←back to thread

163 points juancroldan | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jchw ◴[] No.43632004[source]
I have a somewhat contrarian opinion. I think if you're making a clone of Tetris you should actually take design cues from the somewhat more obscure Tetris the Grand Master series instead of the "guideline" or NES Tetris rules. TGM's rotation and kick rules are a lot more elegant and avoid a lot of unneeded complexity. Guideline Tetris kicks let you do absurd and weird things (look up the series of kicks that make up a T-Spin Triple and see if that makes sense to you) and rewards doing canned setups really fast, whereas TGM's game design is all about doing good stacking very fast.

The TGM randomization algorithm is also pretty elegant. 7 bag is a bit extreme, it gives you such a perfect set of pieces at all times that it's genuinely less challenging and fun. TGM's random piece algorithm is a lot simpler: the randomizer has a 4-piece history window and it tries multiple times (IIRC, 6) to find a unique piece that hasn't appeared in that window. It is initialized to SSZZ to lower the odds of starting with an S or Z early on. (~~They also use the Mersenne Twister as their PRNG, which was a pretty good PRNG in an era where many games still used LCGs.~~ edit: Apparently, they do not. Don't ask me where I got this, I have no idea.)

Now of course I'm not sure if it matters at all for this particular game since it isn't really a Tetris clone at all, but while TGM is a well-known cult classic for people deep into Tetris it's relatively obscure outside of that circle (and presumably outside of Japan.) The Tetris Company is very strange about licensing and has apparently, as the legend has it, blocked and forced changes on TGM releases for a very long time due to the fact that it doesn't fit with the Tetris guideline rules they enforce in an oddly totalitarian fashion, probably suppressing the game even further in an era where speed games and competitive gaming is a lot more popular.

replies(8): >>43632098 #>>43632218 #>>43632479 #>>43632584 #>>43632609 #>>43638944 #>>43639185 #>>43640666 #
qsort ◴[] No.43632218[source]
I think it depends on what you want to make a clone for.

TGM rules are more elegant and much more challenging for single-player tetris, but on the other hand multiplayer and especially 1v1 has far greater variety and dynamism with a looser rotation system. The stricter the rules, the more it becomes spamming tetrises against each other until someone misdrops. You have to construct a ruleset where a player who is 0.1pps faster doesn't just autowin.

replies(2): >>43632335 #>>43637651 #
jchw ◴[] No.43632335[source]
I doubt this is going to be a popular opinion, but I honestly think Tetris 1v1 just isn't that interesting of a game. The interaction between players is pretty damn boring. In guideline 1v1 a lot of very high level games are decided by garbage RNG which I think is even less interesting than determining who is 0.1pps faster. I don't think either ruleset is particularly better for either players or people watching. Don't get me wrong, there's definitely a lot of tension in high level game play and so it's not completely boring, but to me it starts to get old once you realize what's happening, and I haven't really watched any high level Tetris stuff in a long time. I have a lot more fun watching Classic Tetris World Championship, because as janky as NES Tetris is, it's fun to watch people absolutely decimate it.

Now if you want a good multiplayer puzzle game with super rich interactions, I think you just simply need a different game entirely, because there's no obvious way to weave some sort of responsive strategy into a Tetris game. Therefore, my pick for the ideal competitive falling blocks puzzle game is Puyo Puyo Tsu.

replies(6): >>43632816 #>>43633675 #>>43633823 #>>43634555 #>>43637200 #>>43642659 #
1. NauticalStu ◴[] No.43633675[source]
TGM actually has a pretty interesting 1v1 system. I wish it was more popular.

Most other Tetris games (all that I've played, at least) throw randomized garbage at the opponent. It scales with the number of lines you clear, but it always has a one column gap in a random position, no control over that.

But TGM's garbage is deterministic. Basically, imagine taking the lines you just cleared, but remove the piece that completed them. That missing piece will be the gap. Flip what's left upside down and add it to the bottom of your opponent's stack.

Now you have full control over the position and shape of the garbage you send!

This adds a nice layer of strategy and makes the game feel more interactive since you need to constantly watch your opponent's stack and act accordingly. You want to add garbage where your opponent will struggle to clear it while also being on the lookout for what kind of garbage they'll be sending you and try to play around it.

And there are powerup items to spice things up, which admittedly vary widely in power level and can be very swingy. Although that's not necessarily bad as it allows players of different skill levels to play together (although the stronger player will still win most games), as well as just add some exciting or funny turnarounds. There's also a timing element to triggering the items, which adds even more strategy.

https://tetris.wiki/TGM_Versus_Mode_Guide

replies(1): >>43633937 #
2. jchw ◴[] No.43633937[source]
I absolutely do think TGM versus mode is interesting. I'm not sure how to feel about it, but the lack of random garbage is a very big plus.

> And there are powerup items to spice things up, which admittedly vary widely in power level and can be very swingy. Although that's not necessarily bad as it allows players of different skill levels to play together (although the stronger player will still win most games),

This seems to be a tricky thing to balance in competitive games. It's boring if the more skilled player wins every single match even in fairly close matchups, but it's also frustrating if any specific win/loss is dictated specifically by random chance or "unfair" game mechanics. This seems to essentially force game design to go a little off the path and overcomplicate things a little to try to make the game more interesting.

I strongly recommend taking a look at Puyo Puyo (particularly Tsu) if you are a competitive puzzle game enjoyer. It is a seriously good multiplayer puzzle game. Where Tetris is an excellent single player game and a good multiplayer game, Puyo Puyo is an excellent multi player game. You can see the game design issues play out especially over the early iterations of it; they pretty much nail the formula in Tsu, so most of the changes from thereon just kind of add additional complications that can make the game a bit more interesting and add some ways that someone can feasibly win a match against a better opponent.

Among the many puzzle games people play somewhat competitively (Tetris, Panel de Pon, Dr. Mario even,) I think Puyo Puyo is the one that deserves much more attention. Not that I think the game design behind Tetris multiplayer shouldn't be iterated on, but after seeing and studying high level Puyo Puyo play, it just makes it feel like Tetris multiplayer will never be able to have the same amount of depth. Of course, it's still plenty enjoyable, especially if you are playing Tetris multiplayer somewhat more casually. I definitely used to play a lot of online Tetris with friends. (Also, although it wasn't something I played a whole ton, I did spend a few hours on Tetris 99. I wasn't really the greatest at it because I'm just not that good at spamming setups but I was able to net a few wins.)

replies(1): >>43636405 #
3. NauticalStu ◴[] No.43636405[source]
Yeah, 1v1 TGM didn't leave a good first impression on me because the items seemed wild and gimmicky, something designed for casual play, not competitive. But I eventually came around, mostly after finding out how the garbage system works. I've played quite of bit of TGM2 on Fightcade, and while some individual games come down to item craziness, usually people play FT3 or FT5 matches, where the luck of a single game usually doesn't decide the match (and if it did, it was a close match otherwise). I like the tension and surprises that items can add, even if it comes at the cost of balance sometimes.

I played a decent amount of Puyo Puyo back in the day (mostly Tsu), but lost interest for two reasons:

1.) I had nobody to play against, and the AI in the old games wasn't very good. Neither of these are issues now though, with online play and much better AI.

2.) I could never get past the beginner phase. Making 4-5 chains really fast was usually good enough to beat the AI in the old versions, so I stagnated there. But that doesn't work against modern AI, and certainly not against humans. But I had no idea how to make the jump from beginner to intermediate; strategy just felt fundamentally different, and hard for me to figure out. Maybe I just never found good resources for learning that (this was 20+ years ago, probably much more out there now).

But yeah, it's a shame it never really took off in the west. Highly underrated game.

replies(1): >>43636891 #
4. jchw ◴[] No.43636891{3}[source]
Honestly that is probably the one big fault of Puyo Puyo: Puyo Puyo Tsu (and onward) has an obscenely challenging learning curve which will undoubtedly have one plateauing a lot. If you want to be able to make larger chains you need to learn how to build transitions. But if you want to build large chains in actual matches with an opponent who is good enough to watch your board, you also need to be able to build transitions safely and efficiently, which is why a lot of people do GTR as soon as possible. It took me a few years to get to a point where I felt basically just mediocre, and then I plateaued hard. To get better I'd undoubtedly need to hone my muscle memory for how to more efficiently use pieces and build more parts of the chain at once without breaking it or leaving myself vulnerable. I don't think I'll ever be all that great, but it was a lot of fun.