Image from the New York Times
The Mini: 4/5 – Ellen Li
The New York Times Crossword, the epitome of classic games to play, has a smaller, arguably more fun younger sibling. Usually boasting a five-by-five grid and blacked-out boxes to create interesting shapes, the Mini Crossword is fast-paced, fun and also free to play without a subscription. Although fun, this game will only occupy between 30 seconds and five minutes of class time, leaving students to have to find other options to keep them distracted. And, for those who forget to mute their Chromebooks, upon finishing the Mini will play a recognizable jingle to the rest of the class, earning it four out of five stars.
Spelling Bee: 2.5/5 – Liza McGilpin
Tied together with a bee theme, finding words within the honeycomb design that utilize a central letter is a fun challenge. People who love Game Pigeon’s Word Hunt or Boggle might enjoy the similar, yet less stressful nature of Spelling Bee. Additionally, with difficulty levels fluctuating daily, the game is always fresh, with an option to shuffle letters if one becomes un-bee-lievably stuck. However, since advancing in the game is locked behind a paywall, Spelling Bee earns a 2.5 out of five stars, as there is no clear way to “win” or improve without a subscription.
Wordle: 3.5/5 – Lipi Goel
This classic word game made it into all the family group chats in 2021 and continues to be a reliable source of entertainment for a few minutes each day. The small boost of dopamine when the letters turn green and dance in place is never unappreciated. However, in comparison to the newer, more exciting games that often reference pop culture or current events like Connections and Strands, the Wordle feels a little dated, and even its many unofficial spin-offs like Worldle and Globle are losing steam. For its reliably satisfying yet plain nature, Wordle earns a solid 3.5 out of five stars.
Connections: 5/5 – Ruhi Mudoi
You’ll find millions of inane possibilities, but they’re certainly not the devious concoctions that those psychopaths behind the scenes of Connections conceived. Connections throws in pop culture references like sponge, bob, square and pants, or cowboy and carter, but anything obvious is likely deceptive! However, in the end, the right answers sliding into their satisfying color-coded rows make all the mental trickery worth it. You can luxuriate in it during a particularly boring class or speedrun it during Flex. It’s frustrating but deliciously free. The very epitome of New York Times games, Connections earns a flawless five out of five stars.
Letter Boxed: 2.5/5 – Liza McGilpin
The most difficult of the New York Times games, Letter Boxed offers yet another word-based challenge, requiring an extensive vocabulary and an eye for puzzles. Forced to use all the letters (though those on the same sides can’t be connected) to create word sequences, this game quickly becomes frustrating, often hinging on one’s knowledge of obscure words rarely seen outside a dictionary. Letter Boxed also offers little in the way of originality, feeling stale when held beside the numerous other word-making games such as Spelling Bee or Strands, both of which offer more charm and freshness then their boxy counterpart. Overall, Letter Boxed is bland as cardboard, only resorted to in extreme boring situations, earning it a 2.5 out of five stars.
Tiles: 3/5 – Eesha Gupta
Tiles is the epitome of wasted potential. A matching game reminiscent of the classic card game “Set,” Tiles tasks players to clear the five-by-six board by matching squares to another with a shared aspect — identify the other square with the pink squiggle, and the swiggles both disappear to reveal another layer of design. But despite the NYT proclaiming it a “stress-free moment,” some themes are poorly designed, leaving the player unable to see background layers and therefore making the game impossible to solve. While at times meditative, due to the design flaws and repetitive nature, Tiles settles for a mediocre three out of five stars.
Vertex: 4/5 – Eesha Gupta
The New York Times loves manufacturing social competition out of superfluous word games — if you finish your Mini quickly, get the Connections perfectly or solve the Strands without a hint, you can tell your friends through a charming emoji sequence. The Vertex doesn’t play into that game. There’s no time pressure and no score — simply complete the puzzle by connecting dots to form triangles. At the end, you’re left with a mosaic that corresponds to a witty pun and a sense of artistic satisfaction and calm. Admittedly, the free version is subpar, without new puzzles daily, docking it a point for a four out of five stars.
Sudoku: 3.5/5 – Liza McGilpin
After the tragic fall of Digits, Sudoku remains the only numbers-based game of the New York Times’s selection. With the ability to choose a difficulty level, Sudoku can be a strenuous puzzle or a quick play. Though the learning curve might be steep, the offering of hints and checks prevents it from ever becoming too difficult, while the timer allows for a fun challenge. However, Sudoku is not a game unique to the NYT, and remains relatively similarthe same from day to day. Despite this, Sudoku remains the lone math-adjacenty game, and the variety of levels earns Sudoku a solid 3.5 out of five stars/5.
Strands: 4/5 – Ellen Li
The hot new “it girl.” The New York Times Games’ newest addition, still under beta testing, is a nice twist on a classic word search. With six columns and eight rows of letters, the goal is to find five to six words and a “spanagram” that vaguely fit the theme, which usually makes no sense. Can’t figure out the theme or find any words? Don’t worry, if you find three other words in the grid, you can trade that in for a hint, meaning there is virtually no way to fail, earning a four out of five stars for its fun and new twist.
Digits: 4/5 – Lipi Goel
A game lost but not forgotten, this beta New York Times game was taken down after a short while due to a lack of engagement from people traumatized by the presence of numbers rather than words in the NYT game section. However, the game was unique and challenging without being impossible, humbling people as they accepted two stars instead of three if they really couldn’t get to the specific target number with the numbers provided. With five separate puzzles each day, increasing in difficulty, this game could easily occupy a full fifteen minutes or even half an hour, depending on how well you can perceive the result of different operations and how precisely you want to reach the number. Despite its tragic loss, Digits earns a four out of five stars for some nerdy yet fulfilling entertainment.
