Hacker News Reader

Comment by MattRix | Hacker News Reader

You just have to play Threes for a few hours and it becomes obvious it’s a much more interesting and deep game than 2048. Of all the things that can be debated about this situation, that feels like the biggest stretch of all.

View on HN

I don't mean to "debate" the depth of Threes (having not played it), only to say that it isn't obvious from a description. On the other side of the equation, 2048 is clearly interesting enough to have sold (and, from what I can tell, marketed by word of mouth), and its players would seem to disagree with the Threes author that 2048 is "a broken game". The corner shake might seem like a tedious but powerful strategy; but it doesn't come anywhere close to trivializing the object of the game, and this is a casual time-waster anyway.

2048 might well have won out for its simplicity (although personally I think the audio had a lot to do with it). Screenshots of Threes development (from the page linked in the post I quoted) imply that for quite a while it allowed for making numbers of any 2^x*3^y form, and earlier versions of the game must have tried even more complex rules - even larger prime numbers like 79 show up. Eventually this reduced to only numbers of the form 2^x*3 (as well as 1 and 2). To me that looks like a strange left-over irregularity, even if it does improve gameplay.

(After reading the rest of the thread, I think I regret replying at all.)

> interesting enough to have sold

Hasn't 2048 always been free? When comparing a paid game with a clone that's free (or even "free-to-play with obnoxious ads and lootbox mechanics" not that 2048 is that) the latter will usually become more popular, and that certainly happened here.

I am not sure how I feel about it. I certainly don't believe anyone should be able to legally own an idea like "sliding tile number games based on powers of 2 with or without being multiplied by 3" but I also don't have a lot of respect for those who, lacking an original idea, resort to cloning someone else's creative work (or in 2048's case, I guess, cloning another clone). So I guess I have no problem with them existing, but don't feel any desire to give them accolades or to play their game.

>Hasn't 2048 always been free?

I paid something like $2 CAD in the Nintendo eShop for a 3DS version. (If it's a clone, it hews very close to the original.) I guess I can't be sure it's supposed to work like that.

That was a clone. The creator of 2048 never distributed anything besides the free web version.

https://kotaku.com/clone-of-clone-of-clone-now-on-3ds-eshop-...

Try getting the 32768 tile in 2048. Yes, it can be done somewhat consistently, but it requires a deep and somewhat subtle strategy. Furthermore, the “snake” formation that every player learns at the beginning stops being optimal at a certain point, and thus the late game has much more variety than the early game. I do think that Threes is more complex, but I’m not sure if this complexity is really necessary.

I don’t agree that it is obvious that it is more interesting or deep. I have played a lot of hours of Threes and it is mildly more complex because the tiles only move 1 square at a time, but in my opinion that doesn’t actually make it more interesting or deep.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com