Three in a row

In comparison with games of other genres, the representatives of “three in a row” are characterized by the following ^[2] :

• Demographics : more focused on women and an audience older than 35 years.
• Distribution : mostly downloaded by users, and games require a small amount of memory.
• Hardware : games can run on inexpensive and old computers; for example, in 2007 there were games that could run on the 1998 Windows 98 operating system.
• Economic model : games are mostly downloaded on shareware model ; for example, a player can fully play for 60 minutes, but then he will have to pay to get the content.

Game Designer Jesper Jules investigated the appearance and evolution of three-in-a-row games for two decades, and published the first results in 2007. He had not found games and game mechanics of the genre before 1985, and the first proto-games “three in a row” were Tetris and Chain Shot! released this year. Tetris did not meet all three in a row criteria, but it contained a number of key mechanics, and its success generated a large number of imitations, thereby stimulating the direction in the gaming industry. Chain Shot! came out as a non-profit game, and it also influenced and, together with Tetris, determined the development trends of the genre in the next 20 years ^[2] .

Both games pose the player with the task of manipulating the elements in order to fulfill the conditions of some template combinations. In other words, the player must recognize and create combinations, and the following game mechanics are distinguished here regarding the design of the game ^[2] :

• Time : Tetris creates pressure on the player, limiting time for reflection; in Chain Shot! There are no restrictions on thinking.
• Manipulation : “Tetris” allows you to change the shape during the fall, and Chain Shot! It works as if the elements had already fallen, and after falling they can be manipulated.
• Combination criterion : Tetris sets the task of filling the line; Chain Shot! based on the similarity of the elements themselves.
• Mandatory combination : “Tetris” allows the player to put pieces that do not fulfill the criterion for the loss of the line; Chain Shot! allows the player to make only those moves that lead to the appearance of the desired combination.

The mechanics of infinite thinking time is ambiguous. For example, according to Bejeweled developers, they decided to remove the timer and allow the player to think unlimitedly. When they showed their work to publishers, many were alarmed by the fact that, in their opinion, such a game would be simple and would not require any skills from the players. Historically, such a decision is also ambiguous and not traceable. So, in Chain Shot! time was not limited, and in the 1998 game Collapse used the same game mechanics as in Chain Shot! but the developers added a timer there. You can also consider Bejeweled as a mix of the 1995 game Panel de Pon and Collapse , but with the introduction of infinite time for reflection. This concept and its choice are important for the game designer in the sense that usually games should challenge the player, but for casual games this mechanics is changed so that the game is not complicated and does not punish mistakes too much ^[2] .

The evolution of ways to manipulate objects in the game world has brought a number of game mechanics that are different from the first proto-games of the genre. One of the most significant steps was the exchange mechanics (when two elements change places), which appeared in Panel de Pon . Another prominent invention was the mechanics of the shot, which appeared in the 1989 game Plotting but which became more popular with the advent of the game Zuma in 2004, followed by Luxor and Tumblebugs . Historically different games of the genre have used different approaches. So, in Dr. Mario players controlled the falling elements, while in Yoshi's Cookie the gameplay followed the principles of Chain Shot! ^[2] .

Despite the fact that Tetris was extremely popular, the mechanics of falling and the criterion for filling the line did not become massively copied in subsequent games. Attention has shifted to static patterns based on similar attributes of elements. This is due to the fact that in the latter case, the player is more focused not on falling or physical movement, but on finding the required combinations. At the same time, some games included both mechanics. For example, in the 2005 High Seas game, new pieces fall simultaneously and the player can move the lines of the elements. At the same time, the perception of this game turned out to be ambiguous: players familiar with the games of the “three in a row” genre concentrated on finding combinations and considered the game a continuation of Bejeweled ; others paid more attention to falling elements and considered them a variation of Tetris ^[2] .

The necessity of matching the required combination for the possibility of a move turned out to be ambiguous and was rather determined by the development goal. If all moves are allowed, then this created the gameplay with greater intensity. If such moves are prohibited, then the game becomes more strategic ^[2] .

During the design of games of the genre “three in a row” pay attention to the following features ^[2] :

• Short game sessions : most casual games are characterized by short game sessions, and at the same time you can start playing them quickly and interrupt the game without complications in order to return to it later; the same features apply to games in the genre of "three in a row"; this does not mean that players cannot play them for long, but the gameplay is structured in such a way as to allow itself to be easily interrupted.
• Automatic saving : like casual games of the “three in a row” genre themselves preserve the state of the game world even if the player himself closes the application; this makes it easy to both leave the game and return to it; in addition, this feature allows players to play in different settings (for example, in the workplace ).
• Control with the mouse : the complexity and context of the game of the “three in a row” genre are such that it can be fully controlled and controlled by the “mouse” manipulator ; at the same time, it is usually more difficult to play such games using the keyboard .
• Very simple rules : game designer Steve Meretsky describes it in such a way that all the rules of the game of the “three in a row” genre should be written in three sentences.
• A moderate degree of innovation : since learning to play should be very easy, they are often close to well-known casual games or are clones of other games in which the graphics are updated; if innovations are present, they take place in small steps; this feature is dictated by the target audience when players who are already familiar with casual games of the “three in a row” genre are looking for something similar, but do not want to learn too complex new elements.
• Several levels of a successful game : if a player passes the game or performs a local task in a more complex way, then this is rewarded; for example, if a player makes combos or matches more elements at a time than required.
• Many rewards : as a rule, casual games enable the player to achieve success at the very beginning, and games of the “three in a row” genre follow this feature.
• Small punishments of players : in comparison with games of other genres, casual, like games of the “three in a row” genre, try to avoid punishing players if they make mistakes.

Jim Stern, explaining moderate innovations during the design and development of his three-in-a-row game of Jewel Quest , notes that simple concepts can be added to the game, such as several matches for deleting an element, limiting the playing field and changing the game board, changing the goal for passing the level. In addition, such simple concepts can be combined and divided into many levels, allowing you to add a story to the game and maintain a variety of graphics ^[2] .

• Juul, Jesper . Swap Adjacent Gems to Make Sets of Three: A History of Matching Tile Games (Eng.) // Artifact : journal. - 2007 .-- 1 December ( vol. 1 , no. 4 ). - P. 205-216 . - DOI : 10.1080 / 17493460601173366 .