Still Combining Numbers On A Grid To Get Bigger Numbers, But Different

December 9, 2014 12:12 AM

Get 10 is a new browser game from veewo, creators of 1024.
posted by Rinku (31 comments total)

Oh well there goes my evening.....
posted by dave99 at 12:51 AM on December 9, 2014

Clever. Too easy though.
posted by aubilenon at 1:16 AM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]

I really enjoyed it. But yeah, I think they needed to have an option to turn it up to eleven for that extra something.
posted by tychotesla at 1:20 AM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]

In related news, Threes was picked as Apple's Game of the Year for 2014.
posted by JHarris at 2:07 AM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]

I got an 8. Once.
posted by chavenet at 2:21 AM on December 9, 2014

Just like 1024, keeping the biggest number in a corner seems to be a winning strategy.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:32 AM on December 9, 2014

Ooh, I am looking forward to hearing Jessamyn play this on the podcast next month!
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:43 AM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]

This is a lot of fun! Which indie developer's game is this one ripping off?
posted by rorgy at 3:30 AM on December 9, 2014 [9 favorites]

Jesus christ, this same game again?!
posted by forgetful snow at 4:04 AM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]

Christ almighty, enough! I've been addicted to Threes all year. This is the last thing I need...

Good thing it only took a few goes to beat it.
posted by ZipRibbons at 5:01 AM on December 9, 2014

on try number 2 i find it to be much easier. but still, there's something iffy about how it decides which numbers to drop.
posted by rebent at 5:35 AM on December 9, 2014

rebent: [T]here's something iffy about how it decides which numbers to drop.

I really thought I was controlling it with my second click on a group.
posted by ob1quixote at 5:41 AM on December 9, 2014

Too much clicking, it just doesn't feel as smooth as 2048/Threes/etc. There's really no reason why a group couldn't collapse into a square with a single click.
posted by Foosnark at 6:16 AM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]

I think I'll wait until 65536 is released next summer.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:24 AM on December 9, 2014 [3 favorites]

At the same time it lets you reduce mistakes - so you know for sure what you're going to be merging... If it's instant, it might make people pissed they clicked (in fact, I bet that's why - in testing it was a complaint...) If it were a speed based game I could see the issue, but since it's not, I don't think it's that big of a deal.
posted by symbioid at 8:02 AM on December 9, 2014

Cracked that relativity quickly... not such an evil time sink as 1024 (Who version) thank god
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 8:25 AM on December 9, 2014

So, how does 1024 relate to 2048?
posted by Going To Maine at 9:12 AM on December 9, 2014

speaking of 1024 and 2048...1024 advertises itself in the android app store as "the original of 2048"

Never mind that 1024 itself is a clone of Threes (back then, 1024 advertised itself as "No need to pay for Threes")
posted by subversiveasset at 9:40 AM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]

This is interesting, but the ending is unpolished. It just SHUTS EVERYTHING DOWN and you can either replay or go screw. If you're designing a clicky number skinner boxie, at least reward people when they finally get the big number.
posted by boo_radley at 9:43 AM on December 9, 2014 [4 favorites]

The first click selects the boxen to collapse, and the second click picks where the upgraded number box lands. This way, you can kind of steer. Also, ending is meh. Needs explosions or something.
posted by which_chick at 10:30 AM on December 9, 2014

Oh boy, another game for everyone to act all surprised when I repeatedly fail to beat it.

"You still haven't beaten it yet? It's so easy!" *grumble*
posted by ckape at 11:31 AM on December 9, 2014 [3 favorites]

Fyi, according to reviews, the android app is super dodgy re privacy, ads, etc. And I too would like to know why it needs permissions like location, caller ID, camera access etc.
posted by lollusc at 11:41 AM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]

I can't believe ckape hasn't beaten it yet.
posted by Elmore at 3:29 PM on December 9, 2014 [4 favorites]

Elmore: "I can't believe ckape hasn't beaten it yet."

It's so easy!
posted by boo_radley at 4:49 PM on December 9, 2014 [4 favorites]

That little fuck-you dance it does when you lose? that's irritating right there.
posted by Mary Ellen Carter at 5:20 PM on December 9, 2014 [5 favorites]

*grumble*
posted by ckape at 12:01 AM on December 10, 2014 [2 favorites]

boo_radley: hear hear! And the choice of rewards should include "now see if you can press on and get 11".
posted by finka at 12:19 PM on December 10, 2014

It's an okay game (although I don't like the guys for their outright theft of much of Threes), but there's too much randomness for the kind of game it is. When you clear out an area, every removed tiled is replaced by a random one. It is easily possible to get screwed over by this, especially later on, even if it doesn't happen too often.
posted by JHarris at 2:30 PM on December 10, 2014

Jharris, I agree with you. I think an interesting idea would be to drop only tiles that are on the board. Get rid of all the 1s? No more of them that game. I've lost too many rounds to a 1 getting sunk to the bottom of the board.
posted by boo_radley at 7:03 PM on December 10, 2014

I really enjoyed it. But yeah, I think they needed to have an option to turn it up to eleven for that extra something.

One way to make it more challenging is to require your 10 to not be on the bottom row. I haven't been able to make a 10 in the middle row yet.
posted by stebulus at 11:59 AM on December 18, 2014

I really enjoyed it. But yeah, I think they needed to have an option to turn it up to eleven for that extra something.

The iOS version anyway does let you continue on past 10. As your highest number increases the difficulty does naturally ramp up, since the highest number limits the range of incoming numbers, and the more variety there is there, the harder it gets to do anything with the junk you're given.

But it doesn't seem funner or more exciting at the high levels. It just seems more frustrating.
posted by aubilenon at 12:23 PM on December 18, 2014