The Elf on the Shelf is a popular Christmas tradition that involves a small elf doll who is said to have magical abilities. The elf is typically placed in different locations around the house to keep an eye on children and report back to Santa Claus on their behavior. However, there is a popular theory within the Elf on the Shelf community known as the "malic portal." According to this theory, the elf doll is not just a simple scout for Santa, but actually has the ability to create a portal to the North Pole. This portal supposedly allows the elf to travel back and forth between the child's home and Santa's workshop. It is believed that the elf uses this portal to update Santa on the child's behavior and to receive instructions for the next day's hiding spot.
3-SAT problems involve chained statements that each directly link three variables in the form of (a1 ∨ b1 ∨ c1) ∧ (a2 ∨ b2 ∨ c2) ∧ . ∧ (an ∨ bn ∨ cn). Here the symbol “∨” signifies “or.” A computer must attempt to assign truth values to the variables in order for the overall statement to be true. And as it turns out, this task is NP-hard. As the task length increases, the computation time required increases exponentially.
In this way, he was able to prove that any logical statement in the form of 3-SAT can be represented by an appropriate distribution of candies in Candy Crush. If you would like to use material from the book other than for review purposes , prior written permission must be obtained by contacting the publisher at permissions hbgusa.
It is believed that the elf uses this portal to update Santa on the child's behavior and to receive instructions for the next day's hiding spot. The idea of a malic portal adds an extra element of mystery and magic to the Elf on the Shelf tradition. It suggests that the elf is more than just a toy, but an actual conduit between the child and Santa Claus.
Why Candy Crush is so popular
We want to talk about Candy Crush, but not for the reason that you’re probably thinking. We had to talk about Candy Crush Saga sooner or later. It makes over a million dollars a day on just the app alone. It eclipsed Farmville as the most popular Facebook game, and it’s almost certainly the most played game of this year in terms of raw hours spent. Yes, if you put together all the ours spent on Call of Duty or League of Legends, I’d wager it still pales in comparison to the total amount of time humanity has spent poking away at Candy Crush.
The thing we actually want to discuss today is this. Why is Candy Crush so popular? After all on the surface it just looks like another bejewel to clone. How come it’s doing so much better than Pop Caps owned by Bejeweled Blitz? Which while it does quite well isn’t clearing anything like the astronomical numbers Candy Crush has been. Let’s dig into this.
First we have to talk about pacing. In a previous episode we talked about differences in kind and how they’re used to modulate a player’s interest curve. This is something that Candy Crush does substantially better than most of its competitors. In Bejewel-ed’s main play mode you’re fundamentally performing the same set of actions level after level. You’re simply matching things in order to hit a score goal. Candy Crush gives you a plethora of goal types from level to level. That combined with Candy Crush’s hand crafted stages means the player experiences something different every level. Each new stage is intended to invoke in the player the thought, I wonder what the next level will be, which is immediately followed by the thought, I’ll try it once just to see what they do. Which is of course immediately followed by 30 more minutes playing Candy Crush.
Now as a designer, when we look at Candy Crush it’s important to note that the crafting of the stages is just as important in delivering the interest curve as varying up the goals. One of the things that sets Candy Crush apart from many of its competitors is that they freed themselves from only using a rectangular play space for a bejeweled type game. This in turn meant that they were able to have actual level design in this game which is essential to Candy Crush. Otherwise, they would have to introduce new game play elements too quickly and it would have resulted in information overload for their audience.
“From there directly integrating their game design and their monetization, rather than viewing them as two separate things, took them over the top.”
If every time they wanted to modulate the interest curve they had to either present the player with new goals or give them some new mechanic to play with. It would, at the very best, prevent the player from ever really getting comfortable enough with specific set of mechanics to truly experience depth of play. At worst it would just fall into the incoherent and overwhelming space that many games do when they toss new mechanics at you or change up your goal continuously in a desperate attempt to keep you interested. Candy Crush provides far better modulation of their interest curve than most match three games, because they’re aware that getting cherries and hazelnuts to the bottom of the screen in a level that’s shaped like an inverted pyramid, feels much different than trying to do the same thing in a level that’s just your standard rectangle.
None of this would work without the random factor. Very often you will see match three games include puzzle levels. Those levels always start with the same pieces in the same places. They are simply a logic problem for the player to work through. The genius of Candy Crush is that they have crafted puzzle like boards for the player to play on, but the starting set of pieces the player gets to solve the pieces with is randomized. This means that when a player loses instead of getting frustrated or just deciding that they don’t know how they’re supposed to beat the level and giving up, they’re much more likely to hop right back in hoping that this time they get a better draw. It also means that every time a player has to replay a level, they’re presented with a new and interesting problem to solve. The player doesn’t have to figure out how the designer wants them to solve the problem, but rather has to assess the board they’ve been provided and figure out how they want to approach the challenge ahead of them.
All right, Candy Crush manages a much better interest curve than most match three games through judicious use of play modes coupled with wildly varying board types. That still doesn’t explain how they monetize so well. Well, it comes from the fact that Candy Crush may be the most exquisitely balanced free to play game I have ever played. Ask any Candy Crush player and they’ll tell you that often they’ll end up losing the game when they’re very clearly only one or two moves away from a win. That’s really hard to achieve in a game that involves this level of randomness. Of course, the goal of that balanced design is monetization. You see, when you loose a level in Candy Crush they offer you a few extra bonus turns. While they don’t make the numbers publicly available, I’d wager that this is one of their best selling offers. This isn’t chance either.
If you look at the two main game play modes in Candy Crush, it’s quite clear that this is part of the core design of the game. In most match three games the player’s goal is simply to achieve a specified score on any given level. Not so on Candy Crush. In Candy Crush score is secondary. The two main game play modes involve either getting specific pieces to the bottom of the screen or making matches in specific squares on the grid.
You now what’s special about those two types of mode? What ties it in to their monetization so well? It’s the fact that it’s incredibly easy to see exactly how close you were to winning when you run out of turns. Score is a nebulous thing. It’s not easily trackable especially with all sorts of bonuses and modifiers to factor in. Plus it’s generally not the thing you’re staring at the entire time you’re playing. With modes like these, it’s right there in front of you. You can’t miss it. You were so close. Two more moves and I would have had it. With victory so tantalizingly near you’re way more likely to consider buying those bonus turns.
There’s a lot that went on in terms of marketing and corporate strategy to make Candy Crush the phenomenon that it is today. Looking at it strictly from a design sense, the game’s success comes from the fact that they created a much better interest curve than most of the competing match three games. By abandoning some of the standard conventions of the genre, and having custom designed levels with enough randomness to allow players to want to play them again and again. From there directly integrating their game design and their monetization, rather than viewing them as two separate things, took them over the top.
Hopefully that answers some questions for those of you pondering Candy Crush’s success and I really hope it goes to show how valuable building ways to modulate your interest curve directly into your systems and mechanics really is. I also sincerely hope that by the time this comes out Candy Crush has also proven that being a complete jerk and wielding copyright law like a club against smaller developers is a great way to loose your sales, destroy your company’s reputation, and prove to the world that you’re worth nowhere near the seven billion dollars you value yourself at.
Table of Contents
This theory has gained traction among parents and children who enjoy the idea of a secret magical portal within their homes during the holiday season. While the concept of a malic portal is not officially endorsed by the creators of Elf on the Shelf, it has become a popular belief among those who participate in the tradition. Many families enjoy the imaginative aspect of the theory and use it to enhance the magical experience of the Elf on the Shelf tradition. In conclusion, the "malic portal" theory suggests that the Elf on the Shelf has the ability to create a portal to the North Pole. This theory adds an extra layer of mystery and magic to the popular Christmas tradition. While not officially endorsed, the idea of a malic portal has gained popularity among those who participate in the Elf on the Shelf tradition..
Reviews for "The Elf on the Shelf: Guardian or Portal? Examining the Malicious Portal Debate"
1. Sarah - 1 star:
I was really disappointed with "Elf on the Shelf Malic Portal". The concept seemed interesting, but the execution was terrible. The writing was sloppy and lacked any creativity. The story felt forced and there was no depth to the characters. The illustrations were also poorly done and did not add anything to the overall experience. I would not recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a captivating and well-written story.
2. Mark - 2 stars:
I had high hopes for "Elf on the Shelf Malic Portal", but it fell flat for me. The plot was predictable and the dialogue was cliché. The book seemed rushed and poorly edited, with numerous grammatical errors throughout. The characters lacked development and I found it hard to connect with any of them. While I appreciate the effort, I feel like this book could have been so much better with more attention to detail and a stronger storyline.
3. Emma - 1 star:
I really struggled to finish "Elf on the Shelf Malic Portal". The story felt disjointed and confusing, making it hard to follow along. The writing style was dry and lacked any sort of emotion or depth. The characters were flat and uninteresting, and I found myself not caring about their fates. Overall, this book was a disappointment and I would not recommend it to anyone looking for a well-crafted and engaging read.