> When an automated script that alternates pressing up and right and left every hundreth (sic) time can beat the game, then well, that's broken. Is Threes a bet

> When an automated script that alternates pressing up and right and left every hundreth (sic) 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. To me, it seems the argument of the linked article basically boils down to: their game is too easy so it's bad. Does a game need a really long email chain of back and forth to show that it was well-designed?