|
|
|
|
|
by ibuildthings
3816 days ago
|
|
One of the authors here. Since it is a optimization, the difficulty can be controlled as a parameter ( the lambda parameter in Eq.1 in the paper ). But you are right, some of the puzzles can be super-hard ( for example, the Seurat puzzle ) that we used to joke between ourself to name our paper "taking the fun out of puzzles". Personally, what was fascinating for me is the shape of the puzzle curve it produced. Most of the common puzzles are grid based (i.e. four neighbours - up , down, left, down ). But in this scheme, there can be strange neighborhood pieces, with even stranger shapes. |
|
A good puzzle will not bore the player. Boring is that there are many blue pieces that all look exactly alike. Trying each one over and over is not fun. But with a tweak to your technique you could make sure that every blue piece that can contain another color would, thus increasing the variance of unique pieces which is not boring for players. Finding a blue piece with this little bit of brown and a spec of purple means the player can get to remember that and hunt for where it could go which is the fun part of puzzles. Do that and you can approach puzzle companies to license them a tool to make more fun puzzles and they will buy it.
Now of course your tool can't solve everything you can still end up with rubbish like: http://www.amazon.com/USAopoly-M-Ms-Puzzlemania-Puzzle/dp/B0...
And in contrast a really good puzzle that at first glance looks like it is all one color, but filled with so much detail it is a blast to put together. http://www.amazon.com/Ravensburger-78000-Fire-Dragon/dp/B000...