33 ms·

To expand on what neotek said, none of this makes Three's a better game. All they are advocating is that it's a harder game that's so far been impossible to bea

by ebrenes 13y ago

To expand on what neotek said, none of this makes Three's a better game. All they are advocating is that it's a harder game that's so far been impossible to beat, and that they've tailored it to fit their tastes as game designers. 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".

masswerk 13y ago
What you are missing, if we're following the arguments of the initial article, is, why there's 1024, 2048, etc, at all. If "free" is the better distribution model, and that's it, will there be any more 1024, 2048, etc? (Also, I was just pointing out that the apparent quote didn't match with the intentions of the authors' blog-post.)
- ebrenes 13y ago
  I don't mean to be flippant, but so what, if 1024, 2048, etc... were inspired on Threes? 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).

by ebrenes 13y ago

masswerk 13y ago

What you are missing, if we're following the arguments of the initial article, is, why there's 1024, 2048, etc, at all. If "free" is the better distribution model, and that's it, will there be any more 1024, 2048, etc? (Also, I was just pointing out that the apparent quote didn't match with the intentions of the authors' blog-post.)

ebrenes 13y ago
I don't mean to be flippant, but so what, if 1024, 2048, etc... were inspired on Threes? 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).