Overview: A puzzle game that revolves around programming.
20171018:
Among the different top-rated Steam DB games in my library, I decided to play TIS-100. While there was some initial investment in simply learning the basics of the programming language, the result was a satisfying puzzle experience.
I stopped playing after completing the first eight segments.
Steam Game Time: 3.1 hours (3h 4m)
Thoughts:
Pros:
+ Novel puzzle game
+ Statistics on solutions (nodes, cycles, commands) lends itself to replay value
Neutral:
~ Easier for those already familiar with programming
Comparison to SpaceChem:
It's been a while since I've played SpaceChem (PC) (2011), but I remembered enough to recall the similarities and identify some differences.
Starting with similarities, both games are presented as a series of puzzles where the player's solutions are rated on three metrics: cycles, reactors/nodes, and symbols/instructions (for SpaceChem/TIS-100, respectively). Personally, I found it strategically reasonable to simply first come up with a sub-optimal solution.
Although the structure of the two games are similar, their primary game mechanic are logically distinct. In particular, SpaceChem contains a greater spatial component than TIS-100. On the other hand, TIS-100 arguably requires more logic and less trial-and-error than SpaceChem.
Their greatest difference, however, would lie in their respective target audience. In general, I would expect that SpaceChem will be more accessible to the average player than TIS-100. Elaborating, without any prior exposure to any programming language, the player would be required to process the TIS-100 manual and make sense of the various commands - a task that would be approximately equivalent to learning the basic vocabulary and grammar of a foreign language.
Summary:
TIS-100 stands out from other games I've played recently for it's novel gameplay mechanic. Just like with SpaceChem, I found myself easily spending hours playing the game without even noticing it. Reflecting on the experience, the experience reminded me of solving math problems in undergraduate and graduate school: spending time to solve a problem and reaping the joy of solving it.
In the end, TIS-100 won't appeal to everybody, but any programmer would probably enjoy it and I'm certain a fair portion of puzzle gamers will enjoy it as well.
20250521:
Today I revisited the game. I went through the first five puzzles, taking a look at what I had written as a way to refamiliarize myself with the game. The options are rather basic, with most instructions have to do with moving values around. That, however, would understate the difficulty of optimizing solutions across the three measures of efficiency: cycles, nodes, and lines of instruction. As such, I spent 1.8 hours trying to improve my solutions, but barely succeeded in discovering the optimal solutions (according to the leaderboards). Of course, having knowledge that there are better solutions is a big hint on discovering them.
By the end of the session, I felt I had a grasp on the game and I would intend to spend less time looking for improved solutions to previously solved puzzles and more time solving new problems in future sessions.
While the game doesn't seem as fun as Shenzhen I/O, it isn't as difficult or boring as I thought it would be according to my pre-existing impression of it. I'll tentatively give it a 4.4.
Rating: 4.4/5
Steam Game Time: 4.9 hours (cumulative game time) / 1.8 hours (session game time)
20250531:
Gameplay Log:
Gave some thought to Signal Comparator improvement with less instructions but my variations come up with more lines
Sequence Generator. I thought of a complex idea to find the min and max via the sum of the numbers and the absolute value of the difference. Not only does it take more instructions, but with no divison by 2, it also doesn't work. But it does indeed output twice the expected outputs. By the time I stopped playing, I thought the solution should involve ANY register but the ANY register reads in a specific order if there are multiple inputs coming from different nodes. I thought it would have been first in first out.
Steam Game Time: 6.7 hours (cumulative game time) / 1.8 hours (session game time)
20250601:
Gameplay Log: Waking up in the AM cause the kids are sick. Decided to play some more. Couldn't leave Sequence Generator alone. Eventually figured out to make use of my ANY idea, rearranging some items around to get a solution with 17 instructions (one short of the best solution among friend list.
After the end of yesterday's session, I was trying to look for something mentioned in the instruction manual. It turns out it doesn't exist but in doing so I accidentally read about leveraging the value range -999 to 999 in solutions.
Got 4 node solution. Tried to split it out thinking it might save cycles but in that case it used more cycles and instructions.
Realized that when there are multiple outputs, moving the source of those outputs close to the outputs is better.
Steam Game Time: 8.3 hours (cumulative game time) / 1.6 hours (session game time)
TIS-100 (PC) (2015)
Relevant Links:
TIS-100 Webpage
TIS-100 (Wikipedia.org)
TIS-100 (PC) (MetaCritic.com)
TIS-100 (Steam Store Page)
20171018:
Among the different top-rated Steam DB games in my library, I decided to play TIS-100. While there was some initial investment in simply learning the basics of the programming language, the result was a satisfying puzzle experience.
 |
| The first puzzle that familiarizes the player with the node-based nature of the in-game programming language. |
I stopped playing after completing the first eight segments.
Steam Game Time: 3.1 hours (3h 4m)
Thoughts:
Pros:
+ Novel puzzle game
+ Statistics on solutions (nodes, cycles, commands) lends itself to replay value
 |
| A slightly more complicated task: output A minus B at P and output B minus A at N |
Neutral:
~ Easier for those already familiar with programming
Comparison to SpaceChem:
It's been a while since I've played SpaceChem (PC) (2011), but I remembered enough to recall the similarities and identify some differences.
Starting with similarities, both games are presented as a series of puzzles where the player's solutions are rated on three metrics: cycles, reactors/nodes, and symbols/instructions (for SpaceChem/TIS-100, respectively). Personally, I found it strategically reasonable to simply first come up with a sub-optimal solution.
 |
| The game tells a story via debug messages found in each level. |
Although the structure of the two games are similar, their primary game mechanic are logically distinct. In particular, SpaceChem contains a greater spatial component than TIS-100. On the other hand, TIS-100 arguably requires more logic and less trial-and-error than SpaceChem.
Their greatest difference, however, would lie in their respective target audience. In general, I would expect that SpaceChem will be more accessible to the average player than TIS-100. Elaborating, without any prior exposure to any programming language, the player would be required to process the TIS-100 manual and make sense of the various commands - a task that would be approximately equivalent to learning the basic vocabulary and grammar of a foreign language.
Summary:
TIS-100 stands out from other games I've played recently for it's novel gameplay mechanic. Just like with SpaceChem, I found myself easily spending hours playing the game without even noticing it. Reflecting on the experience, the experience reminded me of solving math problems in undergraduate and graduate school: spending time to solve a problem and reaping the joy of solving it.
 |
| Complete levels to unlock more levels. |
In the end, TIS-100 won't appeal to everybody, but any programmer would probably enjoy it and I'm certain a fair portion of puzzle gamers will enjoy it as well.
20250521:
Today I revisited the game. I went through the first five puzzles, taking a look at what I had written as a way to refamiliarize myself with the game. The options are rather basic, with most instructions have to do with moving values around. That, however, would understate the difficulty of optimizing solutions across the three measures of efficiency: cycles, nodes, and lines of instruction. As such, I spent 1.8 hours trying to improve my solutions, but barely succeeded in discovering the optimal solutions (according to the leaderboards). Of course, having knowledge that there are better solutions is a big hint on discovering them.
By the end of the session, I felt I had a grasp on the game and I would intend to spend less time looking for improved solutions to previously solved puzzles and more time solving new problems in future sessions.
While the game doesn't seem as fun as Shenzhen I/O, it isn't as difficult or boring as I thought it would be according to my pre-existing impression of it. I'll tentatively give it a 4.4.
Rating: 4.4/5
Steam Game Time: 4.9 hours (cumulative game time) / 1.8 hours (session game time)
20250531:
Gameplay Log:
Gave some thought to Signal Comparator improvement with less instructions but my variations come up with more lines
Sequence Generator. I thought of a complex idea to find the min and max via the sum of the numbers and the absolute value of the difference. Not only does it take more instructions, but with no divison by 2, it also doesn't work. But it does indeed output twice the expected outputs. By the time I stopped playing, I thought the solution should involve ANY register but the ANY register reads in a specific order if there are multiple inputs coming from different nodes. I thought it would have been first in first out.
Steam Game Time: 6.7 hours (cumulative game time) / 1.8 hours (session game time)
20250601:
Gameplay Log: Waking up in the AM cause the kids are sick. Decided to play some more. Couldn't leave Sequence Generator alone. Eventually figured out to make use of my ANY idea, rearranging some items around to get a solution with 17 instructions (one short of the best solution among friend list.
After the end of yesterday's session, I was trying to look for something mentioned in the instruction manual. It turns out it doesn't exist but in doing so I accidentally read about leveraging the value range -999 to 999 in solutions.
Got 4 node solution. Tried to split it out thinking it might save cycles but in that case it used more cycles and instructions.
Realized that when there are multiple outputs, moving the source of those outputs close to the outputs is better.
Steam Game Time: 8.3 hours (cumulative game time) / 1.6 hours (session game time)
TIS-100 (PC) (2015)
Relevant Links:
TIS-100 Webpage
TIS-100 (Wikipedia.org)
TIS-100 (PC) (MetaCritic.com)
TIS-100 (Steam Store Page)
 |
| Each successful solution measured on Cycle Count, Node Count, and Instruction Count |
No comments :