Re:Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game
by gbhn on Friday March 28, 2014 @10:33AM
(#7487482)
Specifically, once you've played puzzles of this sort, it is easy to see that the core of the puzzle is that all the tiles move as far as possible on a move. That threes doesn't do this makes it look like the prototype, no matter how much thought went into it.
Threes then seems more like a combination of this concept and a 15 puzzle.
Re:Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game
by MBCook on Friday March 28, 2014 @04:40PM
(#7489841)
> Specifically, once you've played puzzles of this sort, it is easy to see that the core of the puzzle is that all the tiles move as far as possible on a move
I see. That's now how I play so I wouldn't have thought of that.
> I think of the three of them 1024 stands up the best. It takes the core ideas in Threes and sands them down into a game that is easier to grasp and plays faster, without becoming so simple (a la 2048) that it becomes a game a script can beat.
I've never played 1024. Could you explain how it "sands [the ideas] down" and and "is easier to grasp"? I found Threes simple to grasp, and it sounded to me from reading the essay that 1024 actually had more features. I would expect that would make it slower to learn.
> Mobile games need to be simple and streamlined
This is certainly true. I've found Threes did a pretty good job of this. My only complaint was the 'signing' process at the end which was fixed with the first patch.
> I say all this to help others understand why I would point to this essay as an example of how not to respond to a problem like a barrage of cloners.
I didn't see this post as a "here's why clones suck" thing. I took it as a "here's what it was like for us to make our game". Only the prelude mentions the clones, the rest is just a development log. I'm glad they included that preamble, because I've been curious about their thoughts.
Basically, I didn't see this as a message to customers but a 'here's what game development can be like' post.
> Customers don't give you brownie points for how hard you worked on something. All they care about is how to get the best product for the best price.
Ah, but how they measure "best" matters. I adore Three's presentation and I think the polish they put on it was well worth it. I see it as a sign of the amount of work they put into the whole product. I was happy to plunk down $3.
On the other hand 1024 and 2048 look like prototypes to me. Drawing a few colors of boxes and making them move around the screen isn't hard. If 2048 was the only game to exist, they would have a higher barrier to get me to pay $3 as from screenshots (all you get in the app store) it doesn't look like it's worth it.
As a general note, it was clear a lot of thought and time went into Threes, but I'm amazed they had so many different visual designs and concepts along the way. There are at least 2-3x as many as I would have guessed.
I also kind of liked the argyle idea. That was rather neat.