Moebius, I Love You
December 22, 2004 12:22 PM   Subscribe

Moebius, I Love You. Even if you will only let me get 384 points playing your game.
posted by jonah (52 comments total)

 
holy crap..that game is tuff
posted by Cory at 12:24 PM on December 22, 2004


Wow. That's hard. There goes any productivity on my end today.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:30 PM on December 22, 2004


Yes, it's tough love. I find myself in a frenzy as time winds down at the end.
posted by jonah at 12:30 PM on December 22, 2004


eh? i just scored zero. what am i supposed to be doing?
posted by andrew cooke at 12:31 PM on December 22, 2004


ah the "?" has instructions! hint: the aim isn't to make a strip as long as possible....
posted by andrew cooke at 12:32 PM on December 22, 2004


Click the pieces to rotate them. The goal is to form loops, or Moebius strips. When you form a loop, the pieces disappear and you get points. Collect enough points and turn them in for stuff! (not really)
posted by jonah at 12:33 PM on December 22, 2004


I scored 92. I'm still trying to create patterns that I want; not find the patterns that are already there.
posted by devbrain at 12:38 PM on December 22, 2004


I find that it helps to line up pieces as they are placed on the board, then tweak them as opportunities arise.
posted by jonah at 12:42 PM on December 22, 2004


speaking of Moebius: Miyazaki-Moebius in Paris
posted by matteo at 12:44 PM on December 22, 2004


wow, i screwed up about eight hundred times thinking that I could right-click and make it turn the other way and instead bringing up the stupid gray menu thing.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:46 PM on December 22, 2004


Just got 93. Perhaps if the pieces were all pre-laid at the start of the game, then you had a given amount of time to find patterns it would be more rewarding. As it is, it's just annoying (and the developer knows it).
posted by lowlife at 12:47 PM on December 22, 2004


70. There should be rules against a game like this.
posted by metaculpa at 12:49 PM on December 22, 2004


The cardinal rule of games is that they have to be fun. Not (just) interesting, not (just) challenging -- fun.

This is annoying. And the "sucks!" message when you don't do well makes me want to slap the developer.
posted by Epenthesis at 1:08 PM on December 22, 2004


Oh, get stuffed. This is more fun than most of the flash games posted here, combined.
posted by azazello at 1:10 PM on December 22, 2004


fun game, but it falls short in terms of gameplay. Do anyone ever played puzzle bubble? (I did on a PC), what always amaze me is it's capabilities to serve you the right color bubble just before you get screwed, making you last longer. Just like there was some kind of AI running behind this.

On the opposite this game seems only relying on random to make fun.

The makers of this should have added to their game an algorithm that check for potential loops, and give the right piece to close it, in a disguised way. Sure that would make the programming of it far more complicated, but that what make the difference between small one-day-coding/one-day-playing game and real games you play for weeks.
So, nice concept, but not taken far enough.
posted by denpo at 1:14 PM on December 22, 2004


Jonah, how the hell did you get 384 points?
posted by Hildago at 1:16 PM on December 22, 2004


I've been playing for weeks. I went from trying to complete long chains to just grabbing whatever I could. Sometimes I score less than 100, most of the time I score under 200 and occasionally I get over 275 points.
posted by jonah at 1:18 PM on December 22, 2004


Have I played Puzzle Bubble? On SNES it was Bust a Move and in college my room mates and I would play head to head for literally hours on end. I would plan two dozen rounds, go to class and come back two hours later to find my room mates still playing.
posted by jonah at 1:21 PM on December 22, 2004


ok, first attempt 80 points (this may take some time).... hmmm... I was never that keen on christmas anyway. My children hardly notice it...
posted by blindsam at 1:50 PM on December 22, 2004


And I used to think I was a visual thinker... *grumble..
posted by socratic at 2:05 PM on December 22, 2004


0 Points. I should have clicked on the question mark first.
posted by The God Complex at 2:07 PM on December 22, 2004


I enjoyed this. Thanks for sharing.
posted by Seth at 2:09 PM on December 22, 2004


"score: 42
it sucks!"


Now that's not nice...
posted by ticopelp at 2:09 PM on December 22, 2004


denpo has a point. Theoretically, you could go through a whole cycle of pieces, from center to outer rim, and never be able to close a loop. While there is some skill involved in seeing repeating, manageble patterns of pieces, there is a lot of reliance on the luck of the draw. Too much reliance on the game providing a usable piece for the score to matter. High scores just mean that you were dealt a good set of corners and lines. I spent a lot of time waiting for a piece, any piece, that would allow for a connection.

Still, I can't stop playing.
posted by eyeballkid at 2:20 PM on December 22, 2004


I got my 100 ... can move to another game now.

Fun, but as denpo said above, it doesn't have sticking power for me.

Regardless, good link.
posted by devbrain at 2:20 PM on December 22, 2004


"score: 12
it sucks!"


yeah well, so does your game.
posted by howling fantods at 2:27 PM on December 22, 2004


152. I'm done.
posted by linux at 2:41 PM on December 22, 2004


Good link.

It's often easy to clear out a square of corners, but then you end up with too many lines. A quick fix would be to have the incoming pieces guarantee a that the ratio between lines and squares on-screen stays within some range.

I think one more go-round would also be nice; it feels like just as you are starting to have enough room to work, it's done. But maybe that's just in my head.

Reminds me a bit of pipe dream, but rather more difficult.
posted by InfinitePigeons at 2:56 PM on December 22, 2004


542. I didn't realize it was getting faster until around 400. Maybe that helped.
posted by dreish at 3:29 PM on December 22, 2004


'where time becomes a loop, where time becomes a loop, where time becomes a loop.....'
posted by Espoo2 at 4:52 PM on December 22, 2004


nice! but too hard. immediately sent me in search of pipe dream.
posted by damehex at 4:59 PM on December 22, 2004


(sorry: bad link. it's at this lousy site, under Abandonware, under P)
posted by damehex at 5:05 PM on December 22, 2004


This kind of stuff is usually my forte, but I'm having a terrible time.
posted by Witty at 5:06 PM on December 22, 2004


It's a terrible game. There's very little opportunity to make interesting choices - you just have to grab the ones that come up, or wait for it to run out if there's nothing to do. It would be so much better if there were some way to move pieces, swap them with adjacent ones or something. As it stands now, it's just luck and abuse.
posted by majcher at 5:32 PM on December 22, 2004


That would make it trivially easy.

I think you're overstating the element of luck. I was able to get a very high score by playing the game on a Linux box with a slow Flash implementation, not by getting lucky.
posted by dreish at 6:03 PM on December 22, 2004


I know that my scores got much better the longer I played it. There is certainly an element of luck, but there are strategies. I don't just wait until I need to flip one or two pieces, I set up long partial chains and then join them.
posted by jonah at 6:27 PM on December 22, 2004


So dreish... it would be "trivially easy" to add any of the suggests made by majcher and luck is "overstated"? Yet you admit to using a tool to slow the game down? How odd.
posted by Witty at 6:43 PM on December 22, 2004


There's probably a mathematical strategy that would dramatically simplify this. Like the Koenigsberg Bridges puzzle, and learning that you just have to find the nodes with the odd number of links (per Euler).
posted by intermod at 7:04 PM on December 22, 2004


I was sitting in front of my Linux box reading Metafilter. I clicked on the link and played the game. Then I tried on a Mac and discovered that it was supposed to be much faster. I don't know what's odd about that.

There are only two types of pieces in this puzzle. If you can rotate them and move them, then yes, the game would be trivially easy in the mathematical sense. It would still be a test of reflexes and coordination.

Having played the game slow, I found it an interesting logic puzzle without as much of the hand-eye coordination element, but it lasted too long for me to want to play again, so maybe the designer chose the right speed.

My point was just to dispute the claim that "there's very little opportunity to make interesting choices". I would say there's very little time to think about the interesting choices this game presents, but as jonah says, there is strategy involved.
posted by dreish at 7:09 PM on December 22, 2004


I think the 'pattern' of adding more blocks has only to do with what is next to them in the first place.

Maybe a more beneficial -- and conducive to strategy -- way of working would be to just have the pattern used to add pieces be completely static [i.e. corner-straight-straight-corner]?

After about 20 minutes in my best score was 237. Tetris still wins for overall satisfaction factor if you ask me. Lately i've found that Rocket Mania (java or downloadable version) has both great strategic and addictive elements too... also: explosions.
posted by phylum sinter at 7:27 PM on December 22, 2004


Yeah, the fact that you either have too few pieces to work with or are about to die really turned me off of this one. phylum sinter's onto something with Rocket Mania -- it's a lot like this except, y'know, fun.
posted by squidlarkin at 9:50 PM on December 22, 2004


this game sucks.

iluvit!
posted by kamylyon at 6:27 AM on December 23, 2004


How does it know? How does it know which is the piece I DON'T want every zarking time!?
posted by salmacis at 8:27 AM on December 23, 2004


I was in the "this game sucks" crowd when I first played it. Then I played it again, and I was still in the "this game sucks" crowd - for the exact same reasons. Too random, no ability to move pieces, etc.

Then for some reason last night I came back to it and played it one more time. For the first time I managed to complete one whole long, multi-angled chain of pieces (rather than desperately making little squares and trying haplessly to find other usable patterns). I resolved to play it till I got over 100. That took probably 20 games or so.

At the end of those, I had a new appreciation for it, and for exactly those factors I had complained about. After playing it a while, your mind gets attuned to the logic and you start to see patterns and potential patterns in a way you couldn't before. And you learn how to adapt, and abandon a chain you had started in order to reconfigure it for something that will work immediately. Like the best abstract games (I include Arkanoids/Revenge of DOH there, in the interest of full disclosure), it becomes a metaphor for how your brain responds to life situations - only this case, it's possibly a very close physical analogy.

So, yeah, I gotta I give it the thumbs up, and say thank you, jonah. But I ain't workin' on any 384 game.



At least, not today....
posted by soyjoy at 8:46 AM on December 23, 2004


162 is my best so far--very aggravating, but good.
posted by amberglow at 8:49 AM on December 23, 2004


[this is good]

jonah, you got a thumbs up from Seth!
posted by namespan at 9:02 AM on December 23, 2004


I think I had a similar reaction as you soyjoy, sort of bored at first, then frustrated, then challenged, then a bit addicted (don't know if you've gotten there yet). I think that the thing that keeps me coming back is that it's usually a quick-ish game (I can play a game in between stuff at work) and there is always a challenge.

Sometimes I speed to make really long chains and then see that it's not going to happen and change my strategy. I was curious if by posting it here, people could develop some of their own tips. I'm a bit suprised that the simple game caused such a discussion. Good discussion though, thanks for the interesting comments all.
posted by jonah at 9:28 AM on December 23, 2004


hmm, the game seems much slower today, I wonder if the author incorporated some of the ideas in this thread. I don't think it would have anything to do with more people playing it since it plays locally once it is downloaded.
posted by jonah at 9:30 AM on December 23, 2004


jonah - seems to be playing at the same speed for me. You've just gotten better at it, so time slows down, no?

And no, I haven't reached the addicted state yet. Not at all. I simply freely choose to keep on playing it over and over and over and over. (Trying to crack 200 now.)

The only "tips" I've found is that every new piece is helpful in some way - if it blocks what you were trying to build, it's going to help with some chain that's perpendicular in some way, if you can find it fast enough. Oh, and if I could learn to anticipate which way the pieces are going to rotate when I click on them that would be good - I'm still just clicking and clicking on each one till it's how I want it.
posted by soyjoy at 9:55 AM on December 23, 2004


Rocket Mania is now my life
posted by Raindog at 10:18 AM on December 23, 2004


Aw, man! From the cryptically worded post, I thought it was Moebius.
posted by majick at 11:17 AM on December 24, 2004


Jesus, and I do mean Jesus, it's a good thing I'm going on vacation for a week. I can totally, and I do mean totally, stop doing this at any point just as long as I am not anywhere near a computer, which I won't be.

(finally cracked 200, still working on 300...)
posted by soyjoy at 9:38 PM on December 25, 2004


« Older Friday Fun - early   |   MUERTOS INCOMODOS Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments