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

2048, success and me

gabrielecirulli.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 233 posts

Re: 2048, success and me

#221

Post by caolica »

combray wrote: post #173
arandomJohn wrote: post #93

Having played a lot of 2048 and Threes, I have to say that while 2048 is fun, it is a shadow of the game that Threes is. There is a polish and outright joy to Threes that the clones lack. While the games are superficially similar Threes has a depth of play, complexity, and game design that reflects true craftsmanship. They took an idea and put in the hard work to make it the best they could make it. 2048 and other de…

That's funny, I started playing Threes, was addicted to it for a while, and when I found 2048 I never looked back. I find 2048 to be a clearly superior game both in terms of visual clarity and repeat playing. The mechanics of Threes are super annoying, especially the end game swipe when there are no more moves, swipe through the pointless point tallying, click next, etc. etc. etc. The cutesy noises and animations see…

Most of 2048's fanbase enjoys it because it makes them feel smart. It gives them an adrenaline rush as they tap buttons or swipe the screen, watching the numbers combine and become higher and higher. Some say that playing 2048 makes them "feel like a computer", and that Threes does not.

If pushing buttons quickly and watching numbers fly everywhere /and somehow not cause you to lose/ makes you feel like a computer, then Threes absolutely does not make you feel like a computer. You can get pretty far in 2048 just by rapidly pressing two buttons and then adjusting when the board gets messy. That is the entirety of 2048's strategy. I've been playing Threes since its release three months ago, and I still find that my scores are improving as I notice new strategies. Threes has infinitely more depth than 2048, which is what keeps me coming back for more.

The only reasons 2048 is more popular than Threes is that a) it's free, while Threes costs $2, and b) it is EXTREMELY friendly to newcomers. It's absurdly easy to get a 2048, while it actually takes thought to score high in Threes.

So yes, if you're looking for a mindless free time-waster, 2048 is the game for you. If you're looking for a deeper, more polished puzzle game, Threes is superior in every way.

Re: 2048, success and me

#222

Post by paromi »

put a popunder ad on the game page (web), its not that anoying and you can make like 200+$/day with 100k -150k visits /day. let me know if you need help with setting up.

Re: 2048, success and me

#223

Post by kondro »

My suggestion would be if you've enjoyed 2048 in the past and you think Gabriele should be awarded that the least you can do is go and download and review the app to bump it closer to the top of the popular results.

And if you think that you've gotten USD$0.99 of enjoyment from the game now or in the past (like I did), you should pay for the upgrade.

App Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/2048-by-gabriele-cirulli/id8...

Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gabrieleci...

Re: 2048, success and me

#224

Post by bobbles »

caolica wrote: post #221
combray wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny, I started playing Threes, was addicted to it for a while, and when I found 2048 I never looked back. I find 2048 to be a clearly superior game both in terms of visual clarity and repeat playing. The mechanics of Threes are super annoying, especially the end game swipe when there are no more moves, swipe through the pointless point tallying, click next, etc. etc. etc. The cutesy noises and animations see…

Most of 2048's fanbase enjoys it because it makes them feel smart. It gives them an adrenaline rush as they tap buttons or swipe the screen, watching the numbers combine and become higher and higher. Some say that playing 2048 makes them "feel like a computer", and that Threes does not. If pushing buttons quickly and watching numbers fly everywhere /and somehow not cause you to lose/ makes you feel like a computer, t…

meh... Threes has some annoying UI issues. Any time anyone in history has thought "its only one extra click/tap/swipe, who cares" they are wrong. These things add up.

Re: 2048, success and me

#225

Post by genofon »

conanbatt wrote: post #211
genofon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree, I read the letter from three and I've found it really annoying, maybe they wrote that for marketing.. I understand how they can feel but I don't understand how can someone have the courage to say that their game is better.. Million of people choose something else that's a pretty clear sign

They made a game with lots of effort in design, then put a price tag on it to make money off of it. Then someone else clones it makes it free. The pretty clear sign is that free stuff propagates way faster than paid stuff. Which is not a surprise at all.

to me it seems that they are only motivated by bitterness and pride:

1) they assume that people who played 2048 or similar will not use their game. I think they could use 2048 for free advertisement, as they not the same thing, what's wrong about downloading two similar game? expecoially when one of them it's free

2) their game will not have nearly as many users as 2048, it's spread it's due simplicity, ui and design

3) They say their game is better (also) because it's more difficult to play: nonsense, games are not designed to be difficult but to be enjoiable

4) they knew someone will clone them, I think it's a risk to take into consideration

I my opinion 2048 could only have boosted their sales, because it focused the attentions of millions of people with this sort of games. I would like to see the growth of the two compared

Re: 2048, success and me

#226

Post by combray »

caolica wrote: post #221
combray wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny, I started playing Threes, was addicted to it for a while, and when I found 2048 I never looked back. I find 2048 to be a clearly superior game both in terms of visual clarity and repeat playing. The mechanics of Threes are super annoying, especially the end game swipe when there are no more moves, swipe through the pointless point tallying, click next, etc. etc. etc. The cutesy noises and animations see…

Most of 2048's fanbase enjoys it because it makes them feel smart. It gives them an adrenaline rush as they tap buttons or swipe the screen, watching the numbers combine and become higher and higher. Some say that playing 2048 makes them "feel like a computer", and that Threes does not. If pushing buttons quickly and watching numbers fly everywhere /and somehow not cause you to lose/ makes you feel like a computer, t…

I think what you mean by the first sentence is "most of 2048's fan base enjoys it because it's fun".

Your back and forth strategy doesn't work as you get to the higher point levels in 2048 btw. It certainly may get you to 2048, but not really that much further past that. The fact that the ideal strategy changes as you get to 4096 and 8192 is something that makes the game more fun to me.

If you like Three's better that's great, but like I said, I started with Threes, got addicted to it for a while, and then moved on. I got addicted to 2048 for a lot longer than I did Threes. It's not a matter of one being free or more accessible. 2048 is simply more fun, which is another way of saying it's a better game.

Re: 2048, success and me

#227

Post by frogpelt »

tensor wrote: post #190
frogpelt wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When 23 million people are talking about your little weekend project, you have changed the world. Maybe your definition of 'change the world' is too stringent. Squeezable ketchup bottles changed the world too. Instead of being so uptight about how people use the phrase why you don't you start trying to create your own impact?

These days 8 million people talk about a monkey peeing in its mouth on youtube [1]. It doesn't mean the monkey changed the world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DBuk91phkI

Think about it like this: If the creator posted a link on the page for a worthy cause, he has the audience necessary to make a huge difference. Whereas if you were to start from nothing and try to create impact, it would be a major uphill battle.

The hard part is reaching enough people. He has already done that.

Another way to think about it: Richard Sherman is a cornerback for the Seahawks. Is he having an impact? Well, they just signed him to a $58 Million contract. And part of what he does with his money is fund the The Richard Sherman Family Foundation whose goal is to help as many kids as possible have adequate School supplies and clothes.

So does Richard Sherman change the world by intercepting passes and talking trash after playoff games? You bet he does.

People who have the platform to change the world are more likely to, in either a positive or a negative direction.

Re: 2048, success and me

#228

Post by cyphunk »

I appreciate the authors honesty but perhaps it is hard to notice that he (and all of us) will always justify our choices. He chose not to profit and thereby uses the Threesgame authors angst over clones as reason to support that choice as being right. However, if he had made profit I could have written a blog post for him about how Threes benefited from the clones, or various other reasons one would use. The more weight your choices seem to have the easier it will be to find reasons for them after the fact.

Re: 2048, success and me

#230

Post by cben »

atmosx wrote: post #148
pdeuchler wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touché. But don't worry, I've been watching Silicon Valley as well (great show). Please note I'm not saying this was some sort of amazing act of altruism, or that Gabriele has "redefined a paradigm". But the fact remains that millions (probably?) have dedicated a portion of their daily lives to this game, and that, by definition changes things within the world we live in. I don't mean to cause offense, but I happen t…

Sorry but changing the world is a phrase open to interpretation. To me sounds extremely pretentious as I don't have any software developer in that list. When you mention people who change the world I picture Mandela, King, Ghandi and other political leaders who made their lives and the lives of their societies better . A piece of software can not achieve something of similar scale and importance because... There's no…

> I don't have any software developer in that list.

RMS changed the world by an idea that became a movement — but it would go no where it he didn't attach them to some excellent software, practicing the idea throught [cue Ghandi "be the change..."].

Jimmy Wales changed the world, again by idea + software.

Diffie & Hellman changed the world, in a much more fundamental way. The possibility of end-to-end security didn't visibly touch people the way Wikipedia did, yet it put all our lives on a different track. OK, that was scientific discovery, not programming but it's way closer to programming than to political speeches.

Bitcoin changed the world, again idea + software. It's unclear at this moment if a cryptocurrency changes it much — or for better — but the very fact that it's here, without anybody's permission, is novel.

The very ideas that building stuff can change the world — and that giving it away maximizes your impact — are a major change in the world!

[gross simplifications and omissions in all of the above.]

Post reply on HN