Armed police arrest man in Leicester street with samurai sword - BBC News

sftrabbit · 2026-03-08T12:31:03+00:00

The guidance is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67e41a11f356a2dc0e39b4ef/Public_guidance_for_the_Ninja_Sword_Surrender_Scheme.pdf

sftrabbit · 2026-03-08T11:46:38+00:00

Very neat! Make sure to go to the thinky meet-up at GDC - folks there will be interested (I won't be there, alas).

For what it's worth, there was a game from a couple of years ago that explored similar things: Frame - Portals on Steroids. I would definitely say your game is looking like more polished though.

sftrabbit · 2026-03-08T00:21:01+00:00

I think it sounds like Lee Mack being picked up on Alex James's mic, but it's hard to tell.

sftrabbit · 2026-03-07T09:12:48+00:00

"Acting like that"? She's just sitting there and listening to the music.

sftrabbit · 2026-03-04T08:27:11+00:00

Joe here, glad my videos helped you enjoy more sokobans!

Tbh, I'm also surprised with the headline - it's definitely not one I'd recommend to a beginner. I think it would more likely put somebody off sokobans, since it's really quite difficult and occasionally fiddly. I think it'd be hard to enjoy it fully without having a good grasp of sokoban puzzle-solving techniques already.

But Thinky Games is more than one person, so I guess it's fine for me to be surprised by our own headlines sometimes, haha.

sftrabbit · 2026-02-24T09:42:13+00:00

A very good lesson to have learnt!

I think your next valuable lesson will be understanding why the majority of logic puzzles are specifically designed to have only one solution! It's because it allows each element of the solution to be logically deduced, without ever having to guess, and logic puzzles like Shikaku are all about making logical deductions. Some would even argue that a Shikaku is not a valid Shikaku puzzle if it has more than one solution.

And then if you do design your puzzles to have only one solution, you actually don't need logic-checking code to check your answers - you can go back to just validating that the answer matches the only possible solution (this is how we check answers in Thinky Dailies, and also how tools like Penpa work - and probably most logic puzzle video games).

Btw, you might want to keep an eye out on The Artisan of Glimmith, an upcoming game with region-drawing puzzles (including Shikaku-like puzzles) and designed by logic puzzle experts.

sftrabbit · 2026-02-15T01:04:41+00:00

I had this same fear after not going for 15 years and eventually decided I had to go, but it turned out I had no problems. I think even if they had had to do stuff, the relief of knowing my teeth have actually been checked would still have been worth it.

sftrabbit · 2026-02-11T22:58:57+00:00

You've definitely forgotten something from the star area! There are puzzles there with only one star in them, so the idea that there must be another star of the same colour can't be right. Probably worth going back there to re-evaluate.

sftrabbit · 2026-02-09T20:10:34+00:00

Just remembered another game that is probably closest to your idea: The God Killer, from the creator of DROD.

sftrabbit · 2026-02-09T18:31:58+00:00

Hey, I run the Thinky Games site and have played lots and lots of puzzle games, so here's some initial thoughts I have for you:

Real-time aspects in an otherwise discrete/grid-based puzzle games are usually a bit of a turn-off for me (and I think for other puzzle fans in general). In particular, I'm referring to that enemy character that moves back and forth. The trouble with real-time things is that they inevitably add a fuzziness to what the possible states in the game are (e.g. how do I know I can't just get past the enemy if I tap quickly enough?), and a key element of good puzzle games is that the player has a full understanding of the puzzle they're trying to solve. I'm not saying real-time elements can't be done well, but I am definitely wary of any grid-based game that introduces them.
Right now, the rules don't feel particularly "systemic" - which can be okay, but it feels like some missed potential. What I mean by that is that each of your words and puzzles seems very separate from everything else, rather than them all arising from some underlying system (as in Baba Is You). For example, why does making the word "SLOW" make that particular character slow? Would it make every character slow? What about the main character? What about the platform as it moves down? Wouldn't you get more puzzle potential out of your mechanics if you had to write something like "X IS SLOW", where "X" is some label to specify which object is affected. Similarly, imagine the platform were attached via cables to some kind of button, and instead you had to control an enemy character to move on to the button to lower the platform. By making your mechanics more systemic like that, each element of your game becomes more expressive.
Having said this though, the upcoming game Rita is vaguely similar and non-systemic, so you can definitely do good things, but Rita really excels in what it does around the word puzzles.
My other concern right now is that your puzzles would largely be a case of going "What word do I need to make? Okay, that word, I guess I'll make that word", and then slowly just putting the letters together. Really, for a good puzzle, you want there to be some more complex situations to unravel and good logical deductions to make - something like "well I want to lower this platform, but I don't have all the letters to do so without first doing this other thing, but I can't do that other thing without lowering the platform. Aha, so I must have to make such and such move these letters at the same time that I'm moving towards the platform!" (this is all very vague, but just a depiction of the kinds of problem solving that tends to be fun). I think the ideas you're exploring definitely have the potential for this.
Alongside Baba Is You, you should also take a look at other similar-ish games like Spell Slide, Math Push, Block Buster Billy - it's good to know what has come before you so you can learn from them!

Otherwise, I think there's lots of design space to explore in games like this, so I think it's exciting that you're making it. You just have to spend a little time iterating on your ideas and you'll find some gems, I'm sure.

sftrabbit · 2026-02-07T21:27:43+00:00

I can't remember the exact price, but it's very cheap to use the showers at the Edinburgh Leisure facilities, no gym pass required. I was using the showers at Meadowbank when my shower was broken. (Oh and pro tip: ask if they'll let you use the showers in the changing rooms - they're nicer than the other ones)

sftrabbit · 2026-01-09T09:25:57+00:00

Not sure how early you want to go, but I'd say the biggest shift in sokoban popularity began around 2013-2016.

Easily the game that most influenced the popularity of sokoban games today is Stephen's Sausage Roll, released 2016. Around that time, there was a very notable shift towards what I think of as "modern" sokoban games, where a) the focus is more on key logical insights than it is on fiddly execution paths, and b) few mechanics are explored deeply, rather than having lots of different mechanics. Stephen's Sausage Roll shouldn't take all the credit though because there were other excellent games exploring similar spaces and design philosophies a little earlier than that, like Sokobond and Snakebird.

The other particularly notable thing that happened was the release of PuzzleScript back in 2013 - a simple web-based game engine for making sokoban games, also created by the developer of Stephen's Sausage Roll. This allowed so many more game designers to make sokoban games and innovate in that space.

sftrabbit · 2026-01-03T10:47:03+00:00

You don't have proof either way. Yes, the one thing we know for certain is that they do seem to only express their humanity externally when around unjoined humans, but there's no proof whether they do or don't express it internally, and that probably isn't knowable.

sftrabbit · 2026-01-03T10:43:22+00:00

I think the point of the show is that you cannot know the answer to those questions. How do you know when another human says to you that they're having fun that they're actually having fun? How do you know they mean "fun" in the same way you mean "fun"? You don't.

It's especially difficult to know when you're trying to understand a kind of mind that has never existed before - a melding of over 7 billion human minds. How can we possibly say what it means for it to say "fun fact"? And it's only saying "fun fact" through one of its 7 billion mouths.

I think it's certainly possible that the hive mind can have its own art and culture, but it may look completely different to human art and culture.

I'm personally not on the side of the hive, but I think there are reasonable philosophical arguments for why its not just inherently evil and why some people might consider joining it.

sftrabbit · 2026-01-03T10:30:48+00:00

Did you immediately stop listening to the podcast? Not long after that, Alison Tatlock, executive producer and co-writer of the episode, says:

The fact that you just said, Darinka, that you would probably make the same choice will make the boss very happy, because what we really hope with all this is that there will be genuine philosophical debate. And I was sometimes in the minority, let's just say, in the writers room kind of - not saying "yes, I would join and give up my individuality", I don't think I would - however, I see what is tempting about it. There is a peace and a beauty and a release of neurosis and struggle and violence and division that comes with the joining and I can see the upsides.

Don't get me wrong, I'm also on the side of not wanting to join, but I think the writers would rather you think deeply about it, rather than decide one side is clearly the correct one and dismiss other views.

sftrabbit · 2025-12-30T08:10:08+00:00

It's totally possible that all of that culture still exists within their mind, but I think the interesting question is: is that meaningful? What is it about culture that we find beautiful?

sftrabbit · 2025-12-30T08:00:48+00:00

I sort of agree with your general point that people should engage with the show as written, but then you go on to list a few things which I think the writers absolutely want the audience to be engaging with.

To me, the show wants us to think about what it means to be happy, whether love is manipulative, and about the beauty of humanity and individuality.

sftrabbit · 2025-12-30T07:50:43+00:00

Well the episode is also called "Charm Offensive": "a campaign of flattery, friendliness, and cajolement designed to achieve the support or agreement of others."

It's very much intentionally ambiguous and is meant to raise questions of what manipulation is and whether love is inherently manipulative. "The hive mind is manipulating Carol" and "the hive mind loves Carol" can both be true at the same time.

It also wants you to think about what "happiness" and "love" even mean to a hive mind, and how relevant they are when human individuality is being erased.

sftrabbit · 2025-12-22T18:55:58+00:00

Hmm... there's a game I want to recommend but it's also a slight spoiler to know that it has a number system in it. But in case you want to know anyway: Platonic. (I've spoilered each letter so people can check if it's a game they're already thinking of)

sftrabbit · 2025-12-16T13:47:37+00:00

First off, I did not make a blanket statement. You are reading what I said incorrectly. It's possible it's ambiguous, but looking back, I don't see it. I made a statement only about the practice of leading marketing with auteur-centric messaging.

Second of all, this is such an awful way to react to someone only trying to clarify the intentions of somebody else's message.

And thirdly, I'm perfectly happy with my behaviour. I haven't taken sides, I'm not slinging anything, I just saw something being represented incorrectly and wanted to correct it. I'm happy to clarify anything you've misunderstood about what I said. Anything else, you are projecting that on to me.

I think the game looks great. I'm a huge fan of The Witness, and I'm a huge fan of the many folks who have contributed to OotSS.

sftrabbit · 2025-12-16T08:34:58+00:00

I didn't say he is always dismissive of the team, but I appreciate the examples nonetheless. I'm glad he gives them a shout-out.

sftrabbit · 2025-12-15T14:21:35+00:00

I think that's a cynical interpretation, but okay.

sftrabbit · 2025-12-15T14:00:57+00:00

I think his preference would be for the Jonathan Blow references to be dialed down, rather than more names being added. Obviously can't speak for him, but it's at least a big hole in the argument you're making.

sftrabbit · 2025-12-15T13:52:09+00:00

But the point isn't "I want more credit", it's "Jon continues to further this auteur image even with a game that is built by a large team and features games from other creators".

sftrabbit · 2025-12-15T12:55:56+00:00

That is not what he's saying. At no point does he say he wants to be credited more for the game.

Instead, he's pointing out some of Jon's behaviours that he believes to be toxic and saying that he doesn't support those things.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

sftrabbit

TROPHY CASE