A bit of double vision going on here. It's awkward having to do what is effectively the same game twice in a row, but that's just how the chips have fallen with the recent discovery I discussed in the last post.
We have before us another rendition of the Batnum varation of the traditional game of Nim. The main difference between Batnum and Nim appears to be that Batnum typically seems to have only one pile of objects, whereas Nim has several piles. Otherwise they are pretty much the same game. I've explained how to play Batnum and Nim previously, so I'll spare you the details here and will proceed straight into the nuts and bolts of this version.
This version of Batnum is derived from David Ahl's 101 BASIC Games book, as have most games I've done recently. Fortunately for me, the game is identical between the original version of the book and the 1978 microcomputer edition. I'm glad to not have another Roulette problem on my hands here.
What is less fortunate is that the authorship is uncertain, unlike the 1967 version of Batnum. Determining the author of that version as John G. Kemeny, the inventor of BASIC, seemed rather unarguable to me. This 1970 version is definitively not the same game, meaning authorship is much harder to determine. The original version of Ahl's book credits the game to Kemeny, but the 1978 update alters the wording in its Batnum entry slightly, which could be read as implying that Kemeny was not the author of the version that appears in the book (however, it does still credit the game to Kemeny at the top of the page.)
That leaves us with two possible theories on this game's authorship:
This version of Batnum was not authored by Kemeny, but rather likely David Ahl or an associate who helped him compile the book, or,
Kemeny didauthor this version of Batnum, meaning this version is an updated and expanded version of his 1967 original.
The latter of these is probably the most likely, based on how authorship is almost always attributed where possible in both versions of the book (Ahl does not credit himself for his games in the first edition of the book, but he is credited in the 1978 edition.) All the evidence points to Kemeny as the author, so I must go with him as the most likely author, meaning that this game is, most likely, Kemeny's rewrite and expansion on his 1967 version of Batnum.
With that sorted, let's get into the actual game, shall we?
Batnum's initial setup is basically identical to Gamnim, which I played back in August. The game provides its instructions and asks for the object pile size (see screenshot above.)
Setting up the game.
Once the pile size is defined, the game takes you through the other setup options. You get to choose the win condition (either to take the last object or force your opponent to take it), the minimum and maximum number of objects that can be removed each turn, and who goes first. That's all the options the game has, which is a fairly standard amount when compared with Gamnim.
As far as playing the game goes, it's identical to the 1967 version of Batnum. The computer basically plays perfectly, so you can only win if you opt to go first and avoid taking the last object. I didn't try it, but I assume the game can be won with the inverse settings (going second taking the last object.) It feels far less fulfilling to win when you can just set the game up for yourself, so 1967 Batnum gets a point over this version in that regard.
I meant to win this one. Messed up the settings.
I played a few rounds, fiddling with the settings as I went. I got bored after about 3 minutes of play time, so I decided to do the one thing the game tells you not to do: type a zero. The instructions clearly state to not use zero when playing. So, naturally, I used zero.
You were warned.
Using zero is considered a forfeit by the game. I hoped it might have done something more dramatic than that, though I might be asking too much of a 1970 game.
Sadly, that's all there is to Batnum. That means we're already on to the scores.
Time Played: 3 minutes.
All that's needed to experience everything the game has to offer.
Difficulty: 0
Putting it as a zero as you can set your own difficulty.
Gameplay: 0
There's very little gameplay to begin with. It lacks any substance or any compelling reason to play it whatsoever.
Controls: 9
I'm docking a point because the game doesn't tell you that you need to put a comma in between the numbers when setting the minimum and maximum number of objects that can be removed per turn.
Visual: 1
There is nothing noteworthy to discuss with visuals - it's as basic as it gets, with no effort put in to make it look like anything other than plain text.
Functionality: 5
Everything works as intended, no issues giving it full marks here.
Accessibility: 3
It's a lot easier to run and access than 1967's Batnum, and is a simple enough game to understand.
Fun Factor: 0
I found no enjoyment playing this at all. Apologies for being so blunt, but there really isn't anything to say. This one felt like work.
1970's Batnum scores 18, which, with a percentage of 25.71% just barely keeps it out of the F-tier and at the very, very bottom of the E-tier. It only managed to score one point higher than the 1967 version due to the ease of accessibility this version possesses.
[Add.] Upon completing the rescore project, Batnum (1970) gained 2 points, going up to 20/70 (28.57%)
Fortunately, the Nim variants are behind me for now. Honestly, I dragged my feet with this post due to having to basically play the same game twice. There are some more interesting games coming up in 1970, which I aim to get through at a much quicker pace than the current one.
No comments:
Post a Comment