Anonymous user
Talk:Minesweeper game: Difference between revisions
→Differences in behavior from classic game
(→Differences in behavior from classic game: I may have misinterpreted) |
|||
Line 18:
::: Oh! I thought that we were just discussing what the clearing ''is'' rather than whether it should be left out? don't think it would be much of a game without a clearing feature of some sort. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
:::: I've played implementations that didn't recursively clear, but it sounded to me like Dgamey was concerned about the task definition either being unclear, incorrect and/or limiting the use of languages which can solve the task in "spirit" (i.e. allow one to play a game recognizably like Minesweeper), but not easily solve it in its entierity. I was pondering a compromise, but I may have misinterpreted the conversation. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 22:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, the ''real'' difference between this task and the classic game is that in the classic implementation, the first square you clear is ''never'' a mine; if there is a mine there, the game moves it away. In fact, there was (is?) a cheat which lets you find out where the mines are, and you can use that to confirm it yourself. (Alas, I don't remember the details of the cheat; it was a long time ago.) The moving of a mine only ever worked for the first square you cleared though. I don't suggest that anyone implements it, but it's one of the marks of the real original; it had a lot more thought applied to it than it appeared to have at the time. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 23:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
| |||