I don't understand the peeve people have about mentioning Threes all the time. Does every discussion about a FPS game need to point out it's the same concept as Doom or Quake or whatever? The vitriol in some of the comments here are quite weird to me.
It's also dishonest to label 2048 as a clone. Personally I never cared much for Threes, and same I guess with my parents etc which all got hooked for a while on 2048. 2048 strikes a good balance on being accessible and challenging, most people don't want it more complicated or deeper.
If anything, the 2048 hype must have helped Threes tremendously. Instead, many people act as if 2048 was a slight on Threes somehow, stealing their thunder. I actually bought Threes based on all the comments back then, but didn't really like it. Too cutesy, and too challenging when I just wanted to mindlessly swipe.
Does every discussion about a FPS game need to point out it's the same concept as Doom or Quake or whatever?
It's a fair question, but Doom and Quake were both very famous and successful.
What sticks in my craw a bit with Threes is that the clones came out really fast, and 2048 in particular because much more famous and successful, so Threes never really got the chance to shine as much as it deserved (except when die-hard fans like me keep coming out of the woodwork to hype it, as you say). And I still think Threes has a much better and deeper game design than any of the clones!
If one of the many clones and variants of Wordle had been a runaway success, and the excellent original had been relatively overlooked and forgotten, I'd similarly be promoting Wordle in threads like this.
It's not that I resent the success of 2048 -- to the contrary, the OP did a great job with it and the success is deserved. But I assume that many people who have heard of 2048 have not heard of Threes, and I'd like them to try it, because it's great.
>If one of the many clones and variants of Wordle had been a runaway success, and the excellent original had been relatively overlooked and forgotten, I'd similarly be promoting Wordle in threads like this.
Why? It's not a job, or even a fun hobby, to try and ensure forgotten things get the recognition they deserve.
I'm surprised it's hard to understand! I see it as like recommending a cult movie or book to people -- that's not an unusual thing to do, right? Like when you're talking about time travel movies and there's always that one person who pops up and says "OK, but have you seen Primer? You should see Primer!"
> Does every discussion about a FPS game need to point out it's the same concept as Doom or Quake or whatever?
Well the great differentiator between puzzle games is the idea of the playing mechanism. The great differentiator between FPS is implementation. If I make an FPS, I didn’t really steal from Doom because the idea is pretty obvious. But if I make a sliding game that’s very similar to 2048, you might say I stole the idea. It’s like with patents, subjectively the mechanism of a FPS shouldn’t be patentable to me, but three or 2048 might be.
I think there can be a different line drawn for "what should be patentable or legally protected" and "what should be celebrated as creativity."
A clone of Tetris where the line pieces are 5 blocks tall, for instance, is not notable or creative. But also, I think someone should be legally free to make it if they're not infringing Tetris's trademarks or stealing their code.
>If anything, the 2048 hype must have helped Threes tremendously.
This. I've never heard anyone mention Threes outside of a sub discussion about 2048. For all the people here that claim to love it, it has had very little impact outside of being discussed as being similar to, or a precursor of, 2048.
I agree: even if the descriptions of Threes (never played it) are only half true, they are completely different genres: one is a deep puzzler that aims for the kind of challenge that some absolutely do require to accept a game as entertainment but many others would consider borderline work, the other is a super casual routine builder that derives its quality only from the challenge of balancing full autopilot mode with maintaining a bit of attention. I 'd guess that not only would the latter have failed (silently, not spectacularly) if the author had tried to sell it on some app store instead of just putting it out on the web, the former would just as certainly not have gone viral like 2048 did. I absolutely do share your belief that 2048 (and the resulting discussions) has sold far more Threes than Threes ever did, or rather than Threes would have in a timeline where 2048 never happened.
(PS: and on a more meta level, people like us feeling super clever about "2048 helped Threes!" might be the secret sauce responsible for much of the longevity of the games' shared virality)
It's also dishonest to label 2048 as a clone. Personally I never cared much for Threes, and same I guess with my parents etc which all got hooked for a while on 2048. 2048 strikes a good balance on being accessible and challenging, most people don't want it more complicated or deeper.
If anything, the 2048 hype must have helped Threes tremendously. Instead, many people act as if 2048 was a slight on Threes somehow, stealing their thunder. I actually bought Threes based on all the comments back then, but didn't really like it. Too cutesy, and too challenging when I just wanted to mindlessly swipe.