Prehistory XII: Qubic (3D Tic-Tac-Toe)

Release Date: 1968

Platform: PDP-10; Sol-20 port in 1977

Genre: Board Game

Developer(s): Original unknown; Sol-20 port by Ralph E. Hopkins

Publisher(s): DECUS

I genuinely debated whether to include this game or not. For me, it somewhat falls into the same category as the Chess game I'm skipping over; a basic, rigid implementation of a board game with no additional features. What I decided on was to try Qubic anyway and see if I could write something substantial about it, and if I could give it a working score. Seeing as you're reading this post, you know what my decision ended up being.

Qubic is another game from the BASIC Computer Games book lineup, but was originally written in 1968. The author of this particular game is completely unknown. All the info we have comes from the aforementioned book, where it only states that the game originated at Dartmouth College. If you look at the book, you might notice a slight discrepancy with what I'm playing. It calls the game 3D Tic-Tac-Toe, whereas my version (from vintage-basic.net) has it named Qubic instead. Which one's the original title? The earlier printing of 101 BASIC Computer Games has it as Qubic, so I assume that it's the original title.

It asks if you'd like to read the instructions. As 3D Tic-Tac-Toe already terrifies me as a concept, I definitely want to know how this implementation works. Inputting your moves is done in a rather abstract fashion - you input a string of 3 numbers, each representing a plane of the game board. 

1. The first number is the level of the board, with 1 being the topmost and 4 being the bottom.
2. The second represent the row on which you'd like to play, again with 1 being the top row and 4 the bottom row.
3. The third number is therefore the column, with 1 representing the leftmost column, and 4 the rightmost column.

This took quite a while to wrap my head around, and I occasionally messed up, mixing up the row and column numbers on a couple of occasions. Fortunately, the game provides a visual representation of the game board to help you get your bearings by typing in a solitary 0 instead of your move. The thing is, I originally wanted to look at this game because it appeared that this was the earliest implementation of text-based graphics out there. However, it appears that the visual representation of the game board was not in the original game. The earlier edition of 101 BASIC Computer Games states that the game does not print out a diagram, meaning you had to keep track of the moves yourself (this must have been an absolute nightmare; I'm panicking just thinking about it). Where exactly the board graphic came in, I'm not 100% sure, but if I were to hazard a guess, it may have been during the 1978 revision for the microcomputer edition of 101 BASIC Computer Games. That would also explain the name change between editions. 

There was also a port to the Sol-20 microcomputer done in 1977 by Ralph E. Hopkins, who ported many other games to the Sol-20 over the system's lifespan. Pretty much every BASIC type-in game out there was ported to it by him. More on him when I get to the Sol-20 system itself.

After giving the instructions, the game asks if you'd like to go first. If I know anything about Noughts & Crosses and all its variations, it's that you always go first. Always. It's pretty much impossible to win the standard 3x3 variation going second, so I'm not taking any chances here. For some reason, the game opts to have your moves indicated with a Y, and the computers with an M. Representing "You" and "Machine"?

Always go first. And ignore the "output is on paper" line. Load of nonsense.

Now, I'm going to spoil my playthrough of this right here and now: I actually won on my first attempt. That provides great relief to me one, because it means I'm beginning to understand how to play 3D Tic-Tac-Toe competently, and two, it means that the computer doesn't play perfectly. I have nightmares of the Atari 2600's version of this game that was utterly merciless, even on the easiest setting, so trying to master the RetroAchievements set was far harder than it had any right to be (it's a poorly designed set anyway, but I digress).

Still, it doesn't mean I had much fun doing it. While I typically enjoy strategy games, this one's always been a bit too brain-bending for me to really enjoy all that much. I study languages, so I don't like it when a game feels like trying to parse and translate a large, difficult passage of ancient Hebrew or Greek. I play games to relax and take my mind off of things, not to feel like I'm doing work. Maybe it'll get easier the more I get used to it? 

Here's what the board looks like. My recording didn't work, so I had to go back and take a screenshot.

The other problem is that games like this are meant to be played with another person, not an impersonal computer. This is the type of program you'd use to practice for a tournament, like all those Chess programs I'm ignoring (although those Chess programs were mostly designed to actually compete in tournaments themselves, not as games). That personal interaction, the competitiveness from two people going head-to-head to try and win is not there, leaving a lifeless shell.

Unfortunately, my recording of the game didn't work properly. Since the full game board can only be seen in full screen mode, that's how I played it, but OBS didn't like that apparently, so the whole 10 minute game is frozen on one frame, basically. I went back in to get the screenshot above, but that's as much as I'm willing to do for this game. 

To sum up the round I played, my strategy was to take the corners and spots to give me the most potential winning combinations, while simultaneously blocking as many of the computer's routes to victory. I fumbled with the inputs a little, occasionally making a mistake in mixing up the row and column inputs, but it still worked out okay. The computer has the occasional one-liner it throws at you, saying "nice try" when it blocks you, or "you fox" when you block it. I won fairly comfortably in the end, I don't think the computer ever got into a potentially winning position. That's really it, it wasn't a terribly exciting game.

Score time. It's actually going to get a Visual score, so Sound and Story are the only N/A categories this time. I know that the graphical part wasn't in the original game, but it's here in this version, and it's probably the only version anyone can actually play nowadays.

Time Played: 10 minutes

Difficulty: 5/10

It's difficult to judge, ironically. Most of the challenge honestly comes from trying to figure out the inputs and how 3D Tic-Tac-Toe works. I won on my first try, so the computer opponent can't be that tough.

Gameplay: 1

I was seriously tempted to put this as N/A, truly. But there is a game here, so it must be scored. The problem is how to score it. Since it's a simulation of a physical game, do I score based on my thoughts of the physical game, or how it's implemented in the video game? Or a mixture of both? Seeing as I already don't like 3D Tic-Tac-Toe, and that this is as primitive an implementation of it as you'll ever see, I'm giving it a 1. Like, it works, sure... but what's the point? As I've already said, this is a game that's meant to be played with another human being. Playing against a computer is a futile, lifeless endeavour, even if there was an attempt at giving some personality to the computer by giving it some one-liners.

Controls: 6

The inputs, while simple, are abstract and disorientating at first. They aren't the worst, but require some getting used to.

Visual: 5

It has graphics, technically... so that's something. Even though they're not in the original, I'll still consider them. It's immensely helpful to have that visual representation. Don't know how anyone could play this without it. It's a bit too big though, I had to play in full screen, which messed up OBS' recording. The text formatting is rather average, but there's a little bit of personality in the writing. Overall, I think it's okay.

Functionality: 4

One place where the game will receive little criticism from me. It works, and the formatting isn't that bad, though the generally disorienting feeling of playing this bleeds down into its functionality for me.

Accessibility: 1

Yeah, there ain't no way this is an accessible game whatsoever. Text based, obtuse inputs, a general feeling of disorientation over an already complicated base game. I can't give it a 0 because it is playable, after all...

Fun Factor: 2

If you couldn't already tell, I didn't enjoy playing Qubic. Later on, once I started to get the hang of the game, I had a very minor sense of enjoyment, but this felt like work otherwise.

So that gives Qubic a rather dismal score of 19/70. Its percentage of 27.14% just barely saves it from the disgrace of the F-tier, landing it at the bottom of the E-tier, where I suspect it will stay for a long, long time. It also awards Qubic the Wooden Spoon of 1968 as the worst game of the year, and it is also at this point the second worst game I've scored.

And so, with the end of July comes the end of my 1968 coverage. On to 1969, the year of the moon landing, which is curiously reflected in the selection of games. There's only five games, one of which is a port of Spacewar!, so that won't be getting covered. Hopefully the other four are available.

[Add.] Upon completing the rescore project, Qubic's score has gone up to 22/70 (31.42%).