Adventure Gamers - Forums

As I read the Samrost review, I recognize a familiar pattern of placing a negative value on having puzzles that remove your focus from the story. At least that is how I perceive the complaint to be. Is this just a personal preference of the reviews, or a general trend.
Many of the games I played had great, engrossing stories (Zork Nemesis, Gabriel Knight 2, Black Dahlia) and yet had standalone puzzles that you could sit back and work at, and solve to progress to the next part. I understand that for some players, this disruption could be jarring, but when did it become the norm not to have them?
Is this a contributing factor as to why Adventures seem to be short on puzzles and challenge lately.

I hated early games where the puzzles were not only poorly placed but were so obtuse or mundane that it was obvious they were there only to make the game longer.  Chessboards and sliders and mazes were obligatory.  [The ghosts are running around upstairs, but let’s stop and play this whack-a-mole game first].  It was a relief to play a game where the puzzles were actually germane to the plot. 

Return to Zork, which definitely had it’s problems, was one of the earlier ones in which the puzzles were actually fun (Want some rye?  ‘Course you do!), but even it had a maze.  Myst, where observation and thought were paramount, was a revelation to me and I wished more games could be like that.

So when I play a modern game with ‘puzzles outside the narrative’ I’m sensitized to it.  In casual games, which I like, I know the hidden object games are going to be part of it and that’s enjoyable as long as there aren’t too many. Even they should be integrated into the game, imo and I appreciate the trend to make them more like regular games.

The Samorost games are delightful and their quirky puzzles are part of their charm.  I haven’t played 3 yet but its’ puzzles being ‘outside the narrative’ will probably not bother me a bit.

The issue isn’t that puzzles take away the focus on the story, colpet, but that they simply aren’t integrated at all into the story.

If I’m trying to break into a locked building, figuring out how to crack the lock or find an alternate entry is viable narrative puzzle. Confronting a slider puzzle that’s randomly been inserted instead of a lock is not. Unless I’m trying to break into the home of an eccentric genius, at which point a slider lock makes narrative sense again (a very thin premise, but a justifiable one in context).

So the complaint (at least from any AG reviewers) isn’t that certain puzzles get in the way of story, story, and more story, simply that they don’t service the story in any way.

That matters more in some games than others, of course. It may be listed as a negative in Samorost 3, but in a 4.5-star game, clearly it’s not a major problem. The more plot-driven the game, the bigger the issue.

colpet - 26 March 2016 09:40 AM

I understand that for some players, this disruption could be jarring, but when did it become the norm not to have them?

It’s just the editorial line of the site, so to speak. Some people, like myself, play the games mostly for the puzzles, and couldn’t care less about how organic they feel. I’m perfectly fine playing Professor Layton games where literally every conversation is either “prove you’re the professor by solving this puzzle” or “hey, I heard a puzzle”. Others think puzzles are secondary to the narrative. The latter ones are considerably more common among the people who write reviews here.

Colpet makes a valid point.

Remember that narrative doesn’t actually exist in the real world - it’s something a person introduces in his or her mind. The plot in a game is just a series of events occurring, and puzzles are another event to experience. If a slider puzzle to open a door is highly entertaining to the player, it’s just as meaningful as another plot element. Ultimately, what is presented in a game should be there to service the player, not the plot. Games which forget this often lose my interest.

Jackal - 26 March 2016 01:24 PM

The issue isn’t that puzzles take away the focus on the story, colpet, but that they simply aren’t integrated at all into the story.

If I’m trying to break into a locked building, figuring out how to crack the lock or find an alternate entry is viable narrative puzzle. Confronting a slider puzzle that’s randomly been inserted instead of a lock is not. Unless I’m trying to break into the home of an eccentric genius, at which point a slider lock makes narrative sense again (a very thin premise, but a justifiable one in context).

So the complaint (at least from any AG reviewers) isn’t that certain puzzles get in the way of story, story, and more story, simply that they don’t service the story in any way.

That matters more in some games than others, of course. It may be listed as a negative in Samorost 3, but in a 4.5-star game, clearly it’s not a major problem. The more plot-driven the game, the bigger the issue.

I guess integration isn’t all that important to me. Why not have a version of a slider, instead of a key code. I’ll have much more fun with that than reading a set of digits on a found clue. I agree with Oscar:

Remember that narrative doesn’t actually exist in the real world - it’s something a person introduces in his or her mind. The plot in a game is just a series of events occurring, and puzzles are another event to experience. If a slider puzzle to open a door is highly entertaining to the player, it’s just as meaningful as another plot element. Ultimately, what is presented in a game should be there to service the player, not the plot. Games which forget this often lose my interest.

It is a matter of personal preference. I was just wondering why it was bad game design. And if it is something to be avoided, trying to make puzzles fit into the narrative and still make them a challenge can’t be easy. Maybe that is why there seems to be games a dichotomy of either 1) Games with good stories and weak puzzles OR 2) games with good puzzles and weak stories.
On a side note, I do not consider action, combat, and time sensitive challenges as puzzles when I am making these comments.

I agree with Colpet.
Most of my favorite puzzle types would be very difficult to “fit into a narrative.”
In fact, I tend to dislike puzzle types that “fit into a narritive” easily.

colpet - 27 March 2016 11:06 AM

I guess integration isn’t all that important to me.

And that’s perfectly reasonable. The bullet lists aren’t meant to be an “objective” list of pros and cons that everyone will or should agree with, just a summary of one reviewer’s take. And if the term “bad” is what’s bothering you, think of it more as “things that (the reviewer thinks) prevent the game from being better”.

Why not have a version of a slider, instead of a key code. I’ll have much more fun with that than reading a set of digits on a found clue.

Well, that’s just replacing one lame puzzle with another. Where the one would be criticized for its non-integration, the other would still be criticized for being derivative. (If puzzles were evaluated in a vacuum.) But perhaps there’s a better solution that avoids both problems; wouldn’t that be best?

It is a matter of personal preference. I was just wondering why it was bad game design. And if it is something to be avoided, trying to make puzzles fit into the narrative and still make them a challenge can’t be easy. Maybe that is why there seems to be games a dichotomy of either 1) Games with good stories and weak puzzles OR 2) games with good puzzles and weak stories.

Oh, it definitely isn’t easy. And you’re right, that’s why so few games manage it.

But really, the integration of puzzles and story are what makes adventure games adventure games. Otherwise they’d just be puzzle games or stories. As soon as you introduce a story as your narrative framework, then the puzzles really need to answer the “why” questions. (Why does this puzzle exist, why this solution over another, etc.?)

Think of the issue in different terms: Let’s say a game intermittently drops in the odd screen done in a totally different graphical style than the rest, for absolutely no (in-game) reason. (And I don’t mean as an unspoken artistic commentary; just because.) It may not bother you, but it would surely stand out as awkward and clumsy design. Or perhaps a tense and hectic chase scene is accompanied by a soothing ballad. Again, a love of ballads may make that forgivable to some, but clearly something about the integration of elements is wonky. Adding artificial puzzles just because an obstacle is required (or desired) is very similar. Is it a deal-breaker? No. Will puzzle lovers care? No. But randomly inserting a puzzle that a game’s own story (or setting) doesn’t even try to justify is just as careless. And that’s why it’s not ideal.

The most common response to this is “it’s just a game”, and of course that’s true. But it’s also a cop-out. Games with stories that ask the audience to suspend disbelief shouldn’t turn around and willingly abandon all narrative pretense whenever when it’s inconvenient.

One thing that’s worth noting is that having puzzles that are not integrated into the game world completely changes their nature. Self-contained puzzles tend to be about logic, maths, spatial reasoning, pattern recognition, etc.

And while I may enjoy some of those, I feel that “proper” adventure puzzles are not about that. They’re about information; they’re about finding clues and having that ah-ha moment when you realize how they’re supposed to fit together. They’re about exploring the world and figuring out how you can use its diverse elements to reach your goal.

Many of my best memories from playing adventure games are from solving such puzzles. Realizing that the five gnomes each use one sense to detect you, and finding the proper way to fool each sense; putting together an ungodly amount of information from all over Riven to turn on those domes; figuring out what the hell Ceres wanted in the art gallery; and that simple and supremely elegant moment in Loom when you understand that you can play a draft backwards to reverse its effects.

Ultimately, those moments are what I mostly play adventure games for. And self-contained puzzles don’t provide them; they appeal to a completely different part of the brain. I may enjoy some of them, but to me they’re as extraneous to “proper” adventure games as action sequences or real-time strategy: they’re a completely different form of gameplay.

Thanks, Jack. I get your analogy. I see how it can seem discordant to some players.
Kurufinwe said:

And while I may enjoy some of those, I feel that “proper” adventure puzzles are not about that. They’re about information; they’re about finding clues and having that ah-ha moment when you realize how they’re supposed to fit together. They’re about exploring the world and figuring out how you can use its diverse elements to reach your goal.

I agree. These are the best kind of multilevel puzzles that make for fun adventuring.