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#212

Post by [deleted] »

moron4hire wrote: post #35
Gracana wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody cares how hard you had to work to get from idea to product. That was my initial reaction to that statement as well, but upon reading on I realized that's not the point they're trying to make. They're not saying "respect our efforts," they're saying "we spent a year on designing this to be challenging and replayable," and they go on to provide evidence for their claims of superiority.

If the game were very superior to the clones, they wouldn't have to explain why. Games are like jokes, in that way.

[deleted]

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#213

Post by epo »

moron4hire wrote: post #158
vacri wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really true. There are tons of games out there that capture the imagination better than other clones, but have shallower gameplay. The initial 'demo' period might be fun, but it doesn't mean the game will last. The thing with 2048 is a bit different though. It wasn't just a game craze, it was people playing with algorithms. Making a funny/curious clone of the game had become the game for some.

Oh, I agree completely. Your last paragraph is exactly why this letter from the people who made Threes sound so particularly whiney. They have forgotten that they don't get to tell people how to enjoy themselves. Any parent who has watched their kids play with the cardboard box more than the toys that came in it will tell you that. I don't think we can know why 2048 became so popular and Threes fell in its own shadow…

This is complete rubbish. 2048 succeeded because it was a blatant 2nd generation copy of the threes gameplay and concept (albeit a poor long term game). It would not have attracted any attention had threes not been so hot. Its principal advantage over threes was being free.

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#214

Post by girvo »

epo wrote: post #213
moron4hire wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I agree completely. Your last paragraph is exactly why this letter from the people who made Threes sound so particularly whiney. They have forgotten that they don't get to tell people how to enjoy themselves. Any parent who has watched their kids play with the cardboard box more than the toys that came in it will tell you that. I don't think we can know why 2048 became so popular and Threes fell in its own shadow…

This is complete rubbish. 2048 succeeded because it was a blatant 2nd generation copy of the threes gameplay and concept (albeit a poor long term game). It would not have attracted any attention had threes not been so hot. Its principal advantage over threes was being free.

Bullshit. Otherwise 1024 would've taken off. Not 2048.

See how easy it is to shoot down someone's opinion and state your own?

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#215

Post by ajpiano »

I think it's worth noting the timing of this post, which is that it came out a day after this article on the LA Times tech blog: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-2048-hit...

The article, without even so much as mentioning Threes, credited Cirulli with designing 2048 over a weekend, which rather blatantly missed the point that it was only possible to put together 2048 in a weekend in a world where Threes and then 1024 already existed. The article has since been corrected/updated, but I saw Asher tweet about it, and I imagine that their choice to put together this essay is meant to provide a comprehensive counterpoint to that school of thought.

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#217

Post by [deleted] »

__david__ wrote: post #211
anon4 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2048 is Solitaire. It's exactly the same kind of game - the algorithm to beating it is dead simple and you win or lose by the whim of the RNG. As per the words of a person who plays Solitaire every day: "I don't play it because it's challenging, I play it because I need to play with something that requires no thinking for a while". Also, I don't have an iDevice or a desire to pay for a simple puzzle game, so I have n…

> 2048 is Solitaire. It's exactly the same kind of game - the algorithm to beating it is dead simple and you win or lose by the whim of the RNG. You're probably thinking of Klondike or Freecell. Neither of those require much thought and both (Klondike more than Freecell) are quite at the whim of the RNG. But there are many Solitaires that are almost always winnable and require thinking and not rote algorithms. Try Sp…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN