Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
It's what I've read from game design sources, and many game designers use this distinction to differentiate between a puzzle and a mini-game. This is really useful, because it not only focuses design, but also allows us to differentiate between a range of similar things that often have their definitions cross over -- toys, games and puzzles, for instance.
After all, if a puzzle can have multiple solutions, then you can make the argument for any game system being a puzzle. But just because something is a problem without an obvious solution doesn't make it a puzzle. Otherwise the word "puzzle" becomes almost useless, describing only the difference between a solution being provided for you and having to work it out yourself.
A puzzle must have a single solution for the term to carry any meaning when compared to terms like "game" or "toy". Because from you and Nova, I'm not getting a definition of a puzzle -- I'm getting a sense of "feeling" that something is a puzzle, which comes entirely from one's own perception of a game scenario rather than what it actually contains. For instance, in the lake scenario Nova posted, it might feel like a puzzle because the game's logic has changed, and it wants you to work out a solution amongst many using this new logic and information. That would certainly feel like a puzzle to many, but it's about as much a puzzle as a map in a stealth game. Altering the logical process of coming to a solution isn't enough on its own to differentiate between gameplay and "puzzle play", because that only defines a puzzle in relative terms to standard gameplay.
The game design book "A Book Of Lenses" lays this all out pretty well and is a pretty good read to boot.
So that room in Portal where you can solve it as intended or use a cleverly-placed portal to jump straight to the exit is a minigame, not a puzzle? I don't buy that.
I do agree that there needs to be some distinction between all this stuff, but...I'm not sure number of solutions is the right thing to look at for that.
Book of Lenses is one of those things I've been meaning to read for ages, though. Thanks for reminding me.
It depends whether it's intended or not, but puzzle games like Portal are interesting cases because they're systems of gameplay set against puzzle backdrops. This stands against, say, Professor Layton games, because Layton games are stories linked together by solving standard, traditional puzzles.
Could it be considered a minigame? Perhaps. But I'd say it's just game wholesale, because Portal's mechanics are based entirely on overcoming obstacles through clever placement of portals. So even if that room has two solutions, the secondary solution is still the singular solution of the game's overall mechanics and system of logic. It's more like that room actually contains two separate puzzles existing in the same space.
But you're just using that logic in order to be able to say that it's a puzzle while maintaining your definition of puzzles as opposed to other stuff.
Me, I'd describe a puzzle as an event wherein, through normal gameplay, you must figure out some hidden means of proceeding (there may be more than one of these), while a minigame is an event wherein the gameplay changes entirely for a period.
That's more an accusation than a counterpoint.
My point is that there still isn't any benefit to that definition, since it's just very...arbitrary.
On the contrary, it distinguishes puzzles from games, toys and the process of play. And it's true; just like modern video games are based on the principles of traditional games, back to chess and further, the puzzles you find in video games are based on the principles of traditional puzzles. And such puzzles only have a single solution.
But let's say you can have a puzzle with two or more solutions. If a puzzle has, say, five solutions, what then differentiates it from systematic mastery play rather than puzzle play? You're no longer trying to discover the logical sequence of steps that solves a problem, but working with a more organic system to discover one of many solutions. If you allow the definition of a puzzle to cover many solutions, then there's nothing distinguishing a puzzle from a game. But we all know that Mount & Blade isn't a puzzle, or a puzzle game, despite providing a series of problems that can be overcome with logical application of the gameplay system.
But it doesn't. It just distinguishes things with one solution from things with multiple solutions. Like, you had to justify that room in Portal as two puzzles because it's clearly a puzzle but doesn't fit the one-solution definition of a puzzle.
Well, not if you just don't apply a definition to a puzzle at all, but I don't see what's wrong with my definition of a discrete event in a game where you have to find some non-obvious solution (of which there can be more than one) through normal gameplay.
I knew that, but for the purposes of posting it somewhere appropriate I was hoping it would fit here more than anywhere else.
what
^Oh, okay then >.>
But that discounts the idea that multiple puzzles can be contained within the same space or be constructed with the same tools. When it comes to finding problem-solving methodologies, it's also more effective to consider the room as two separate puzzles as well, since each solution follows a different pattern of logic.
Non-obvious is entirely subjective, though, and plenty of video game puzzles don't follow that definition of non-obvious. That also begs the question of whether a puzzle remains a puzzle after it's solved, or if it remains a puzzle if used a second time within the same game. And what about a puzzle that's an expanded version of a previous puzzle with a similar solution that's obvious because of the player's experience with said previous puzzle? "Non-obvious" has too many holes in it to be used as a defining term.
So, Sonic Adventure 2 is on Steam.
I'm not personally interested since I've already 100%'ed it back on Gamecube, but still, it makes me smile. Yay Sega for getting with the times and using digital distro.
Sorry, should have been clearer and said "VNs go here, right?".
No it doesn't.
But that room is one puzzle, and anyone looking at it would call it one puzzle.
Well, if you're talking about "the square key goes in the square hole" stuff, I wouldn't call that a puzzle. I'd call that busywork.
Sure it's a puzzle. It's just a puzzle you know how to solve. As for the latter case, again, busywork.
Depends on what you mean by "expanded."
Frankly, though, I think we're getting too hung up on definitions. Everyone knows what a puzzle is, and if there's a specific thing that could be seen as a puzzle or not, it's far more productive to talk about that thing rather than quibble over generalizations.
That could just be based on the assumption that a single room only contains one puzzle, though. In Portal, the objective of each puzzle is to reach the next room. So we could have a case of two puzzles existing in the same space with the same objective, but being two puzzles in the first place because a different methodology is used to reach the objective.
Even that's subjective, though, so it doesn't solve the baseline problem that comes with "non-obvious".
But if you know how to solve it, the puzzle has ceased to be non-obvious. For your definition to remain consistently applicable, it would have to remain non-obvious even after being solved, but we know that scenario doesn't constitute a puzzle. More like magic, or random chance. That's even assuming the puzzle was non-obvious in the first place.
Well, what I'm trying to tell you is that under game design theory (i.e. not only my own thoughts), a part of a puzzle's definition is having a single solution. This is to differentiate a puzzle from regular gameplay, which usually aims to have multiple solutions. After all, if you have a problem with multiple solutions and use normal gameplay to solve that problem, you're not partaking of a puzzle -- you're just playing the game, whether those solutions are non-obvious or not.
Frankly, I think that will only lead to badly designed puzzles.
Like, I think you've got a point about my definition not being perfect, but having only one solution is also a very bad definition. Like, if I'm playing a linear shooter in a corridor and I have to shoot the guy standing in the middle of the corridor to advance, like in Wolfenstein 1D, that's a gameplay scenario with only one solution. But it's sure as hell not a puzzle.
Basically what I was going for with the non-obvious thing is that a puzzle in a game is a scenario that's almost entirely intended to be a mental test.
I'm not saying that a single solution is the only factor that makes something a puzzle or not, but that something having multiple solutions prevents it from being a puzzle because of the various paths that can be taken in finding a solution. Remember, this part of the discussion started when Nova said that Skyward Sword's combat was like a series of puzzles, which I agreed with because that combat system is fond of providing single solutions. That single-solution element was what made the system puzzle-like, which meant there was a single line of thought that could be followed in order to achieve success, therefore ensuring that the system failed in the eyes of some.
So, no, the Wolfenstein corridor shootout isn't a puzzle... but then again, it could be argued to have multiple solutions through weapons choice and the different traits of each weapon. That's not really the point, but you know how pedantic I am, so here is this paragraph.
In short, I'm saying that the single solution is one element of a puzzle, not the entire definition. And I agree with the line of thought you followed when it comes to puzzles being non-obvious, but again, it has to be much more than that. I'd argue that definition is more along the lines of something like:
"A puzzle is a problem with a single solution, where the solution is found by following a non-normative pattern of thought or logic in relation to its context."
That has holes in it for sure, but I think it's closer to the mark.
Hmmm...
You know, if you changed "a single solution" to "a constrained solution set," which would of course include single solutions, I'd agree 100% with that.
I think it's generally applicable, but then you get cases where normative patterns of thought are part of the solution, or where solution-finding becomes normative. Portal is a good example, because the entire gameplay experience relates to the use of the portal gun, so finding solutions to puzzles is the normative experience and player mindset for that game.
True.
Basically, what we've established here is that perfect definitions aren't a thing.
So, Final Fantasy XIV.
In a gesture intended to regain their fans' trust, Square Enix has announced that it will still have a monthly subscription fee.
wait what
Seems reasonable.
That's reasonable, but the first thing he said was that they were doing it to regain trust, which just does not make any sense.
Nah, it makes sense- he's saying that he doesn't want to hold back any aspect of the game from players, where microtransaction models rely on keeping pieces of the game back from players in order to get them to buy it.
Oh.
Well, I guess that makes sense.
I still think it will backfire because a subscription model requires your players to trust you up-front, though.
So, the Far Cry 3 ads I've been seeing are mostly focusing on how critics have said it's like Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption.
So I guess if I have Skyrim, I don't need to get it then? Good to know.
When will people realize that more is not necessarily better?
The final episode of The Walking Dead is out.
Gonna play it when I get home from the theater tonight.
This is going to be bad.
O.O
Yeah, definitely going to have to play that.
I have it downloaded and everything but I can't play it for about another five hours, because I have to go to the theater in ten minutes.
So it's just sitting there on my computer.
Taunting me.