Quite a coincidence that I see this tonight. I was on the bus today and noticed someone playing a game on their phone, something simple where you have to trace over a pattern as closely as you can. It was frustrating to watch because every time the user wanted to repeat a level or move on to the next, they were forced to tap through a couple of intermediary screens with flashy stats that took up as much time to get through as playing a level. Contrast that to this game where starting over takes me 0.0 seconds. You jump right back into gameplay, forgetting all the frustration that came with messing up on your previous attempt. More games should take note.
It's a very valid point, but you can't fit everything at once, on the same screen. Current and high score, goals, etc. They add to user experience and satisfaction.
For some users, for some games. In many casual games, a "zero-delay" option would be a nice feature, and a nice bonus for a "remove ads" in-app purchase.
I was thinking the same thing after I failed the first time. Most people might not think of this sort of thing because 'hey, the interstitial shows you important information and it only takes a second', but the ability to just continue immediately after messing up makes the game tremendously more enjoyable.
This is the exponential function, 2^x. Where the independent variable is the number of walls jumped. For instance, after 30 jumps, your score/tile reads 1073741824, or 2^30.
Or it's the logarithmic function lg(x), where the independent variable is the score and the dependent variable is roughly proportional to the number of times you've clicked.
Well yes, logbase2(x), where x is your score, does equal the number of wall jumps. But that doesn't account for how the game is laid out. Your score is a result of the number of jumps you've made. The number of jumps you've made is not the result of your score. Therefore, despite these two functions being the inversely related, the correct relationship is 2^x. That is just my opinion though.
Sure, score = 2^walls iff log_2(score) = walls. So, being equivalent statements, one alone can not be correct.
However, as you said, one choice of describing the relationship is certainly more natural. The exponential description assigns a score to every natural number. While the logarithmic description does not.
I would interpret correct in the way that it is sometimes said, "the correct way to think about X is..." which doesn't say other ways of thinking are wrong, but limited or not illuminating.
Also, it seems that at a certain point length, the two score boxes will shift to being on top of one another instead of side by side[1], which moves the whole playfield's place in the window. Adds a bit of an added challenge!
Cool. I'm on a MBP with 1280x800 resolution and tapping up on the keyboard moves the page to the top, which cuts off the bottom of the game board. A little annoying :(
I literally just made the display code use Math.pow(2) on everything, after discovering that changing the internal score by doubling instead of incremental would increase the speed exponentially with each hop, rendering it unplayable.
I'm glad I can just see these replies so I can actually not have to play, and not have to sit here wondering what happens if your score goes high enough.
I suspect you know this, but either way: you should initialize your arrays in R to the proper length-- dynamically growing them within a for-loop as you do with values, func and results in optimxWrapper is extremely slow in R, as it creates a new array every loop, copying the old one.
Is it just me or do the arrows not lock to the game and push the scrollbar up, making you not see the whole game? The previous game had the same problem.
I guess things like this can't be avoided. anyway, great idea, but I think you can add features that let's the flying tile hit numbered tile that can get the score higher. just suggesting. or not.
This was clearly developed on a very large monitor ... because when I press the up arrow, it scroll the document up and I can't see the bottom of the board.
Cool. This version is more challenging since it's hard to remember the ordering of images. Also, I had to cheat to see the "final" image, the derp. That was a motivation, too: I wanted to see what the next image would be!
Quite a coincidence that I see this tonight. I was on the bus today and noticed someone playing a game on their phone, something simple where you have to trace over a pattern as closely as you can. It was frustrating to watch because every time the user wanted to repeat a level or move on to the next, they were forced to tap through a couple of intermediary screens with flashy stats that took up as much time to get through as playing a level. Contrast that to this game where starting over takes me 0.0 seconds. You jump right back into gameplay, forgetting all the frustration that came with messing up on your previous attempt. More games should take note.
Including the original flappy bird. Drove me nuts.
A lot of games use the delay to cause frustration on purpose. Kinda like the old arcade games that didn't have continues.
Ah, but then when will you show users ads, or prompt them to buy 20 gems?
It's a very valid point, but you can't fit everything at once, on the same screen. Current and high score, goals, etc. They add to user experience and satisfaction.
For some users, for some games. In many casual games, a "zero-delay" option would be a nice feature, and a nice bonus for a "remove ads" in-app purchase.
I was thinking the same thing after I failed the first time. Most people might not think of this sort of thing because 'hey, the interstitial shows you important information and it only takes a second', but the ability to just continue immediately after messing up makes the game tremendously more enjoyable.
I would describe this as multiplicative rather than logarithmic. 2×2×2×2...
Or maybe exponential if you consider your score to be 2^(number of walls you've jumped).
I don't get logarithmic, though.
I think the term is "geometric"
Geometric is the same as exponential. It is just a geometric interpretation instead of algebraic.
Pedantically,
for
and nonzero constant k is a non-constant geometric sequence that doesn't exhibit exponential behavior.
After around 4096 it starts tapering off, hence logarithmic.
This is the exponential function, 2^x. Where the independent variable is the number of walls jumped. For instance, after 30 jumps, your score/tile reads 1073741824, or 2^30.
Or it's the logarithmic function lg(x), where the independent variable is the score and the dependent variable is roughly proportional to the number of times you've clicked.
Well yes, logbase2(x), where x is your score, does equal the number of wall jumps. But that doesn't account for how the game is laid out. Your score is a result of the number of jumps you've made. The number of jumps you've made is not the result of your score. Therefore, despite these two functions being the inversely related, the correct relationship is 2^x. That is just my opinion though.
I agree "exponential" would have been a more natural choice.
"Therefore, despite these two functions being the inversely related, the correct relationship is 2^x."
There is no "correct relationship", there is a relationship that (depending on choice of variables) we can describe as y=2^x or y=lg(x).
Sure, score = 2^walls iff log_2(score) = walls. So, being equivalent statements, one alone can not be correct.
However, as you said, one choice of describing the relationship is certainly more natural. The exponential description assigns a score to every natural number. While the logarithmic description does not.
I would interpret correct in the way that it is sometimes said, "the correct way to think about X is..." which doesn't say other ways of thinking are wrong, but limited or not illuminating.
I chose the name without any thought, really.
An early version of the code did use log2() on the score internally, but now it does pow(2) externally.
It is a bit odd when the numbers go into scientific notation. :)
http://i.imgur.com/Q2qHoSs.png
Also, it seems that at a certain point length, the two score boxes will shift to being on top of one another instead of side by side[1], which moves the whole playfield's place in the window. Adds a bit of an added challenge!
[1] http://i.imgur.com/BW6RV2e.png
Cool. I'm on a MBP with 1280x800 resolution and tapping up on the keyboard moves the page to the top, which cuts off the bottom of the game board. A little annoying :(
You can press any key ;)
Where can I find the any-key?
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=any+key
it's right next to some key
no no next to that key
all i see is catarl, pig-up, and esc
I just used one of those little water-bird things to play the game and won!
just order a tab
Inspired by this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7431180
I literally just made the display code use Math.pow(2) on everything, after discovering that changing the internal score by doubling instead of incremental would increase the speed exponentially with each hop, rendering it unplayable.
Welp. http://cl.ly/image/13370z0l053H
Score thread? Score thread. http://i.imgur.com/aOf0Dxz.png
woot woot http://i.imgur.com/MTNHbct.png
I'm glad I can just see these replies so I can actually not have to play, and not have to sit here wondering what happens if your score goes high enough.
I suspect you know this, but either way: you should initialize your arrays in R to the proper length-- dynamically growing them within a for-loop as you do with values, func and results in optimxWrapper is extremely slow in R, as it creates a new array every loop, copying the old one.
I feel like I'm failing at R if I'm using a for loop typically.
The for loop is a dirty hack to deal with a bug I didn't want to invest time in for one-off code. I wish I had cropped this out of the screenshot...
Nice. I thought I was the only one using end-of-line semicolons in R! Don't listen to the haters/purists that tell you against them.
Note though you missed the first two statements of 'somaWrapper' and in the return statement of 'optimxWrapper'.
Haha, I got a nice overflow when the score reached 68719476736.
I got to 576460752303423500 without a problem.
http://i.imgur.com/WBdl0Qt.png
Is it just me or do the arrows not lock to the game and push the scrollbar up, making you not see the whole game? The previous game had the same problem.
Alright, now I understand the appeal of flappy bird.
Can someone compile a list of all the versions of 2048 that have come out in the past several days? I have an addiction.
There's some noise, but I think http://www.reddit.com/r/2048/ is the go-to place.
I'll do that once there are 2048 versions of them.
http://phenomist.wordpress.com/2048-variants/
I guess things like this can't be avoided. anyway, great idea, but I think you can add features that let's the flying tile hit numbered tile that can get the score higher. just suggesting. or not.
Haha, this is surprisingly easier to get to 2048 than the original 2048.
Only spent 5 seconds playing, but this is brilliant. Well done :)
Zero regrets. http://i.gyazo.com/6dbade70edecb79824bc1ebb70cc7e2d.png
This was clearly developed on a very large monitor ... because when I press the up arrow, it scroll the document up and I can't see the bottom of the board.
I got 8096 btw!
and the rest of us [1366X768] are left behind
i can't believe you got 8096, i got like 8
edit: a new high, 16
Got to e+99, now what. Shouldn't it just end at 2048?
I'm sorry, isn't this just flappy bird?
http://i.imgur.com/Hi5CQf6.gif
Awaiting Doge and Dr. Who versions.
50% complete: http://doge2048.com/
I'm too slow to read the pop ups when combining doges. Still looks great otherwise!
That was far more amusing that I thought it would be. I'm not entirely sure why, but just I can't stop laughing at all the doge faces staring at me...
Cool. This version is more challenging since it's hard to remember the ordering of images. Also, I had to cheat to see the "final" image, the derp. That was a motivation, too: I wanted to see what the next image would be!
Only issue is when you press up it scrolls all the way up during the game and it gets cut off.
This is actually significantly better than Flappy Bird because it has ACCURATE hit detection.
Why do you think the hit decetion is off in Flappy Bird? I think it's very accurate and fair and that that's one of the reasons it became such a hit.
>9000.
OK, I LOLed this time.