This is why I hate minesweeper, that you can do everything right and have it come down to a 50/50 feels unsatisfying
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
175 points (98.9% liked)
AnarchyChess
5538 readers
67 users here now
Holy hell
Other chess communities:
!Chess@lemmy.ml
!chessbeginners@sh.itjust.works
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Check out Dragonsweeper. 100% solvable every time once you learn all the rules (by trial and error) https://danielben.itch.io/dragonsweeper
Is it actually 100% solvable? I definitely thought I ran into spots where I had to randomly guess, but maybe I didn't figure out all the rules (definitely only started to learn the patterns for the monsters).
I do think it is. There are a lot of little details about where monsters are and what their placement can yell you. I've played probably 10 games with no guesswork, though it is a little random if you can get a full score on a run.
Too much like real life
i find it kind of thrilling. you use your brain as much as you can but sometimes you are forced to let your heart decide.
It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.
If you want a truly challenging minesweeper that is always 100% solvable try Tametsi on steam
One of the best puzzle games I've ever played.
Looks interesting, thanks
It's called Russian roulette
Святой ад
No, it's stalemate but I see where the confusion comes from
Don't leave us hanging, which one was it?
The right one
Mark em both as critical blunders.
No, this is loss
It is both a victory and a loss until you click and collapse the waveform
Oof.
Now, hear me out, but what if Minesweeper had a continuously tileable playfield? Like, what if the mine count numbers on the edges of the board actually wrapped around?
You know, like you got a number on the very right edge of the board, but it's also counting the mines on the very left edge of the board, and you can pan scroll the entire playfield around?
Just a random brainfart of a thought for the day..
That would be toroidal geometry, and it opens up the question of other geometries, such as the Klein bottle.
Toroidal geometry? I'm not sure, but let me know if I'm wrong.
I was thinking more like being able to indefinitely pan around in 2D planar geometry. The top and bottom edges would be equally associated as well.
I'm not quite sure if we're on the same page, but I have to admit, if you put Minesweeper on a torus, I'd give it a try, but only on LSD or something.. 😂
If you take a rectangle and identify (glue together) the left and right edge as well as the top and bottom edge, which seems to be what you’re suggesting, you get a torus.
Maybe, rather than showing a field, it had a cylinder or ball that you could rotate.
Oh wow, that would definitely be an interesting literal twist to the game!
And all the accidental missclicks by rotating it <3 (idea is still fire tho)
No you still have ill-vaticano here
My only advise is to say the top one likely has the mine, based just on probability of that row only having one mine vs the bottom having three.
The odds of any 1 tile having the bomb is equal for all tiles.
That being said, the bottom one looks sus
I know but that's literally the only thing I can think of other than a coin flip lol
I wonder if real mine sweepers ever have this exact same conversation?
If they did, odds are they aren't around anymore
Yeah except there is a row with 4, some rows with 3, and some rows with zero as well. This sounds like the logic you use when you look at the roulette wheel history and say "ah but it's been red 4 times in a row!"
This comes down to nothing but a purely random guess. Just gotta coin flip it.
No this is dad