Game: c-jump Computer Programming Board Game

Image

chansen2794 — 2008-02-11T05:47:26+00:00

High Res Picture of Game Board

Thread: Re: See C-Jump. Jump, C-Jump

Ncik — 2007-11-19T00:54:18+00:00

Haha. Yes, very true. I don't know what I was thinking. I need to proof-read my reviews a little more carefully from now on.

Thread: Re: See C-Jump. Jump, C-Jump

etherton — 2007-11-18T18:30:40+00:00

^Deconstructor^Destructor

?

Thread: See C-Jump. Jump, C-Jump

Ncik — 2007-11-18T00:08:39+00:00

// Header

A little history:

I originally bought both this game and Java as gag gifts back in early 2006 to just put out as ornamentation in the office where I worked. Being part of the company's computer programming department, these were nicely symbolic of the two primary programming languages we were using at the time (I'm sure you can guess what they may have been). C-Jump was definitely the cheaper of the two, and this was apparent in the materials used in the construction of the game. But then again, when you're up against Java and it's ultra-thick cardstock, the majority of games would come out as the underdog by that comparison.

Anyway, the two games hung around the office with Post-it notes such as "Do not compile - do not collect 200" (Ah, the humour!) stuck over them, and neither was actually played almost all that year.

However, come Christmas-time, Java ended up being carried back to my house to be played over the holiday period, whereas C-Jump was left in the office. This was based solely on a quick review of the contents of both boxes and my judgement as to which might be fun for people with little programming interest. However, was I being unfairly dismissive of C-Jump in my rash assessment? Let's take a look:

// Constructor

Okay, so C-Jump was primarily designed for those with a programming and/or educational frame of mind. Why and how is this? Well, the board is comprised of numerous squares with pseudo-programming terms on them. Players start their pieces (referenced in the instructions as skiers or snowboarders) at the top on the "/* START */" square and must progress their way down the 'course' to be the first to end up on the "/* FINISH */" square. Sounds simple.

// Body

And it is. Unfortunately, boringly so.

Turns cycle between the players, and progression down the board is determined by the roll of a die. Depending on what square you are stood on, the pseudo-programming terms may modify your movement. So "x+2;" will add 2 to your dice-roll, "x--;" will mean you move 1 square less than rolled. In addition to this the board also contains 'branching' squares which vary the path your piece will take, so a square with "if (x < 4)" on it will mean you take one route (true) if you roll 1, 2 or 3, and another route (false) if you roll 4, 5 or 6.

Sounds rather novel and programmy, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, the above does mean that when you play the game with one playing piece for each player, the game simply becomes a variant of Snakes and Ladders. There's nothing you can do to affect the outcome of any move, and whether you end up racing ahead (landing on a positive-affecting square) or loop back to earlier on the board is all just down to what you roll on the die.

Now, admittedly, there is a second way of playing the game where each player is given two playing pieces each. There's some minor rules modifications based on this, but the main affect is that when you roll the die you can now pick which of your pieces you wish to be affected by that roll. This does indeed add some strategy now into the game, but it really isn't enough. There is still no player/player interaction on the board, most decisions end up being quite obvious, followed by blind luck as to whether they'll work out for the best next turn, and the majority of play still results in you moving your pieces from a square that reads "x+3;" to another that reads "x+2;" - not the most exciting gameplay experience I've encountered.

On top of this, I found the single sheet of A4 that serves as the game's instructions leaflet seemed rather vague in places. It clearly states that if a "skier starts at a space with an arithmetic statement" that their roll is modified, but then it also goes on to list all the conditional squares ("if (x == 1)") and their effects, but doesn't state whether these take affect only if you land on them, or whether they also have an affect if you were to pass them with a roll. It doesn't even tell you if you need to get both skiers to the finish to win if you're playing a '2-pieces per player' game - I must assume so, but...

(A minor aside: you'll note I refer to the game as using "pseudo-programming" concepts repeatedly above. I think this will definitely rate as just pedantry on my part, but the majority of the board is really not the kind of thing you see in real C code. "x+2;"? Makes great sense in a board game - add 2 to your die roll; in a computer program? - that's not how you add 2 to x - you'll be wanting "x+=2;" for that...)

// Destructor

As a game, I find the whole thing really quite lacking. It's not the kind of thing adults are going to want to play, and even children/teens who view the 'exciting' world of programming with starry eyes (and, surely, they must be few and far between) I think will lose interest in the game itself after only a couple of plays.

It is a shame, but, to be honest, I really don't think I was expecting anything more when I bought the game. It was a gag gift - I was just hoping it could be a fun game as well.

In summary, I'll just say this:
C-Jump is now stacked with other board games at home. When I transported it from the office, it was a rainy day and due to my own clumsiness I ended up dropping the game into a puddle on the way to the train station. The experience didn't really damage the game, but I wouldn't have been that concerned if it had.

if (game == C_JUMP) { happiness--; }

/* FINISH */

Thread: Re: Patented gameplay?

EsotericMoniker — 2006-03-23T19:11:28+00:00

da_edwards wrote:
David Koontz - You really are a twunt, you're a twunt, a twunt, twunt, twunt. Incase you were wondering, you are a twunt.

Wow, thank you for your wonderful insight into this topic. Really, it's amazing that we can get along without your intellectual contributions.

Thread: Re: Patented gameplay?

womzilla — 2005-10-20T20:09:51+00:00

Just for the record, game mechanics are explicitly not covered by copyright under US copyright law and under the Berne Convention (the international framework for copyright law). The only intellectual property protection that a game mechanic per se can obtain is patent protection.

Although patents used to be commonplace in the gaming industry, I have never heard of a boardgame patent actually being protected in a lawsuit, and I'd love to hear of one.

Thread: Re: Patented gameplay?

Golux13 — 2005-10-20T13:46:35+00:00

Where do you get the statistics to support your contention that the majority of patents that get litigated are "revoked"? A few high profile cases have resulted in reexaminations of patents, and it's true that some patents, if they get to litigation, are found invalid, but I think you're just as likely to see non-infringement be the basis for a defense verdict as invalidity.

In fact, I suspect the majority of patent cases that get anywhere near litigation result in settlements and licenses, which would be an indicator that the patent is likely to be enforced if it goes through a whole trial. Because of the nature of patent damages, few defendants are willing to roll the dice in a close case, and some defendants just don't have the resources or the stomach to defend themselves. Most often, though, the cost of a license is less than the cost of litigation plus the weighted cost of a negative result. So that's market efficiency, not necessarily abuse of the patent system.

I will not dispute your initial contention, that the PTO is a mess, though I think the true mess is all in the new technology areas -- business methods, software, biotech. In more mature tech areas, the examiners are generally well-trained, old hands. But with newer tech, they just don't have enough skilled examiners, and it's hard to convince young techie lawyers to work for government money instead of a private sector salary. So you have the unfortunate confluence of a shortage of examiners and examiners with insufficient understanding of the technology they are opining on, which leads to massive backlogs and a fair number of questionable patents.

Thread: Re: Patented gameplay?

Geosphere — 2005-09-23T20:45:36+00:00

Adiken's Dice system, used in Nin-Gonost and Dungeon Clash is patented.

In truth, its just a really good idea and way to implement a really common concept.

But it is protected.

Thread: Re: Patented gameplay?

da_edwards — 2005-09-23T13:38:28+00:00

David Koontz - You really are a twunt, you're a twunt, a twunt, twunt, twunt. Incase you were wondering, you are a twunt.

Thread: Re: Patented gameplay?

galeninjapan — 2005-09-21T16:02:14+00:00

I am going to patent the act of Rolling Dice.

Think of all the money I will be getting!!!

Thread: Re: Patented gameplay?

shannona — 2005-09-20T23:32:38+00:00

The biggest problem is that the US Patent Office is an absolute trainwreck. The vast majority of patents that they grant, and which are taken to court, are revoked. In other words, they're constantly granting invalid patents.

Unfortunately this plays right into the hands of huge corporations who file for patents knowing that they wouldn't hold up in court, then use them as a club to drive smaller businesses out of business.

As a result, you really have to look askance at anyone getting patents in the current market.

Shannon

Thread: Re: Patented gameplay?

FortKnox — 2005-09-20T20:32:43+00:00

mlvanbie wrote:
In games, well, Teuber could have patented the production mechanic in Settlers and then Faidutti would have to pay royalties for Boomtown or think up his own production mechanic.

For those who have played Boomtown, the irony of this is too rich...

Thread: Very good!

Zori — 2005-09-20T19:40:57+00:00

Thread: Re: Patented gameplay?

EsotericMoniker — 2005-09-16T23:58:04+00:00

The problem with this whole thing is that games fall much more into the realm of copyright than patents. I really don't think any game mechanic patent would hold up in court. Patents are supposed to demonstrate that they are new, inventive and useful to qualify, although from some of the patents granted it's painfully clear that the standard no longer exists. Rolling a die to generate "resources" is certainly a useful mechanic but it isn't exactly a novel concept. So while I don't think these patents have any sort of legal merit I believe they are a detriment because of the games that are never made due to the background threat of legal action. What is more interesting than the number of patents on any particular mechanic is any court cases over those patents. After all, a patent is relatively worthless until it stands up in court.

Thread: Re: Patented gameplay?

mlvanbie — 2005-09-15T19:59:32+00:00

Actually, there are huge numbers of board game patents. The number of patents on variations of tiddly-winks is staggering. A patent is the only way to keep people from duplicating your original game mechanics, and as such have been heavily used in the past.

Apparently I'm not the only person to become interested in the number of tiddly-wink patents, as opposed to all the other game-related patents:

http://www.tiddlywinks.org/collector/patents/Default.htm

In software and business methods, there are lots of reasons to oppose patents. In games, well, Teuber could have patented the production mechanic in Settlers and then Faidutti would have to pay royalties for Boomtown or think up his own production mechanic. Perhaps Teuber wishes that he had patented part of Barbarossa so that Cluzzle would earn him money. In real life, Eagle Games bought rights for Struggle of Empires to reuse its mechanics in Conquest of the Empire II and Lookout Games licensed mechanics from Outpost for Das Zepter von Zavandor.

Thread: Patented gameplay?

EsotericMoniker — 2005-09-15T07:02:36+00:00

I was fairly surprised when I ran into this game. Being a professional programmer it seemed at least worthy of a novelty purchase. I don't really see a whole lot of value in teaching children through this method as it introduces the concepts pretty abstractly and in a way that is not representative of a real computer program. Furthermore you're not *doing* anything other than adding and subtracting from the die roll so I do not believe many children will really see any point to it (at least in Monopoly you're bankrupting your friends and in Mouse Trap you get to set off the cool Goldberg device).

The real kicker though is the fact that Mr. Kholodov applied for and received a patent for the supposedly unique game mechanics. Now perhaps it is Mr. Kholodov's computer background that leads him to this behavior but patents are pretty much unheard of in the board game industry. Personally I believe his patent is undefendable but the very idea is quite insulting. Can you imagine if Knizia had a patent portfolio? If even a single silly patent was upheld it would severely dampen the creativity we see in the current board game market. I personally am voting with my wallet, no purchase from me.

Image

cjumpgames — 2005-06-24T16:56:16+00:00

Introduction to "if", "else", "while", and much more!

Image

cjumpgames — 2005-06-24T16:56:11+00:00

Learn C++ and Java by playing a board game

Image

cjumpgames — 2005-06-22T18:41:11+00:00

c-jump board game