Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MoriartyL
By the way, I have nothing against puzzle games either. If there were a game with a lot of clear puzzles separated by a thin bit of story, I think I'd like that. When I say "clear puzzles" I mean that all elements of the puzzle should be out in the open, as opposed to hidden with lots of irrelevant details. When it is clear that you're faced with a puzzle, and you see all the elements of that puzzle laid out, it can be very fun to figure out that puzzle. Zelda has many such puzzles, and I spend a long time figuring them out. On the other hand, when I don't even know that I've come across a puzzle, because the elements of the puzzle are so far apart and hard to find, then I can't possibly have any idea where to start!
Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe the problem isn't me at all. I mean, this is just really really bad game design!
|
Whoah! That's a highly subjective (and likely controversial) statement. I've heard it argued several times that a puzzle that "sticks out" is an example of poor game design, because the goal should be to integrate the puzzles organically into the story, so that they are almost invisible.
I would say that in (at least traditional third person) adventure games, the ideal puzzle is one that gives the illusion of not being designed, but of arising spontaneously from the situation. It should require players to solve the puzzle without even realizing that's what they're doing. It should just feel like they're attempting to deal with a challenging situation.
Kurufinwe describes a type of meta-reasoning that allows players to identify and helps them solve puzzles. I've heard people call that cheating, but I agree that it's an important strategy probably used (consciously or unconsciously) by all experienced adventure gamers. "It just
feels like I ought to be able to do something on this screen!" "What the hell is this inventory item for?"
