I discovered Threes only today, and I had no idea it looked so similar. I searched a bit and it appears as if 1024 is also inspired by Threes, so my game is probably the last of a long chain of clones :P
I was reading all your "I wasted x hours on this" and I rolled my eyes - "My god, these guys fall for everything". Then I tried it. Couldn't sleep. Damn it!
Best strategy (for me) seems to be to play it like tetris. Never ever use the up key and create a row at the bottom where everything collapses into it.
This sort of clicked towards, oooh I don't know about 1:30am this morning.
Downloaded and installed. Can you please remove the almost mandatory google games sign in, or make it optional. I tries to connect every time I move between the game and the menu, and I don't want it to connect...
Or an expansion on that. Keep track of how many 128s, 256s etc you've ever formed. Show them as big counters directly under the game with an animation when you create any of them.
Actually all you need to store is the highest block achieved, and the number of times it's been hit. For instance, if you've only ever generated 2 8's, then you know that you've had 4 4's, and 8 2's...
Edit 2:
Does the game allow four 2's to cascade into an 8? If so, maybe you could also store combo stats. It'd be way cooler to smash together four 256's than to smash together two 256's two times.
I can't tell if I despise you or admire you, all I know is that there was light outside my window when I first began playing this, and now it's pitch dark.
So addictive. You know since tiles slide to the edge it would be great if this took advantage of accelerometers to allow tile combining by tilting. I know this is a browser game but if you ever create an app using the tilt motion to combine tiles would be awesome. :)
I was so addicted to Drop7, and so annoyed at the crappy Android version, I made my own HTML/JS version with appcache, so I could play it in chrome offline: https://github.com/pavellishin/drop7
Side note: I got hooked on Drop7 during my first semester in college. I was fascinated by the game and wrote a simulator to pick the optimal move:
https://github.com/keshavsaharia/Drop7Simulator
I have Threes and they way way over-designed it. Also it's rubbery interface is really quite annoying. This one however is a perfection - simpler idea, pure gameplay, subtle animations and UI mechanics. It really beats Threes hands down even if it's a "clone".
You can always pay some sort of % as tribute, but you've created something that we all find a horrendous waste of time :-) so a way of remunerating you to some degree is not in the least bit unethical.
It's good to get paid for your work, even if it was fun.
The latest stats show no "game-win" events :P It might just be a matter of time though.
EDIT: oops, there was a bug in the win/lose tracking so I probably missed out on a few wins. I fixed it now, so it should hopefully track it if someone else wins!
Each turn, one 2 tile is added, and other tiles may be combined. So you can derive the move count by adding together the numbers on all the visible tiles and dividing by 2.
This is inaccurate, because you have a 10% chance of getting a 4 tile added instead of a 2. That part makes the game tricky, because otherwise you could optimize every solution like an algorithm without ever losing.
Oh, huh, I didn't even realize it was doing that. Even so, the move count will still be roughly proportional to the sum of the board (plus or minus some random variation), won't it?
This would be cool. I think winning in the fewest moves would be the most impressive. i.e. how few tiles you 'waste'. Though winning with the lowest score may approximate this.
There's actually a semi-optimal strategy that nearly guarantees winning if you're diligent about it. Just build a stairstep pattern with the highest numbers in the bottom corner of the stairs. Then basically combine sideways and downward and "always" resist the temptation to push up. Its kind of how some tri-diagonal matrix algorithms work. The only problem is you have to be fastidious about never using the one direction you've reserved as your excluded case (Up in my example) as that can screw your staircase by putting a [2] right underneath your wonderful [1024]. Just move blocks back and forth, waiting for the right blocks to create combo patterns, while generally storing lower cost blocks on the outside of the stairs, and then snake them through the stairs when you get a chain set up.
I found one not-completely-horrible strategy was just blindly running round the curser keys.. eg. up - right - down - left, repeatedly. Got near 4000 points with that..
Great game though - wasted waaay too much time last night playing.
It's a good start but you will get stuck at higher level. in your case focus on increasing the value on the bottom left. When possible, shift the last line to the right. Never go up.
I was surprised at how well that worked. I was basically blindly cycling between left,down,right (with one accidental up) and got to 1024 on my first try.
With enough tries anything is possible. There is probably even a person who ascended nethack on his first try (using the wiki of course, we're still talking things with p > 0) and didn't play it again because it's too easy and boring.
I thought about this for 5 minutes and really got nowhere. Can anyone come up with a nice analytic way to think about an algorithm?
There are a couple of brute force approaches: a) always pick the direction that will result in the most blocks to combine, b) always pick the direction that will result in the largest score.
> this made it to the top of HN without me even thinking of posting it here
Good for beta testing it.
Unlike with Threes, there's no real reason to use numbers since they're all powers of 2. If you used letters (A, B, C, ...) you could market it to non-HN sorts, and have a version of the game in a 5x5 grid, or, more to the point, in a 6x6 grid with letters A to Z. Most people in the world know the order of letters in English.
Good idea with the simple numbers, and certainly necessary to use some tokens other than what this 2048 app uses so we can have a version of it in a 5x5 or 6x6 grid.
When you wrote "Good idea with the letters, but perhaps not necessary. People are happy with simple numbers. Just look at Sudoku which doesn't use A to I", I thought you hadn't noticed my mention of the larger grid, which was really the main point of my comment and maybe I should've worded it differently. Though if you'd begun your comment differently, i.e. "Good idea with the larger grid, but perhaps the letters aren't necessary. People are happy with simple numbers. Just look at Sudoku which doesn't use A to I", I wouldn't have felt the need to reply to correct a perceived communication mistake.
Oh, for a larger grid, you might want to have letters anyway, because your point still applies.
It's interesting that log_2 2028 is just above what you can represent in a single digit. That's very close to merging two 9s.
I'd like to actually see someone pit x, log_2 x, and letter(log_2 x) against each other in an A/B test of the game. The latter two are simpler, but the former might be more exciting, because of bigger numbers.
I've started playing threes a week ago. Both threes and 2048 are fun to play. Except that I think in threes the challenge starts earlier in the game and every step counts and you can easily get into a deadlock.
Can't wait to see the source code and analytics. Maybe you want to add on the page the highest score :)
Likewise. I had one game where I had a 256 block and two 128 blocks, but I ran out of room to maneuver before I could combine the 128s to another 256 and then combine the 256s to a 512.
I did it by pressing up-left-down-right, repeating each direction as many times as possible. That's the worst part - knowing that your carefully calculated playthrough is actually no better than someone just pressing the keys in a set order.
Ran your strategy 162 times with autoit of which the following blocks came by: [128]: 150 times, [256]: 36 times, [512]: 13 times, [1024]: 0 times. Anyone else a good suggestion for an optimal "blind" strategy?
Perhaps I had a little bit of luck. But this shows you can easily get to 256 with little dedication. After which you can start to puzzle things together.
Also about your autoit "analysis" 36 + 150 + 13 != 162
I prefer Trip actually, it has the same rules as Threes, but it's much harder to get a high score compared to Fives. Because you only ever get 1, 2 or 3 as the new card, everything needs to be built up from there, it requires a lot more thought and planning. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.ginik.trip
Two hours lost at uni today and checking hn first thing back home... nooooooo! I will now proceed to waste time. Good job! :)
edit: Ok, some random friend just emailed me and told me to check out your game. This friend does not hang out at the online places I do. It seems to be on fire!
Just wanted to let you know (but wanted to wait before somebody would down vote such a comment here) that I really enjoyed your game, thanks and cheers!
It's similar, but different. With Threes you combine 1s and 2s to make 3s, then similar numbers to double them. Also, the tiles in Threes only shift at most one spot at a time - with this game, everything's flung to the other side of the board.
I agree, there's something satisfying about sliding all the things with just one keystroke. I wonder if it's like that desire to chuck things in parabolic arcs that made Angry Birds so popular? I actually bought Threes from the iOS App Store but I've spent much more time on this game for whatever reason.
I'm not going to claim it was first try. Probably my tenth. However, I got much better at avoiding the key mistakes:
- Always keep your highest number in a corner
- Use the rest of that edge as a "staging area" for the components that can next double the highest tile. Work the other tiles toward the opposite corner on that side and then double them upward into the highest corner.
- When you double the highest corner, you'll expose the "staging area" side. During this time, quickly work number back to fill that side so you avoid being forced to move the highest number out.
- NEVER let yourself fill a 3x4 grid. This will force you to move the highest column away from the edge and will probably end the game in a handful of turns.
These are some great tips. By keeping the highest number in corner and making sure I am not forced to move it, I have been able to get till (~20000 score) 1024, 512, 256 etc and then game over :( Going to try again.
LOVE the game. Who knew I could single-mindedly focus on one task for hours and not get distracted.
First of all, kudos on a well designed game. It's obvious you've made something pretty addictive, as evident by the place on HN and the responses you're getting here.
One thing I've found out is that you can pretty easily get to at least 512 or higher just by repeating the following pattern:
right + down + left + down
Try it out and you'll quickly see how it works. Any other similar pattern would also work:
right + down + right + up
up + right + up + left
left + down + left + up
I will also sometimes break the pattern to consolidate some of the larger numbers when opportunities present themselves. But other than that, I usually stick to the pattern.
Of course, it will only get you so far, because you will eventually run out of space to keep the pattern working. But it will get you past the first few thousand points (512 or higher).
I managed to beat it following a basic pattern similar to yours:
1) Mash up-left (or towards any corner) until blocks stop moving
2) Press right
3) Start over
The trick is to keep the high numbers in the top corner so the new numbers don't spawn behind it, you basically start building towards that corner and things start to work themselves out.
Like you, I had to do a bit of actual logic near the end, you can see that I overshot by a small margin and ended up with a 128 block too....
This works remarkably well. There are some spots where you have to apply logic -- in particular, I found that I progressed best when I built out the top row with my highest blocks (and then push/cascade my next highest block into the top when it got to be high enough) and I occasionally had to mash up-right rather than up-left to make that happen.
Yeah, same here. As long as you keep your high numbers against once side and the low numbers against the other, it's not hard. Pick one direction that you never ever use and you do fine.
1. "tumbler" until 128: up right down left, repeat
2. Get 128 on the top in the middle two slots. Really any edge works, but I'll say top for simplicity. Keep a semi-large value on the side with one open slot in top row to prevent sliding. The other side on top is used for staging
3. Only use left, right and up. Never let a smaller value get trapped. This rule can only be violated to avoid filling the top three rows with the fourth empty.
I lost this game because I mistakenly filled the top three rows, forcing me to use a down. I think this strategy is viable to win however
Here's the new routine:
1. "tumbler" until 128 can move to the upper left corner.
2. The highest number on the board is always in the upper left. Make the top row descend left to right.
3. Before combining values on the top row, keep hitting up until one of the lower rows will not combine from a left.
4. Often, the slot you are filling (eg, top right or one below top right) will have a two. Alternate pressing "left" and "right" until a two appears, allowing you to combine
5. Keep the second row locked as soon as possible with unique values ASCENDING left to right. This way you can use up, left and right without moving the slot you are filling on the far left of the second row.
There are a few other pattern recognition tricks that you'll pick up to aid in filling a slot for higher values. A few other misc tips:
* try to keep high number squares close together, and merge up to the top row as soon as possible. Otherwise, they will just close off a slot
* You may get a 2 trapped on the top row blocked by a higher value below it. Unfreeze the second row by combining squares & hope that a two appears in the new opening
* only 2's or 4's will appear. They (always") appear in the space left behind by the previous movement
This strategy worked quite well for me up until right around where you got to, 11532. Certainly much more effective than just trying to wing it without a strategy.
I played a round, and got to 512. But toward the end I wasn't sure if I was actually playing with a strategy, or just pressing buttons randomly with some thinking involved.
So I built a script to randomly press the arrow keys[0]! I let it play a few games, and the highest it got to was 128 before consistently losing. So I guess you'll need some decent strategy to get to 2048.
> So I built a script to randomly press the arrow keys[0]! I let it play a few games, and the highest it got to was 128 before consistently losing. So I guess you'll need some decent strategy to get to 2048.
That's a great idea for testing the depth of simple games. It's good to know a baseline score: players should be getting to the 128 tile or better, or else they're doing really bad.
I wrote a version myself in python and have been playing with strategies. It seems fairly resistant to simple greedy strategies (maximize highest score/maximize empty squares/etc).
In terms of "blind" strategies [up, right, down, left]* works pretty well, but [up, right, up, left]* is by far the best I've found. It gets to 512 about 30% of the time (!), with about 0.2% hitting 1024. Still haven't seen a "win" using the blind strategy in several 10,000s of runs.
This simple game really shows how amazing the human mind is. I've never played any variant of this game before and when I first started I was blind to the mechanics of how this worked. I was moving so slowly and would fill up the board quite quickly.
After playing this game for 2 hours now my fingers are moving faster than my conscious mind can really follow. In my last game I was doing combo moves taking "2" blocks to "64" blocks in mere keystrokes. I've been surprised several times when things work out.
I got the hang of it during my first play, and ended up with 512 with a 256. I suspect there may be a system that lets you clean up the mess without creating too much new mess.
This game feels like life. I plan and make a move. Some pieces move exactly as I had wanted. A bunch of other pieces that I wasn’t looking at, also move. Some of these unexpected results surprise me and make me happy, I even subconsciously take credit for them. Some others, I don’t even notice. It’s okay, there is too much going on.
Sometimes it feels too hard and pointless to plan, so I am pressing the arrows almost randomly. Need a break from thinking and taking responsibility. I just hope that I am going in the “right” direction. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. It’s also hard to tell. Ah well.
Now I’ve been doing pretty well at this for a while, I am getting pretty good I think, I have it all under control. A few moves later, before I even know it …. oops! suddenly it’s all a mess! :(
But there are miracles also. I’ve been in this mess for a bit now and it’s not much fun. It’s slowed down and my heart is not in the right place. Suddenly, a couple of moves later, I am totally back in the game! I don’t know if I know this, but it was barely my doing!
Of course, it’s this elusive goal (of 2048 or 42 or whatever else), it’s the reason why I keep going. I am pretty sure it’ll be really cool once I get there :)
This is one of those games that I do best on my first try when I have no idea what I'm doing, and then do worse and worse the more I think I have a strategy.
exactly. I got up to 256 first try and it took quite a while before I ran out of open tiles. 2nd try hit the wall shortly after 128... third time it went so quick and I only had a single 64. addictive and ridiculousness! :-)
The game is super addictive and I figured out a way to get to 11000 in the first hour. It's actually an excellent analogy for social network-type products and any business really. If your users belong to different clusters and similar clusters don't meet, there is little value and the network doesn't become more valuable for anyone. By focusing on the same corner scenario you help similar clusters find each-other consistently and thus amplify value to each-other. I took over one corner and keep stacking on to it with blocks of increasing value, essentially never moving out of it. If you move out of your corder, a different cluster takes hold in it and then everyone in that corner will hesitate to buy into you, even if the other cluster is small - it becomes a thorn in your butt. Great job! I learned something new today (Plague has also been very educational for me so far, but for viral dynamics.)
Quick and dirty 'dumb' solver (might require manual intervention sometimes):
var manager = new GameManager(4, KeyboardInputManager, HTMLActuator);
// Pattern definition (0: Up, 1: Right, 2: Down, 3: Left)
var pattern = [1, 2, 3, 2];
// Pattern Repeater
var i = 0;
// Interval
var solverInterval = window.setInterval(function() {
// Check if game is over
if (manager.over)
clearInterval(solverInterval);
// Repeat pattern
if (i % pattern.length == 0)
i = 0;
// Execute the move
manager.move(pattern[i]);
i++;
}, 200);
The first time I played the game I scored around 3000 points. After that, I tried to slow down and focus on keep the same kinds of numbers together, but after that, I couldn't get past 2250.
So I wrote a script that used Math.random() to hit the array keys continually, and the score was much lower: 1000.
Then I tried the sequence RIGHT UP LEFT DOWN over and over instead of Math.random() I scored significantly higher than all of them, in the 4000s.
Tried 3 games, and the scores were 2700, 1200, 5000. So maybe. But then I wrote a function to play it for me:
var manager = new GameManager(4, KeyboardInputManager, HTMLActuator);
function play() {
manager.restart();
var m = 0;
while (!manager.over) {
manager.move(m);
m = (m+1)%4;
}
return manager.score;
}
This is actually a good method: by using this method (avoiding up and favouring down), you tend to cluster 2s and 4s towards the top while larger numbers percolate downwards (and towards the middle). If you encourage this natural tendency, you can do even better.
When you're nearly stuck, you can often pick left or right so that a new tile can access both 2 and 4 and save yourself.
I got comfortably to 1024 with one go of this method, scoring 16744.
I think I have the beginning of a solution. The end result should be 2048 on the top-right corner (for the explanation). Always keep the highest value there. To do that never do a down without the right column filled and never do a left without the top row filled. Within those restrictions keep the top row in ascending order by building numbers on the left of the second row, so that they will match above and cascade right in powers of two.
I did this successfully for a while and then had no other option but a down without the rightmost column filled and lost my placement.
EDIT: A variation of this that works well is to only do up, left and right if at all possible. This keeps the highest values on top making it easier to match top-down. I've been stuck on 512 though.
The key is to have a well defined 'edge' between filled and empty areas - so that the high-valued tiles are on the corned away from the emptiness where 2s spawn; and low-value tiles are on/near the border.
Note that you can't afford to keep much unconnected duplicates - near the win point, you need to have 1024+512+256+128+64+32+16+8+4+2 which is 9/16 tiles filled already, so a few extra mid-value tiles cut your 'operating space' to near zero; so you must keep the high-values mostly ordered and agressively eliminate unneeded duplicates.
I was able to get 2048 building off of your solution. As you said, always keep your highest number in the top right corner. Try to build the next highest numbers up along the right edge, so that you have say, 256, 128, 64, 32 along the right edge. Always keep 4 numbers there, and only use up/down/right. Then just focus on building whatever number you need next to double the bottom right number, so that you can "chain up" numbers along the right edge and double your highest number in the top right.
Kind of hard to explain in words, but hopefully that helps!
Yep, this is pretty much the same solution with the right edge instead of the top edge. I got to 1024 and then blundered and couldn't get 2048. This thing is addictive though.
I managed to get 2048 on my first try. Different enough from Threes to stay interesting, but a lot of the same strategy applies. In Threes though, the number that appears has a higher chance of being a bigger number (24, 48, even higher later) the longer the game goes on. There were a few times I was almost stuck and was able to get out of it by continually moving in the same direction and sucking up 2s.
Finally won with a score of 20548. At first I was using a strategy of getting the biggest number into a corner. This follows a pattern of mostly up-right-up-right-... with an occasional left or down thrown in to get unstuck. This approach can pretty reliably get you to 512 in the corner without much trouble. But eventually this method saturates the available "storage" space with an inefficient pattern of tiles up to the diagonal. Then you have to start changing things up and continuing becomes tricky.
Then I tried the approach mentioned here of left-down-right-down-left... in a very mechanical fashion. I believe that this is very likely the optimal mindless strategy. It works amazingly well. As long as you never hit up, it fills things very efficiently and the biggest numbers percolate down towards the middle of the bottom row.
The way I finally won was to take this second approach and augment it with some periods of trying to get the biggest number in the corner. Start with ldrd until you get some 64s or 128s, then slow down and play catch-up with a corner. Then go back to ldrd. Occasionally stopping at strategic places to consolidate things also seems to help quite a bit.
All in all, a very fun game with some interesting properties.
One minor nit: if the board is full, but you can make a move that will free up a space, you can make that move and the new tile will appear in the newly opened space, but then the game immediately ends afterward. EDIT: OK, apparently this only happens if there are actually no more moves; as long as moves remain the game continues.
Also, hitting "space" reset the entire game; I'd expected it to either do nothing or add a tile without moving.
Very cool. Spent a while trying to get a high score by thinking about it, but in the end managed to beat it just by pressing the arrow keys anticlockwise one after the other!
Love this! Just when you think that a genre like tile puzzle games has been completely done, something like this comes along and shows a new way of thinking about it.
The most amazing thing about this game is how it manages to be so creative and different while being so simple.
Thanks! I shouldn't take all the credit for it though. The game is basically a clone of the two games I've been inspired by, as an attempt to make my own version and learn new things along the way!
Nice, only thing I don't like in the game is that I do better scores just doing (repeat((left or right once) + (up till it doesn't work anymore))) than when I think about my moves...
Also, protip: to get high score choose one direction that you will never push towards. You'll end up with a gradient of high value tiles on one side, lower on the other, which desirable.
Maybe Monday morning is finding me too pedantic, but this is similar to Threes (http://threesgame.com), not just like Threes. There are some pretty obvious differences, from the movement of the tiles to the requirements for tile mergers (multiples of 2 rather than 3). The comments thus far do not make that distinction.
I eventually won and went on to score 32420, eventually losing after getting a second 1024 on the board. I'm fairly certain a 4096 is achievable.
The cardinal rule, as many have said, is to keep one side filled, in descending order, with your largest piece in one corner. Once you have that side filled, you have to make sure that any time you have a duplicate on that row that you:
(1) only ever shift toward your largest number
(2) ideally have a parallel row that will not shift before you do (1)
Until you can refill your last row, circumstances may lead you to have to move in the forbidden direction, which could wreck the whole game. Point (2) ensures that you can fill your back row with another piece immediately, restoring 3 directions of moves as quickly as possible.
If you end up with any 2's on your back row, you must build them up to higher numbers ASAP. Last thing you want is buried 2's.
Once your numbers start getting high, I think it makes sense to use the front two rows exclusively for 2's, 4's, and the occasional 8, but to shift 8's to the third row as soon as possible.
I've found that to actually finish once you have all the pieces you need, it may make sense to break script, but if you want to go on to try to make 4096, you may want to carefully stay on script.
I've found that in tricky situations when I want to combine large value pieces that are just not in alignment, it makes sense to try to slide lower value pieces under one to "boost" one of the others into alignment. The ability to do this makes it valuable to keep your combining pieces in the middle of the board.
Lastly, when you have multiple possible moves, make the move that takes most advantage of the piece that's about to appear, either because you can quickly combine the new piece or because it can "boost" another piece into alignment.
I looks like the new block appears randomly. If the new block appeared even if you didn't move anything it would be easy, but they don't and that can ruin your strategy.
I got to a 512 block in a corner and then got blocked by a new block in the same corner.
I think the strategy is very simple. Pick a corner and mash keys that move into that corner. For example for bottom-right corner, just mash right and bottom. When you can't move anything anymore, move into the direction that keep your highest block in a corner and then continue to mash and hope that a new block doesn't appear anywhere close your highest block.
I have gotten a 512 block in 2 minutes twice( score over 6000 ). It would only take time to reach more, and maybe actually look at the board instead of mashing; but that is problematic since the new block appears to be random.
1024 could be reached in under an hour and 2048 in a day, i think.
It would be better if you got the position of the new block. That way the game would be solvable in some normal time.
I tried a "tumbling" strategy, where I would press right, down, left, up, repeating. You'll see that the blocks end up tumbling around. I was able to get 256 several times.
I also tried a very deliberate (and slow) strategy of actively trying to build up the necessary matching blocks and was able to get to 512 with a score of 5900.
I've found simply pushing up, left, down, right, I can routinely outdo the score I can attain by actually playing with thought.... Kind of disappointing, but then I lost hours to this already. Fabulous game!
Egads this is excellent! As others have mentioned, would love to see a 5x5 variation and also be allowed to "keep going" after getting to 2048 to see how far you can go. I was disappointed that it ended and I had about half the squares empty and -might- have been able to get a 512 on the board as well.
But just fantastic. Perfect balance of "speed when I want to blast through the easy levels" and "I need to think about the best next move" as well as try to construct an algorithm that helps get me to the endgame!
Finally had a chance to play Three's since it came out on android today and it honestly just made me want to play this more. The games are very similar, but 2048 is just more enjoyable to me.
I feel like a crazy person, but when i play this game for a while, screen text appears smaller. Like it's messing with my eyes or something. Does anyone else feel this happening?
Wrote a script which plays using a simple greedy approach. Chooses the current best option. Doesn't seem to get past 512 so far. It does however consistently get till 256. Just copy the code in the console and restart the game (space bar) to run.
Does anybody have a better approach? Other than randomize and trying your luck? Or maybe that is the best algorithm for this case..
I made this game as a fun weekend project, inspired by another game called 1024 (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/1024!/id823499224) and a spinoff called 2048 (http://saming.fr/p/2048/). I did mine to add animations to the latter, which was a bit hard to play without them.
I discovered Threes only today, and I had no idea it looked so similar. I searched a bit and it appears as if 1024 is also inspired by Threes, so my game is probably the last of a long chain of clones :P
The code is also open-source. You can find it here: https://github.com/gabrielecirulli/2048
Feel free to ask me anything, and thanks to everyone for the attention! :)
By the way, my highscore is somewhere around 6000. Admittedly, I'm quite bad at playing my own game :P
EDIT: Make sure not to get addicted!
EDIT 2: The game now has swipe gestures and vim keys support (added by @rayhaanj)!