![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png) gerald_duck |
Sat 2005-06-25 18:32 |
That's not quite the same thing. In Mines, it is possible to lose, and Simon's innovation is to make sure (as a single step at the start of each game) that it never gives you a game that cannot be won without taking a risk of losing. In Guess, there is no risk of losing, but what you're proposing is to continue changing the solution as the game progresses so as to maximise how long it takes to deduce.
That continuous refinement step, if done in either Guess or Mines, would make the game deterministic: if you make the same sequence of guesses, or click the same sequence of spaces in the minefield, the solution will always be the same. I doubt this is a good idea.
Fundamentally, I suspect the real problem is just that Guess is a much simpler game than Mines. |
|