2048 is why we can’t have nice things
gamezebo.com
gamezebo.com
First, I purchased Threes only after becoming aware of it because of 2048. I bet there are hundreds of people who can claim the same thing.
Second, if you've spent any time playing both, the term 'clone' does both games a dis-service... its like calling Checkers a 'clone' of Chess because they are both played on the ame type of gameboard. The gameplay between the two games is completely different, and I find I think about each one differently. 2048 (and my favorite variant the hexagon-based 16384) are 'fast twitch' games. Threes is a slow thinker with more strategy. let run down some differences:
- in 2048, the numbers slide all the way in the direction you move. in Threes they only move one space.
- in 2048, a number '2' (or occasionally a number '4') appears in a random position on the board. With Threes, the piece always appears in one of the positions that opens up with your 'slide'.
- in Threes, you get to know (roughly) what piece is coming next, and have an active choice in where it appears... in 2048, you don't.
All of these might seem like subtle changes, but they make a dramatic difference in the mental exercise of the gameplay.
To call these clones makes as much sense to me as calling them all clones of the classic '15-puzzle'.
To add to the differences in game play you listed, I find myself managing the pairing of RED and BLUE tiles in "Threes" more of an objective than matching the numbers because if you don't the game quickly ends.
There's a continuum of changes. If Threes is '1', and 2048 is '2', then 15 puzzle is 9 or 10. There the only commonality is the 4x4 grid and the idea of moving a tile into an empty space.
2048 is one of those gems. I have no idea how it compares to Threes, because I never played the latter. I did hear of it when it was first making the rounds, but couldn't be bothered to try it out. I certainly enjoyed 2048 though.
You're going to have to try a lot harder than this if you want to convince me that one of the gems in the sea of shit that is mobile gaming is actually somehow at fault for that sea.
2048 wasn't a unique new game mechanic, it was a just free clone of the game that invented the mechanic.
The world would be vastly poorer if we limited every game mechanic to a single game that was allowed to express it. Can you imagine shutting down FPS clones after Wolfenstein 3D, or RTS clones after Dune? Despite not doing so, these categories are immensely profitable for game creators.
If Threes is so simple and so easily cloned then I would like to know two things:
1. Why do they deserve to profit from it and nobody else is?
2. How does giving the creators of Threes more money help produce more fun games with simple mechanics that are simple to make and easily cloned?
It is possible to limit boring clones while retaining a vibrant software market.
This is not a question of who deserves what. This is a matter of building a great software market for games, so that we can all play great mobile games at reasonable prices.
I'd also like to know how any restrictions are supposed to work, since 2048 was implemented as an HTML5 game that plays great on mobile.
As for the HTML 5 game, that's a different matter entirely. The Apple App Store is human-curated, so I can reasonably expect curation to promote useful behavior. I cannot demand that from the web.
Regarding the HTML5 game, I don't see how it's a different matter at all. My point is that you can access things beyond the App Store, and when it comes to small, casual games like this, HTML5 is a great platform. In fact, I wasn't even aware that there was a native version of 2048 on the App Store until I read this article. If you can't demand curation from the web, and if the web is a viable competitor in this space, then how can you demand curation in this space?
This creates deeply perverse incentives for mobile development.
Edit: OK downvoters, you need to reply and explain what you think is wrong here. It seems pretty straightforward to me. You can't have it both ways. If the details matter so much that Threes required a year to develop to get everything right, then how did 2048 become so successful when it changes so many details?
Those details seem like exactly the sort of thing you'd spend a long time sweating over if you're going to spend this much time on a game like that.
Even when it comes to the world of AAA FPS titles everything is essentially a high budget clone of previously established paradigms.
The fact of the matter is: Almost everything in gaming is a clone. Yes, once in a while a developer will be able to establish a new genre and that is great. What is even better is other developers following in his footsteps and trying to improve upon the original in terms of mechanics, cost, design, accessibility, etc. in a free competing marketplace of ideas.
The only reason gaming has advanced as far as it has is because developers were never stifled by fearing imitation. Instead, game developers have embraced imitation.
Bold statement that "invested more time" automatically equals "better".
I haven't played Threes yet but from the screen shot in that article, I think 2048 is at least a better-looking game.
I also have a hard time believing that there hasn't been a similar game before Threes. It's not like the gaming industry started yesterday. Such a simple game mechanic is likely to have been implemented before.
That's the problem with simple things. They can get invented more easily by anybody and often independently.
Maybe they spent too much time on it, but this is a thing many game developers do. They place a lot of emphasis on releasing finished products, or at least products that present really well.
"But why is Threes better? It’s better for us, for our goals. 2048 is a broken game. Something we noticed about this kind of system early on (...). We wanted players to be able to play Threes over many months, if not years. We both beat 2048 on our first tries. (...) When an automated script that alternates pressing up and right and left every hundreth time can beat the game, then well, that's broken. Is Threes a better game? We think so. To this day, only about 6 people in the world have ever seen a 6144 and nobody in the world has yet to “beat” Threes. But that’s what’s better to us as game designers. We worked really hard to create a simple game system with interesting complexity that you can play forever. You know, “simple to learn, impossible to master”. That old chess-nut…"
That's fine and all, but why do they expect the market to reward them for that? Do they assume the market will like what they like, and are bitter that the market didn't react how they expected? It doesn't always follow that an expert's opinion matches the marketplace or even the average user's desires.
2048 had easier and faster-paced gameplay, a lower barrier of entry, provided a better distribution model (just pass around the link) and it fostered a vibrant modding community. It seems to me like they are really missing the big picture behind what makes a game successful, if all they can come up with is: "2048 is too easy".
(Also, I was just pointing out that the apparent quote didn't match with the intentions of the authors' blog-post.)
None of those games are exact copies, and even the Three's designers admit these others are "inferior" versions. Are they arguing that you can't make derivative works? If they are, then like I said, I don't support that argument because I do believe that derivative works provide value and should be protected.
But to be honest, I don't think that's the main gist. When reading the article the main point that came across was one of annoyance that the original work was not receiving as much attention as the derivative works. As if the world cared who came first, or that coming first actually provided some intrinsic benefit (as opposed to a situational or contextual benefit).
2048 exploded because anyone could modify it, create a doge version, create an AI version, a multiplayer version, an inverted version ...
And they did. The formula was ridiculously simple, so it was easy to do.
You can't do that with Threes. It's proprietary. You can't take it apart. You can't mess around with it. The only thing you can do with it is play Threes.
My son has 2048 on his Ipod without me mentioning it to him, and he never ever gave one hoot about being able to modify it.
Giving an example is a perfectly valid way to make a point. Circumstantial doesn't mean wrong.
The same can't be said for Three's, because there is greater resistance in spreading it and people trying it out. First, I probably wouldn't have tried Threes. Second, I wouldn't have been able to link it easily to people who might have been partially interested in it. Third, the variants and mods were what kept people coming back.
Bad idea. How do they decide who stays and who goes when it comes to clones? The 'best' game? The first game?
All the console makers have been deciding what can be made for their systems for a long time. I'm sure the process can be quite arbitrary and unfair, but at the very least, it reflects some effort to have a curated library of games.
Personally, I'd prefer to see App Stores that had a much more curated experience (for all categories, not just games) than a "swap meet" type of experience, but that's just me. These days I find the App Stores incredibly painful to use due to the amount of duplicate junk in their inventories.
I find most of my mobile downloads and purchases these days come from recommendations by sites I trust.
Consoles have traditionally had a large barrier to entry. You couldn't just buy a MacBook and a $99 developer account and make NES or PlayStation games. Having an SDK that costs $25,000 in combination with an approval process to even consider you eligible to buy it is a big filter.
This is a lot of bullshit. They're obviously different games, credit was given where credit was due. 2048 helped, not hindered Threes. I've even passed Threes around my friends, they love it.
I like it less now.
I don't really sympathize with the maker of three's. In the business world, one of the key metrics for determining the lasting value of a business are the barriers to entry in that market. If you make a video game for a smartphone, you must realize that you are entering a wildly-competitive marketplace with few-to-zero barriers to entry, at least monetarily.
I guess I can understand the frustration of the makers of threes when seeing clones being played instead of theirs but if it is so easy for other programmers to make successful clones, the game that they produced couldn't have been that special. Otherwise people would still be playing it.
Edit: Please note that it is in the very nature of a game (being it a mobile game or a board game) to have quite simple mechanics and a limited set of rules, in a sense of "simple to learn, impossible to master" (as mentioned by the authors of Threes!). So it's in the very essence of a good game to allow copies with an effort that is in no relation with the effort that has to be invested to come up with the rules and mechanics in the first place.
What scares me about this sort of program is the possibility of a similar barrier on applications. An app market with only one word processor would be terrible, but a market with only one flappy bird is probably better than a market with two.
Care to back up that assertion? It may be better for the original author, but it's hard to see how it would benefit the community.
Does anyone actually want to browse 200 variants on flappy bird, or "threes," or candy crush?
Does the existence of Modern Warfare 2 mean we don't want Spec Ops: The Line?
Games can be very similar to previous ones but still offer a new experience.
Realistically, a concept alone is not sufficient.
I bought Threes, then moved to 2048 because while Threes had components like cute tiles, fun voices, and features like showing the next tile, it was still simply easier/quicker to open a new tab and play from there.
Not sure what a good equivalent for the App Store would be today. This is, honestly, what the "Editor's Choice" sections are for.
Every (legally sold) Nintendo game had the seal. That didn't stop developers from flooding the market with really, really bad games like X-Men and Heroes of the Lance.
Granted, this didn't stop publishers from releasing really terrible NES games like Action52 (of Cheetahmen fame), but of course those were not licensed by Nintendo and did not have the seal of quality. Most of those games were QBASIC-level bad.
Look at Chutes and Ladders. Stunning dumb game mechanic, but the graphics are an asset that makes the game into an asset.
The video game medium doesn't allow one to compete on game mechanics alone.
Selling mobile games based on compelling assets is a touch more difficult. (And that goes double for puzzles)
Isn't this a bad road to travel down? People are saying 2048 is better, but the authors are rejecting them only because they spent a year and a half on the project?
Maybe that's an indicator why 2048 was more popular.
If you've "had enough" you should (i) get a PlayStation Vita, (ii) get Killzone Mercenary, (iii) play it through, (iv) get a dev kit.
It's time to "think different"
That said, I couldn't buy Threes even if I wanted to, because I don't have an iPhone.
a. You might get imitated if you are successful
b. The imitation might get more successful than you
If you were to look at the top 50 posts on HN in the last month, I bet 10 are variations of that game. Which is pretty remarkable and no one is talking about.
Threes was surely itself modeled after other games (mahjong comes to mind, though i'm sure there are better examples). To claim that 2048 is merely a 'clone' ignores the ways in which 2048 is different (some would say better) and it also propagates a damaging myth of creation/innovation.
Game designs are open by default. They have to be, in order for players to understand them well enough to enjoy them. A quality game design will always look obvious. If it's not simple and obvious, you won't enjoy the game!
The seeds of a game's destruction (easy cloning) are planted inside it from its inception (an understandable and compelling gameplay concept)
This is a universal truth, including cult movies who are indeed a copy of older (sometimes not so famous) movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaA8DMVOYhg
2048 managed to execute its marketing better, spreading through HackerNews and Reddit.
It's actually not clear to me that 2048 has more revenue than Threes come to think of it. 2048 has more players, but Threes gets $1.99 per player, which I doubt 2048 matches. Perhaps Threes is successfully using the following marketing strategy: make a paid game, get extra attention via a free clone, then write an essay reminding people that your paid original still exists and is the source of these clones, and use that publicity to drive sales of the original.
What made 2048 go viral was that it was open-source, so people could modify it or write AI or analyze it, and that it's really simple. The interface is spartan, to its benefit. At each turn, there are only 4 options. The rich, 40-hour J-RPGs of the '90s and new German-style board games just aren't going to come about in the mobile space.
The Gresham's Law factors in game virality used to piss me off (ask a Googler who was there in 2011) but I'm sort of resigned on that issue, at least at this point. You occasionally get a casual gem like Angry Birds or Threes or 2048. That's about the best that space can do. And that's OK. To its credit, 2048 probably brought exposure and more users to Threes, once people got bored with the simpler, free game.