On the other end, this is why I don’t play minesweeper. As long as you’re even half-meticulous about it it’s a solved game with not many distinct patterns on the board. It’s like a few steps above tic-tac-toe in how solvable it is.
At least solitaire has some decision points and it can be a minute before you figure out the strategy to solving it. Learning the rules of minesweeper is learning how to beat it every time.
No, by that logic I don’t replay logic games and puzzles more than once if I’ve figured out that the strategy to beat them is trivial. Saying I either have to like minesweeper or I dislike every logic game is dumb, that seems like pretty straightforward logic. I even go to bat for solitaire, a logic puzzle, in the very post you replied to.
solitaire has luck involved. every puzzle that doesn’t require any luck is “solved”. because that’s how they’re designed. puzzles usually have one way to solve them and they’re specifically designed with one solution in mind. fucking sudoku is “solved”. being “solved” is not a bad thing for puzzles it’s a requirement for it to be any good. you’re using a term that’s more relevant to strategy games, like tic tac toe. not a good comparison.
Idk how you could get that from what I posted. I first of all said I didn’t play minesweeper anymore because I tried it for a while and realized I could solve every board in what I felt was a trivial way. Even if solitaire isn’t actually a logic puzzle by your definition I still used it as an example of a solved game that is worth replaying.
This is like if I said I don’t play that placing blocks into holes anymore because I think the strategy of matching the shape in your hand with the shape of the hole in the box is boring and trivial even if you change the shapes of the blocks every time and you responded with “OH! By that logic you don’t like any puzzles ever???”
Ya, I’d almost liken minesweeper as more of a meditation than a game. That being said I do genuinely enjoy it as that; as a flowchart that’s simple enough that I should always get it right but complex enough that I do still have to pay attention. It’s good for resetting my focus.
There are lots of typical patterns, but sometimes you get more interesting stuff. Playing with no guessing helps you discover stuff that at first appears random.
There’s also a game called Tamesi which takes a different approach and has designed maps that work like puzzles.
Most of modern minesweeper implementation can generate a 100% solvable board, so it’s not that bad.
On the other end, this is why I don’t play minesweeper. As long as you’re even half-meticulous about it it’s a solved game with not many distinct patterns on the board. It’s like a few steps above tic-tac-toe in how solvable it is.
At least solitaire has some decision points and it can be a minute before you figure out the strategy to solving it. Learning the rules of minesweeper is learning how to beat it every time.
by that definition logic games and puzzles overall shouldn’t exist. that’s dumb.
No, by that logic I don’t replay logic games and puzzles more than once if I’ve figured out that the strategy to beat them is trivial. Saying I either have to like minesweeper or I dislike every logic game is dumb, that seems like pretty straightforward logic. I even go to bat for solitaire, a logic puzzle, in the very post you replied to.
solitaire has luck involved. every puzzle that doesn’t require any luck is “solved”. because that’s how they’re designed. puzzles usually have one way to solve them and they’re specifically designed with one solution in mind. fucking sudoku is “solved”. being “solved” is not a bad thing for puzzles it’s a requirement for it to be any good. you’re using a term that’s more relevant to strategy games, like tic tac toe. not a good comparison.
Idk how you could get that from what I posted. I first of all said I didn’t play minesweeper anymore because I tried it for a while and realized I could solve every board in what I felt was a trivial way. Even if solitaire isn’t actually a logic puzzle by your definition I still used it as an example of a solved game that is worth replaying.
This is like if I said I don’t play that placing blocks into holes anymore because I think the strategy of matching the shape in your hand with the shape of the hole in the box is boring and trivial even if you change the shapes of the blocks every time and you responded with “OH! By that logic you don’t like any puzzles ever???”
Ya, I’d almost liken minesweeper as more of a meditation than a game. That being said I do genuinely enjoy it as that; as a flowchart that’s simple enough that I should always get it right but complex enough that I do still have to pay attention. It’s good for resetting my focus.
I like setting a 16x16 board with 70 mines and going through a few of them if I’m waiting for something. There’s enough that it can be entertaining.
Spend a few rounds on Dragonsweeper. Once you figure it out, it’ll be an simple, but you’ll have fun for a bit.
There are lots of typical patterns, but sometimes you get more interesting stuff. Playing with no guessing helps you discover stuff that at first appears random. There’s also a game called Tamesi which takes a different approach and has designed maps that work like puzzles.
Or they make it where if you have exact flag placement you’re good. So you can try putting a flag on each one in turn.
A little annoying when you end with 3-4 50/50 splits, but not too too hard to just brute force the 8-16 combos.