## Top 10 Time/Space Manipulation Puzzle Games

You, like I, might wish to bend time and space and wake up after the election results are in. Barring an unsafe quantity of alcohol, we can’t. But second best, here are 10 Time/Space manipulation puzzle games* which can take your mind off things.

*It turns out I accidentally put 11 on the list. [Insert pun about bending the laws of arithmetic, along with time and space.]

I tried to figure out what I like about puzzle games, and I think I’m rating these for a combination of:

• Creative time/space manipulation mechanic
• Clever puzzles
• Sense of Discovery
• Aesthetics

10a. HyperRogue

Of course the lines are parallel; you can tell by the way they curve away from each other.

HyperRogue is a turn-based game on a hyperbolic plane: a non-Euclidean surface in which the angles of a triangle add up to less than 180 degrees. (The opposite of being on a globe, which is non-Euclidean in that the angles of a triangle add up to MORE than 180 degrees.)

I found myself frequently getting lost but having a great time doing it.

The game itself is simple but not just window dressing for cool geometry. It’s a rogue-like game, so you’re expected to die and start over frequently. That might be best, since it keeps the focus on the experience and not on the progress or final goals.

Pro: Cool introduction to hyperbolic geometry, great way to pass some time

Cons: I found it difficult to “get good at” so I mostly wandered around and occasionally did well before being trapped by monsters.

Not normal Chess, not my 1D Chess variant, not 3D Chess. Nope. Five dimensions. I thought this was a silly gimmick at first, but the rules are surprisingly coherent, if… mindbending. The result is more logic puzzle than chess.

Treating time as a dimension that can be traversed works. A rook — which can move as far as you want in one direction — can go horizontal, vertical, or stay in the same position but go back in time. Knights (shown below) can:
A) Move regularly — 2 steps and then one step horizontally/vertically
B) Move two spaces horizontally/vertically and then one space back in time or
C) Move two spaces back in time and then one space horizontally/vertically.

“I was playing a game against a human opponent online, and at one point they sent a queen back in time from one of the ten timelines currently in play to put five of my past kings into check at once. I sent one of my own pieces even further back to stall, and they proceeded to send one of their queens back to the start of the game to try and beat me before I even got to that point”

“If you have no idea what I just wrote, I hardly do either, this game makes my head hurt and yet eventually your mind’s eye is opened to the cosmic structure of the universe –

or you just go insane

10/10″

Review by TheSpookiestUser

Pros: Actually pulls off a time-travel board game!

Cons: Steep learning curve means it’s easy to give up. Even the very positive reviews on steam have a lot of people who only played half an hour.

I’m a sucker for these self-interaction type puzzle games. Each level involves moving around, rewinding and creating one or more clones, and cooperating with… your previous self.

The game is minimalist and doesn’t have elaborate graphics or context but the puzzles themselves are intricate and clever.

Full disclosure: I haven’t finished, but what I’ve played has made me appreciate the thought that went into the design.

Pros: Great puzzles which actually use time manipulation

Cons: It’s pure puzzling without any skin or context, if you care

Monument Valley is MC Escher in a delightful little puzzle game. The puzzles themselves aren’t very difficult, but they’re not so straightforward that I found them boring. There isn’t much plot or exploration, it’s true. That’s not why you play – you play Monument Valley for the beautiful experience.

Pros: Absolutely beautiful aesthetics, delightful to play through

Cons: I wish it were longer, and while the whimsical feeling is great there isn’t much plot or exploration

The first games on the list were somewhat one-dimensional (pun intended) but we’re starting to get into games with more breadth.

In Return of the Obra Dinn, you play as an insurance agent for the East India Trading Company (stick with me.) The titular ship left with 60 people on board and returned with… none. You’re tasked with investigating what the heck happened to everyone. Someone sent you a mysterious pocketwatch which can take you back to someone’s moment of death, allowing you to hear the last few seconds and then explore the ship at that frozen time.

Imagine an interactive logic puzzle murder mystery, but there are 60 people whose fates you need to ascertain, deducing their identity based on the snippets of dialogue, their uniforms, who they hang out with, their accents and personal belongings…

I love the sense of discovery you get as you learn more about each crewmember and passenger, allowing you to go revisit earlier memories and make new deductions. In the best tradition of murder mysteries there will be new revelations which shift your understanding of things you thought you knew.

The graphics aim to evoke oldschool monitors, and somehow it works to make the game surprisingly immersive. Since the action during time-travel flashbacks are frozen, the sound design is key — and it’s fantastic. The music is amazing, and the sound effects and voice actors bring things to life… sometimes a bit too well.

Pros: Fantastic story, Clever conceit, Beautiful music, Repeated sense of dawning realization.

Cons: Given that everyone dies or disappears, things can get gruesome, especially the sounds. The graphics might not appeal to everyone.

I saw someone refer to Antichamber as “Portal on Acid” and they’re not wrong. It’s a first-person trip through an Escher-esque world where going in a circle might not lead you back to where you started.

You traverse the surreal world manipulating cubes of matter to open doors, build bridges or staircases, mark your path, or anything else you think would be helpful.

What sets Antichamber apart for me is the nonlinear element of discovery. Solving a particularly tricky puzzle can open a new area on the map, which absolutely floods my brain with dopamine.

There are a few different matter-manipulating guns you can find, each of which gives you a new capabilities and a new perspective on how to approach puzzles. I ended up revisiting placed I’d been stuck multiple times and occasionally being able to solve them — the ultimate variable interval reinforcement.

Pros: Great (very) nonlinear game, easter eggs to discover, epiphanies to have, creative puzzles which have multiple different solutions if you’re clever (or stubborn and patient).

Cons: This is an independent game and they didn’t put their focus on the graphics. While there’s a sense of progression, it isn’t plot-based.

5. Contrast

In Contrast, you explore 1920s Noire France as a child’s imaginary friend who can transition between the regular world and the shadow realm. Unlike Lord of the Rings, this is literally your shadow — you become your 2D shadow on the wall and can jump on top of other shadows to climb somewhere new before popping back into the world of depth.

Moving the light source changes where shadows are cast on walls, creating some neat interplay between manipulating physical objects and their 2D representation.

Pros: Fantastic 1920s Noire aesthetic, creative mechanics, rewards for exploring the French city

Cons: Could be longer, and there were a couple puzzles that didn’t fit perfectly with the rest of the mechanics.

The only reason this game isn’t ranked higher in this list is that the time manipulation component is limited.

The Talos Principle has stunning graphics and music, a slowly-revealed plot about the nature and fate of humanity, conversations with an ambiguously-moral AI named Milton, a God-figure named Elohim trying to preside over a virtual world on the fritz, and of course, clever puzzles of varying difficulty.

For the most part the mechanics are straightforward: connect lasers, move boxes, unlock doors, etc (but eventually you can rewind time and solve puzzles in tandem with your previous self, my justification for putting it on this list.) The puzzles are so well designed that simple elements fit together in countless new ways, giving a fantastic depth-to-complexity ratio.

Where the game goes above and beyond is how much it rewards exploration and experimentation. Not only are the worlds filled with easter eggs, they also contain a more challenging set of “star” puzzles which often require you to think outside the box — finding clever ways to bring equipment from one puzzle into another, creating a staircase to get on top of a wall you thought was irrelevant, discovering an extra block tucked away in the bushes… I love it.

Pros: Beautiful graphics and music, a wide variety of non-repetitive puzzles, rewards for exploring and being creative.

Cons: While most of the puzzles are purely about figuring out the solution, a few require fast reactions/controls. It can be frustrating to know exactly what to do but not quite be able to do it.

3. Fez

In Fez, you play as a character in a 2D world who is granted the ability to see the third dimension. Once you can look at the world from different directions, you realize that some platforms are closer together than you thought — just in a different dimension. What had looked like a simple line is actually a detailed wall with a door. A stick is really a sign with cryptic symbols from ancient civilizations.

The graphics aren’t impressive, but the worldbuilding sure is. Because things aren’t always obvious until you’ve looked at them from different perspectives, there are countless secrets tucked away and a surprising amount of thought put into the backstory.

As I explored, I found myself scribbling little notes and codes down on scraps of paper that slowly took over my desk. Over and over, I pieced together hints that gave me a new understanding of what had been in front of me all along. I’ve heard the phrase “Epiphany addiction” and it seems wholly appropriate for Fez.

Pros: Clever mechanics, huge nonlinear world, impressive amount of lore and worldbuilding, numerous perspective-shifts, tons of hidden secrets

Cons: The huge nonlinear world actually deterred me at first — I wasn’t sure where to go and put the game down for a while before being convinced to give it a second try.

Honorable Mentions:

Before getting to the Top 2 Time/Space Manipulation Puzzle Games, here are quick-hit puzzlers that didn’t quite make this list:

• The Swapper: Create clones and swap your consciousness between them to solve puzzles. Great game by the makers of Talos Principle, but didn’t have enough time/space manipulation to make the cut.
• The Witness: Another beautiful game which I consider the spiritual successor to Myst. But I couldn’t quite justify putting it on the list without more of a time/space connection.
• The Bridge: I should love this game. It’s MC Escher and time-manipulation and neat graphics and everything I like! …but the controls were a bit too “floaty” for me and I found it frustrating. Your mileage may vary.
• OneShot: Doesn’t so much break the fourth wall as stroll through where you expected the fourth wall to be, and starts complementing your furniture. There’s some elements of time travel but not really time manipulation.
• TimeSpinner: A great Metroidvania game where you jump between the past and present, and can stop time mid-battle to get better positioning. It has the time-manipulation, but not the “puzzle game” part.
• Baba Is You: The most meta of all games. You alter the logical rules of your world by changing the words that spell the rules out. You might win by setting “Wall is floating” and go under it, or “Wall is You” and turn into the wall, moving around to get to the goal.

The Top 2 Time/Space Manipulation Puzzle Games

2. Braid

The King/Queen of time manipulation games.

On its face it’s a simple platformer where you jump on monsters and collect puzzle pieces. Oh, and you can rewind time to undo if you miss a jump.

Oh, and then later you can keep some objects going forward in time while you go backward. Oh, and in some levels time will go forward when you move to the right and backward when you move left. And later you can make time move at different speeds in different parts of the map. Oh, and then… Somehow the different mechanics aren’t gimmicks – the puzzles actually work.

It also features the best “Backward Time” levels I’ve seen: Depending on where you’re standing, a dead monster either died because it fell into a pit of spikes or because you jumped on it. Both timelines are coherent, and allow you to change where the monster came from, as long as he ends up dead at the end.

Pair that with beautiful graphics, a wonderful classical soundtrack that was chosen to be interesting at different speeds both forward and backward, and some hidden super-difficult puzzles, and you have one of my favorite games ever.

Pros: Great puzzles with the best time-manipulation mechanics, great graphics, great soundtrack.

Cons: There’s more of an aesthetic than a plot, and some people find it pretentious. I played with a controller, but wonder if playing on a keyboard would be difficult.

The King/Queen(s) of space manipulation games.

Portal 1 was a fantastic game, and Portal 2 was somehow even better. I don’t think it can be called a cult classic anymore now that it’s so popular, but it’s the source of lines like “The cake is a lie.”

There are so many good things to say I’ll just rattle them off:

• Innovative physics-warping mechanics
• Fantastic puzzles which increase in difficulty at a good pace
• Hilarious writing
• Exciting plot
• Great graphics and soundtrack
• A long single-player campaign
• An entirely separate two-player Cooperative campaign!
• An online community which has generated its own puzzles, adding even more value

Pros: Everything above.

Cons: It’s a first-person puzzle game, requiring use of a controller or a keyboard/mouse. This is only a problem because I keep recommending the game to people who aren’t usually into video games, but think they’d love Portal anyway.

Other thoughts:

I’ve been meaning to play The Stanley Parable, and if I could get Perspective or The Outer Wilds to work on a mac I would probably give them a chance to be on the list.

If you have other recommendations or disagreements, please let me know! …politely.

## Messing With Time: Why The Flash is in Hell

Interfering with time can really make a mess of things. We’ve all thought about what might happen if someone travels in time – think movies like Back to the Future, Primer, or Terminator. But let’s take the question to the next level: what if instead of changing position in time – jumping ahead or back – we changed velocities? Would it still be a disaster waiting to happen if we speed up or slow down time?

What would it even mean to change the speed of time? Reading Sean Carroll’s “From Eternity To Here”, he makes an interesting point:

“We live in a world that contains all sorts of periodic processes, which repeat a predictable number of times in comparison to certain other periodic processes. And that’s how we measure duration: by the number of repetitions of such a process. When we say that our TV program lasts one hour, we mean that the quartz crystal in our watch will oscillate 117,964,800 times between the start and end of the show (32,768 oscillations per second, 3,600 seconds in an hour).
â€¦
“As human beings we feel the passage of time. That’s because there are periodic processes occurring within our metabolism – breaths, heartbeats, electrical pulses, digestion, rhythms of the central nervous system. We are a complicated, interconnected collection of clocks.”

So speeding up time across the universe doesn’t make much sense. Every process would still happen at the same relative rate, including our thoughts and metabolism. Modern physics tells us that there isn’t an objective frame of reference – different objects can, in fact, experience different relative times.

The real question is what would happen if we speed up our own processes relative to everything else in the universe. We wouldn’t feel any different – the “internal clocks” Carroll talks about would all still be in sync with each other – but we would notice all outside processes happening much less frequently compared to our thoughts and motions.

But much like the dilemma facing Calvin and Hobbes, which way would you go? As I read Carroll’s book, I started to ask: If you could change your relative speed, would you want to be faster or slower?

The reason to speed yourself up is obvious: you get a comparative advantage over everyone else. Imagine being able to think more, run further, and react more quickly in the same duration of “external time”. Who wouldn’t want that?

But there are advantages to slowing yourself down, too. Slowing down your body’s processes would be like stretching your life experience over a longer period of external time. Any benefit you get from the rest of the world is amplified. Randall Munroe at XKCD seems to have thought about it before in his comic about ‘Time Vultures’:

And it goes beyond food – assistants, coworkers, and fellow citizens could accomplish more. You would get to take advantage of all the medical breakthroughs, technological advances, and political developments that people come up with during your “stretched” lifespan.

As I talked with my friends about the question, many of them brought up the same point: there’s a risk in permanently changing too far. And that brings me to my last point, that Barry Allen (alter-ego of ‘The Flash’) is arguably in a special version of hell. Yes, after being struck by lightning in his lab, he was granted superhuman speed. Sounds great, but if you follow the thought process to its horrifying conclusion you get “The Ballad of Barry Allen” by Jim’s Big Ego:

I’ve got time to think about my past
As I dodge between the bullets
How my life was so exciting
Before I got this way
And how long ago it was now I never can explain
By the clock that’s on the tower
Or the one that’s in my brain

And I’m there before you know it
I’ll be gone before you see me
And I’d like to get to know you
But you’re talking much too slowly
And I know you want to thank me
But I never stick around
‘Cause time keeps dragging on…
And on…
And on

The game theory dynamics are complex. It seems like to the extent that you’re competing with others, you want to be faster. To the extent that you’re cooperating/collaborating with others, you want them to be faster. And overarching all of it, there’s a coordination factor in that you don’t want to be too different from others.

At the moment, this is all just a fun thought experiment. But I know that the next time I’m bored in a meeting or enjoying a particularly nice moment, I’ll wish I could tweak my speed just a bit.

## RS episode #54: The “isms” episode

In RS #54 — dubbed “The isms episode” —Â  Massimo and I ask, “Is the fundamental nature of the world knowable by science alone?”, looking at the issue through the lenses of a series of related philosophical positions: determinism, reductionism, physicalism, and naturalism. All of those “isms” take a stance on the question of whether there are objectively “correct” ways to interpret scientific facts — like physical laws, or causality — and if so, how do we decide what the correct interpretation is? Along the way, we debate the nature of emergent properties, whether math is discovered or invented, and whether it’s even logically possible for “supernatural” things to exist.

http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs54-the-isms-episode.html

## RS #47: The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence

In the latest episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and I spar about SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence: Is it a “scientific” endeavor? Is it worth maintaining? How would we find intelligent alien life, if it’s out there?

My favorite parts of this episode are the ones in which we’re debating how likely it is that intelligent alien life exists. Massimo’s opinion is essentially that we have no way to answer the question; I’m less pessimistic. There are a number of scientific facts which I think should raise or lower our estimates of the prevalence of intelligent alien life. And what about the fact of our own existence? Does that provide any evidence we can use to reason about the likelihood of our ever encountering other intelligent life? It’s a very tricky question, fraught as it is with unresolved philosophical problems in probability theory, but a fascinating one.

RS #47: The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence

## Synching Up: Another Cool Physics Video

Last week I stumbled upon that beautiful pendulum video. In comments, Max shared another cool video from the same people (Harvard Natural Sciences Lecture Demonstrations) – about synchronizing metronomes: (Thanks Max!)

The audio effect is important; watching the metronomes isn’t as powerful as hearing them get in a rhythm.

Any variation between the metronomes results in energy “swaying” the system, leading them to synchronize over time. After all, you wouldn’t expect a metronome to keep perfect time if you were shaking it – the setup just makes the shaking work against metronomes going against the consensus. I’m sure our friends at Ask a Mathematician/Ask a Physicist could give a more thorough answer.

What surprised me is that they got OUT of synch after being removed from the soda cans. I thought that, once in a rhythm, they would stay that way. I guess that by picking the system up and putting it back on the table was enough to break that. Or am I missing something?

## Simple, Beautiful Physics: Video

This is one of the simplest but most captivating physics videos I’ve ever seen:

Each pendulum is at a slightly different length – not just for the visual effect, but it gives them different phasesperiods/frequencies [Seth, the Physicist in Ask a Mathematician/Ask a Physicist wrote me to correct this – Thanks Seth!]

Fifteen uncoupled simple pendulums of monotonically increasing lengths dance together to produce visual traveling waves, standing waves, beating, and random motion.

For more details see http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k16940&pa…

The period of one complete cycle of the dance is 60 seconds. The length of the longest pendulum has been adjusted so that it executes 51 oscillations in this 60 second period. The length of each successive shorter pendulum is carefully adjusted so that it executes one additional oscillation in this period. Thus, the 15th pendulum (shortest) undergoes 65 oscillations.

This seems easy enough for middle school students to set up and learn from. Our friends at Ask a Mathematician/Ask a Physicist just had a post: Cheap experiments and demonstrations for kids. I think this would be a great addition.

(Via Richard Wiseman)

Have you ever wondered why mirrors flip your image horizontally, but not vertically? It’s one of those curious things that doesn’t actually seem curious at first — it seems perfectly natural. But that’s simply because we’re so used to it. Once you reflect on it (sorry!), it becomes much less obvious why that’s the case.

After all, a mirror doesn’t know or care which way is “up” — in fact, there is no such thing as “up” built into the world. It’s just a term we have for a direction pointing away from some plane we’ve designated as the “ground,” and we only bother to define these concepts because we humans happen to be very concerned with gravity and its effects on us. The light bouncing off of a mirror, one assumes, has no such concerns — it could care less about our concepts of verticality and horizontality. But then why is there this asymmetry in the way a mirror reflects our image, turning us around left-to-right but not top-to-bottom?

The first step towards an answer is to realize that the question is flawed. The mirror doesn’t actually reverse your image either left-to-right or top-to-bottom — it reverses your image front-to-back, that is, along the axis perpendicular to the mirror. Imagine you had a hollow Halloween mask, and you turned it inside out. That’s exactly what a mirror does: it “turns you inside out,” so that you’re facing the opposite direction without having been rotated.

But if the mirror is just flipping our image front to back, why does it look like we’re being flipped left to right? It’s because the left and right sides of our bodies are almost identical. So the inside-out person you see in the mirror looks a lot like what you would see if someone created a clone of your body and rotated it 180 degrees so it was facing you. That’s why you have the strong feeling that the mirror is rotating you in the horizontal plane, even though it’s actually just turning you inside out.

The illusion wouldn’t be nearly as strong if our bodies didn’t have left-right symmetry. Let’s say you had a tentacle in place of your right arm. Then your mirror image wouldn’t look like a 180-degree rotation of yourself, because the tentacle would be on the wrong side. The mirror’s ability to make us feel like an image has been turned around only works with a symmetrical axis.

Another experiment you can do to drive this point home is to try lying down on the floor, on your left side, facing a mirror. Now your mirror-image will be lying on his right side with his left side on top, while you’re lying on your left side with your right side on top, creating the illusion that the mirror is flipping your image vertically, as opposed to when you were standing in front of the mirror and it looked like your image was being flipped horizontally. This proves that the nature of the illusion is different than we’d originally thought: it’s not that the mirror seems to rotate you horizontally rather than vertically, but that the mirror seems to rotate you around your symmetrical axis rather than your asymmetrical axis.

## “No problem!” Michio Kaku predicts our sci-fi future.

On Wednesday night I went to the Strand to hear celebrity physicist Michio Kaku promote his new book, “Physics of the Future: How Science will Change Daily Life by 2100.”

I know Kaku is supposed to be a real heavyweight in the physics community — he co-founded string field theory — so I was surprised to hear him talking like the kind of giddy, incautious futurist that gave futurism a bad name: “By 2100, our destiny is to become like the gods we once worshiped and feared.” He even had a catch phrase, like a salesman: No problem. (For example: “Lose your hand in an accident? No problem! Scientists will create a new mechanical hand that can touch and feel.” ).

I’m willing to believe that it’s possible to make certain predictions about the near- to medium-term future with some confidence. But bad prognosticating is so easy and so common that my skepticism is on a hair trigger, and hyperbole and flowery language set it off immediately.

I flipped through Kaku’s book after the talk to see whether my first impression was accurate. Indeed, the book is full of grandiose claims about telekinesis, immortality, and avatars on far away planets. He tempers them with plentiful qualifiers like “may,” “might,” and “could.” But that doesn’t change the fact that he offers no evidence that some of the new technologies he’s describing are going to happen at all, let alone in the next 90 years.

Take this claim, for example: “By midcentury, the era of emotional robots may be in full flower.” Kaku describes how victims of brain injury whose emotional centers were severed from their cerebral cortices became incapable of making choices; everything had the same value to them. Emotion plays a crucial role in human decisionmaking, and Kaku makes the case that it would be critical to intelligent robot decisionmaking as well.

But the fact that instilling robots with emotion would make them more effective isn’t evidence that such a feat would be possible by 2100, or ever. There is a recently created robot called KISMET whose face can mimic a wide range of emotions, but, Kaku acknowledges, “scientists have no illusion that the robot actually feels emotions.” So there’s nothing, at least in this book, that backs up Kaku’s original claim about an “era of emotional robots” flowering this century.

Another claim that raised my eyebrows was that of telekinesis: later this century, Kaku says, we’ll be able to move things around with our minds. How will we do this? “In the future, room-temperature superconductors may be hidden inside common items, even nonmagnetic ones,” Kaku writes. “If a current is turned on within the object, it will become magnetic and hence it can be moved by an external magnetic field that is controlled by your thoughts.”

But there’s no evidence that room temperature superconductivity is even possible. Currently, the world record high temperature for superconductors is -211 degrees Fahrenheit. And we don’t even understand the science behind that success, Kaku says — so as far as I can tell, there’s no way to know how much higher we’ll be able to bring the record.

I don’t have any problem with speculation about radical new technologies. But that speculation should be framed as, “This is something that is theoretically possible,” not as “This will probably happen in the next X years.” Attaching a date to your speculation implies a precision which is, in Kaku’s and in most cases of future forecasting, deceptive.