- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 2
- First Language
- English
- Primarily Uses
As the horribly unfunny title may suggest, I'm having trouble with puzzles. Everything about them, really. Let me state my question(s) before elaboration.
TL;DR: How hard should puzzles be in a thinking man's strategy RPG? Should there always be a failsafe to completely avoid the puzzle? How far can the complexity go before it enters Moon Logic territory? What is your opinion on hints, both in-game and out-of-game?
Bonus question: For 5 internet points, what are your favorite and least favorite types of puzzles found in RPGs? Perhaps some that you'd like to see?
Now for the elaboration.
I'm currently making a strategy RPG based mostly on combat with enemies who have strange quirks and bosses that act as puzzles and tests in and of themselves to see if the player understands the game's logic well enough to proceed. Each one would have a few or even several unique ways of being defeated, with all others being inefficient and risky but still doable given the right tools. I'm telling you this to establish that what we're talking about is an RPG that rewards forethought and planning, thinking outside the box, and using small hints to decipher larger mysteries. Given the type of person this style caters to, how hard should the puzzles they encounter be?
I speak more in terms of complexity of logical flow and the rarity of prerequisite knowledge on topics to judge difficulty. For example, a sliding frame puzzle is difficult because of the logical flow needed to overcome it. Logic isn't exclusive, so any decently smart person could eventually figure it out given enough time just by themselves. However, an Alternate Reality Game is difficult not because it requires the user to plan out their moves and think carefully about flow, but because it requires a large amount of prerequisite knowledge on very specific topics like spectrograms, programming, philosophy, encryption, symbolism, etc. Not just anyone can learn these things, and nobody is born able to learn them alone. They need external sources to solve these puzzles. You could in this sense call ARGs more difficult than sliding frame puzzles, but it's like comparing apples to oranges.
In games, you can't assume that the player knows the entire Christian Bible by heart and thus probably shouldn't use specific lines from it and niche symbolism from within that not many will be familiar with for your mandatory puzzles. However, you can reasonably assume that given enough time, a person will be able to solve a maze or a crossword as long as you tell them the rules of the mini-game. Those have little to do with outside knowledge besides maybe the math or language needed to communicate the rules and goal. This is all akin to comparing a literal puzzle that makes up a large picture you can see on the box with a completely blank one with no picture, and all the pieces are only loosely related. Perhaps you're trying to piece together a Picasso painting.
Those are my thoughts about difficulty in puzzles just off the tip of my tongue. Perhaps that will help you think about the first question more. Next, failsafes.
I've always liked failsafes and alternatives to challenges in games. It makes sure that even if the player somehow can't complete that ridiculously hard boss you made, they can go do something completely different to get to the same end point. Perhaps go the long route and have a bunch of smaller battles, maybe use up some uncommon resources, etc. However, I can also see why people may think it's lazy or bad design. The developer could just make a way to completely bypass a challenge with little effort on the player's part. Think a button that just instantly kills the hard boss if you die to him X amount of times. So what do you think is the best way to bypass, say, a really hard puzzle that may be too far-off for the player to figure out? Maybe it's gone completely point-and-click adventure on you and requires thinking outside the outside of the box's box. Except the box is also a 4-D hypercube.
I'm currently trying out a method wherein the player can use a unique skill they learn to uncover a puzzle's solution if they utilize it in a particular way. It could help those who can't get just one part but are mostly able to get through. Or those who already know how to beat it and just want to get it over with already. Maybe there can be a trial by battle to get the key to go to the next level, or maybe they can use up a bunch of normal resources they accidentally farmed to get past it. Maybe permanently sacrifice something they might want later. Could be anything; I want your opinion.
I kind of detailed my thoughts on moon logic already, but I'll restate here that it's a difference between what you need to solve the puzzle. Knowledge vs. problem-solving/intuition/critical thinking skills. Moon logic has more to do with having extremely foregone leaps in logic that no reasonable person would make. They are usually the result of a designer not remembering that the player won't usually know the result they're trying to get in more complex puzzles, so they draw conclusions based on knowledge the player won't reasonably have. Some are moderate, like the Piano Puzzle in Resident Evil. Others are completely insane, like a lot of the stuff in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. You know the ones, if you've ever played it.
Finally, hints. When I say "in-game", I mean hints that are given within the puzzle itself, or within the context of the setting/characters/plot/etc. Things like using vocabulary that the player sees frequently but usually ignores and referencing places or objects in name or description. Out-of-game would be things like blatant tips in a manual, or even a hint system in the game itself. These give the player help when they can't quite figure the puzzle out, and more often than not simply give away the next step or the entire solution. I tend to dislike out-of-game hints because it's easy to let them carry the player, whereas in-game treats them more intelligently and still requires them to do some thinking. What is your opinion?
I'm not even going to talk about word puzzles right now, but feel free to give your thoughts on those if you so see fit. This is only a fraction of my own thoughts on puzzles in games in general, so keep that in mind. Anyways, have at it. I have yet to really build puzzles in my own game, so all ideas are welcome.
TL;DR: How hard should puzzles be in a thinking man's strategy RPG? Should there always be a failsafe to completely avoid the puzzle? How far can the complexity go before it enters Moon Logic territory? What is your opinion on hints, both in-game and out-of-game?
Bonus question: For 5 internet points, what are your favorite and least favorite types of puzzles found in RPGs? Perhaps some that you'd like to see?
Now for the elaboration.
I'm currently making a strategy RPG based mostly on combat with enemies who have strange quirks and bosses that act as puzzles and tests in and of themselves to see if the player understands the game's logic well enough to proceed. Each one would have a few or even several unique ways of being defeated, with all others being inefficient and risky but still doable given the right tools. I'm telling you this to establish that what we're talking about is an RPG that rewards forethought and planning, thinking outside the box, and using small hints to decipher larger mysteries. Given the type of person this style caters to, how hard should the puzzles they encounter be?
I speak more in terms of complexity of logical flow and the rarity of prerequisite knowledge on topics to judge difficulty. For example, a sliding frame puzzle is difficult because of the logical flow needed to overcome it. Logic isn't exclusive, so any decently smart person could eventually figure it out given enough time just by themselves. However, an Alternate Reality Game is difficult not because it requires the user to plan out their moves and think carefully about flow, but because it requires a large amount of prerequisite knowledge on very specific topics like spectrograms, programming, philosophy, encryption, symbolism, etc. Not just anyone can learn these things, and nobody is born able to learn them alone. They need external sources to solve these puzzles. You could in this sense call ARGs more difficult than sliding frame puzzles, but it's like comparing apples to oranges.
In games, you can't assume that the player knows the entire Christian Bible by heart and thus probably shouldn't use specific lines from it and niche symbolism from within that not many will be familiar with for your mandatory puzzles. However, you can reasonably assume that given enough time, a person will be able to solve a maze or a crossword as long as you tell them the rules of the mini-game. Those have little to do with outside knowledge besides maybe the math or language needed to communicate the rules and goal. This is all akin to comparing a literal puzzle that makes up a large picture you can see on the box with a completely blank one with no picture, and all the pieces are only loosely related. Perhaps you're trying to piece together a Picasso painting.
Those are my thoughts about difficulty in puzzles just off the tip of my tongue. Perhaps that will help you think about the first question more. Next, failsafes.
I've always liked failsafes and alternatives to challenges in games. It makes sure that even if the player somehow can't complete that ridiculously hard boss you made, they can go do something completely different to get to the same end point. Perhaps go the long route and have a bunch of smaller battles, maybe use up some uncommon resources, etc. However, I can also see why people may think it's lazy or bad design. The developer could just make a way to completely bypass a challenge with little effort on the player's part. Think a button that just instantly kills the hard boss if you die to him X amount of times. So what do you think is the best way to bypass, say, a really hard puzzle that may be too far-off for the player to figure out? Maybe it's gone completely point-and-click adventure on you and requires thinking outside the outside of the box's box. Except the box is also a 4-D hypercube.
I'm currently trying out a method wherein the player can use a unique skill they learn to uncover a puzzle's solution if they utilize it in a particular way. It could help those who can't get just one part but are mostly able to get through. Or those who already know how to beat it and just want to get it over with already. Maybe there can be a trial by battle to get the key to go to the next level, or maybe they can use up a bunch of normal resources they accidentally farmed to get past it. Maybe permanently sacrifice something they might want later. Could be anything; I want your opinion.
I kind of detailed my thoughts on moon logic already, but I'll restate here that it's a difference between what you need to solve the puzzle. Knowledge vs. problem-solving/intuition/critical thinking skills. Moon logic has more to do with having extremely foregone leaps in logic that no reasonable person would make. They are usually the result of a designer not remembering that the player won't usually know the result they're trying to get in more complex puzzles, so they draw conclusions based on knowledge the player won't reasonably have. Some are moderate, like the Piano Puzzle in Resident Evil. Others are completely insane, like a lot of the stuff in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. You know the ones, if you've ever played it.
Finally, hints. When I say "in-game", I mean hints that are given within the puzzle itself, or within the context of the setting/characters/plot/etc. Things like using vocabulary that the player sees frequently but usually ignores and referencing places or objects in name or description. Out-of-game would be things like blatant tips in a manual, or even a hint system in the game itself. These give the player help when they can't quite figure the puzzle out, and more often than not simply give away the next step or the entire solution. I tend to dislike out-of-game hints because it's easy to let them carry the player, whereas in-game treats them more intelligently and still requires them to do some thinking. What is your opinion?
I'm not even going to talk about word puzzles right now, but feel free to give your thoughts on those if you so see fit. This is only a fraction of my own thoughts on puzzles in games in general, so keep that in mind. Anyways, have at it. I have yet to really build puzzles in my own game, so all ideas are welcome.
