Prehistory XV: Digits

Release Date: September 3, 1970

Platform: Unspecified mainframe

Genre: Simulation

Developer(s): Unknown

Publisher(s): DECUS

Telling you right now, this is going to be a quick one. This barely counts as a game, to be honest with you.

I had to skip over Apawam and declare it lost, as the only seemingly surviving version of the game is one modified by Steve North for the 1978 edition of BASIC Computer Games, and from what I read from the descriptions of both games, North's version isn't so much a modification as it is a complete overhaul. I'll be treating that as a separate game.

Digits is one of about half-a-dozen titles with the same release date - 3rd of September, 1970. I don't know where MobyGames gets these dates from, but I'd love to know (possibly the DECUS program library?). The original author is unknown; all that is known is that the program originated at Dartmouth College - specifically the Kiewit Computation Center at the college (a project spearheaded by John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz - the inventors of BASIC, which Digits was programmed for).

Digits presents a rather odd concept: you are to come up with a random string of 30 numbers between 0 and 2, and the computer will try to guess your numbers using something BASIC Computer Games called "pattern recognition techniques." These numbers are inputted 10 at a time, and to win, the computer must make less than 10 correct guesses (which the game claims it should be able to do "by pure luck"). That's the game. It's beyond simple.

The game's instructions. It's cute that it asks you to write on paper. Who does that these days?

I find it amusing that the author of the game writes the computer to speak in first person. It's endearing, somewhat. For my first attempt, I thought I'd have a laugh. I got my phone's notepad out, and randomly smashed the 0, 1 and 2 keys until I had at least 30 numbers. Inputting them was actually a bit annoying, as the game doesn't tell you how it wants the numbers inputted. The required syntax is to type the numbers in, with a comma after each number, but no spaces.

I confused the poor thing.

Eventually, after looking at the game's page in BASIC Computer Games, I managed to get the numbers in correctly.

There we go.

So it managed 4 correct guesses on that pass. Not the best start when I want it to guess less than 10.

Ugh, and there's still one set to go.

It got 6 right on the second set, so there goes that game.

My last set was an improvement, at least.

As a consolation, it only scored 2 correct guesses on the third and final set. I noticed that it didn't select 0 as a guess at all that round. I could've selected 0 30 times in a row and it wouldn't have got one right...

I decided I had to win, so another round was required. Taking what I learned from that first game, I took a different approach to choosing my numbers - I selected longer strings of the same number, interspersed with solitary numbers along the way. It seems to me like the computer prefers to guess long strings of one number.

I'll take that as a small victory.

 My strategy appears to be paying off. It only guessed 3 right in the first round this time.

Ha! Some "pattern recognition techniques" these are...

Oh dear, the computer had a bit of a disaster on the second set. Only 1 correct. I noticed from the first round that it seemed to be preferring 2 this game, so I tried to avoid overusing it.

Maybe I should've done the all zeros thing.

I went a little silly on the last set, doing zero 5 times in a row. You'd think it'd catch on after maybe the third one, but it missed the whole lot! It got 4 of the last 5 right, but that only got it up to 8 correct guesses, so I win. There's nothing else to say, so score time.

Time Played: 6 minutes. That's how long the two rounds took.

Difficulty: 1

It's a guessing game, do you really expect any challenge? You just plonk in numbers and hope to computer doesn't guess them. All luck, no skill.

Game Design: 0

Barely a game at all; it's just a lucky guess simulator, so there is literally nothing to say about it.

Controls: 7

I'm knocking off points for the weird syntax stuff with commas, and because the game doesn't tell you that that's what you need to do. Otherwise, it's easy.

Visual: 5

It's presented decently. All the text is neatly formatted, no typos, and the guess spreadsheet is clear. The game is very polite, always saying please when asking for my numbers, so I can at least give it that.

Functionality: 4

Again, that syntax thing is silly, but it works fine otherwise.

Accessibility: 3

It's one of the more accessible text games thus far, due to its simpler-than-simple concept.

Fun Factor: 1

Yeah, there's nothing here for me. Plonk in some numbers and hope for the best. Next.

This gives Digits a score of 20. Percentage wise, it's - miraculously - not the worst game on the tier list. At 28.57%, it's above Qubic in the E-tier. While I hated Qubic, I'm not sure I'd agree with that result. Although I'd rather play neither, I think I would play Qubic ahead of this any day of the week. Perhaps a revision of Qubic may be needed in the future?

[Add.] Upon completing the rescore project, this game managed to get even worse, dropping to a 19/70 (27.14%).

In any case, I'm glad this one's over and done with. Gamnim is up next - one of many, many, many versions of Nim released across the 70s.