Does practicing match-3 games actually make you think better? I reviewed more than 80 cognitive psychology studies on spatial training to separate real effects from marketing claims. Near transfer is solid; far transfer is still an open question. Basically, what the science says about these games is more nuanced than most press notes suggest.
Medieval treasure chests are visually distinctive and universally recognizable. I explain why straight symbols and ornate locks work better than colored gems for a rotation-based match mechanic, and how Gestalt grouping principles shaped the visual design.
A flat puzzle is a bounded problem. Add depth and the solution space explodes. I compare how 2D and 3D puzzle mechanics differ in cognitive load, spatial reasoning demands, and what makes each format satisfying in its own way.