next »

[JiaHoJian]

I am currently developing a puzzle game and I have played a lot of games that have some puzzle elements in them. I found that almost every puzzle game has some "weak connection" type of puzzles. "Weak connection" means that there isn't strong enough evident to support the connection between the solution and the puzzle itself.

For instance, I saw a man and he was touching the steering wheel of a taxi, so I can conclude that the man must be a taxi driver. This is a logical fallacy because touching the steering wheel of a taxi doesn't mean that he is indeed a taxi driver.

Here is another example and this is very common in puzzle games, I found a combination lock and I need to input a number sequence to unlock it, and then I found a paper that has a number sequence written on it, so the password must belong to the combination lock.

Even the puzzle or detective games that were well-received contained many weak connection puzzles in them. I think weak connection puzzles are part of the "guess-what-I-am-thinking" type of puzzles. The developer didn't provide enough information and we have to guess by finding the solution that has something in common with the puzzle. Although the puzzle is solvable once we find the solution that has a weak connection to the puzzle, it's a logical fallacy and there is no instruction that tells us that we have to solve the puzzles by finding the weak connection.

"Strong connection" puzzles are possible, but it's much harder to design. However, even the puzzle games that are generally well-received contain many weak connection puzzles, so it seems that this shouldn't be an issue at all. Then I recalled some IQ tests that I had taken when I was a student, and I found that they are also the examples of weak connection puzzles as well! For example, there are four pictures on the paper, there is one brick in the first picture, there are two bricks in the second picture, there are three bricks in the third picture, so we can conclude that there must be four bricks in the fourth picture. This example is also a type of "guess-what-I-am-thinking" puzzle. We actually cannot deduce that the fourth one must be 4 and there are many possibilities, for instance, it could be 1,2,3,5 because it's a Fibonacci sequence or it could be 1,2,3,6 because they're the factors of the number 6. So we have to guess what the developer was thinking through trial & error. Usually, it should be obvious, but it doesn't make sense to me and I think it's a bad design.

Do you think that weak connection puzzle is a bad design? Have the weak connection puzzles ever caused unnecessary hindrance to your game experience? Or do you think it should be a common sense among the players?

[RealScaniX]

No, I always had the greatest fun in finding out where to find the hints (and what are actually hints) to some puzzles and locks. Finding a paper with the text "Safe lock combination: 1234" is kinda sad.
 
I remember having the greatest feeling of accomplishment in the old adventure game "Ripper" when I found out the combination to a lock, because the hints were hidden in a weird way. (Unfortunately I cannot remember it exactly)

[JiaHoJian]

One extreme example is The Witness. It doesn’t have a story or objectives, and the game doesn’t tell players the rules to the puzzles. Players have to guess the rules by observation. I was able to finish the game after 11 hours of playtime. It’s incredible that we don’t need to tell the rules or objectives and players are still able to figure out what to do. We only have to give players enough examples, and they will figure out the rules themself.

[Lares Yamoir]

Honestly I don't know what you mean by strong connection puzzles. Based on your text

I am currently developing a puzzle game and I have played a lot of games that have some puzzle elements in them. I found that almost every puzzle game has some "weak connection" type of puzzles. "Weak connection" means that there isn't strong enough evident to support the connection between the solution and the puzzle itself.

This example is also a type of "guess-what-I-am-thinking" puzzle. We actually cannot deduce that the fourth one must be 4 and there are many possibilities, for instance, it could be 1,2,3,5 because it's a Fibonacci sequence or it could be 1,2,3,6 because they're the factors of the number 6. So we have to guess what the developer was thinking through trial & error. Usually, it should be obvious, but it doesn't make sense to me and I think it's a bad design.

I can't think of a single strong connection puzzle. Because the player always needs to figure out the solution that the game designer implemented in the game. And from your description it seems you want there to be evidence of the right solution before actually solving the puzzle. If that is the case, can you even call this a puzzle still? Isn't the whole point of puzzles to figure out the underlying (and therefore most likely intended) pattern? I also wouldn't say that your taxi driver example and finding-the-right-code are of the same category. If the code is found in the same house (or "area") as the lock or otherwise connected to the lock (same person who owns the lock also has the code), there might be no evidence to link the code to the lock. But there is a good reason to suspect that the code is linked to the lock. I can't see how that would be bad design in itself.

But then again: I'm not a puzzle designer and not so much a puzzle player.

[Josh Bossie]

I think it's tempting to want to make games more realistic (no matter the genre), but I also think this is a temptation you should avoid

Games are often abstractions of things we'd encounter in real life, and that's especially true of a puzzle. If I walked into a room with a safe in real life then I wouldn't assume that the code is on a given piece of paper - in fact, I wouldn't assume the code is anywhere at all. In a video game I would assume the code is somewhere because the designer put the safe in there on purpose and they wouldn't put in a lock that was impossible to solve. If I find a piece of paper with a code on it then yeah, I figure this is the key to the lock I just found.

That's part of what makes video game puzzles so fun. Unlike real life you know that there is definitely a solution, and unlike real life the amount of 'things' you need to inspect or experiment with is a lot lower.

When you talk about logic in terms of video games you can't use objective thinking. It completely depends on the context of the game.

[diegzumillo]

Hah! I know exactly what you mean. And indeed I see this more often in games that try to have a more realistic setting.

If a game is completely abstract, just white walls and geometric shapes, then finding a set of five numbers then later finding five symbols is a great indication that these are related. But being locked inside a bunker and reading a diary from a man who lived there, you can't just put numbers on a calendar and expect the player to know those numbers open the door in the other room. Making a more realistic setting requires a lot more care in devising these puzzles. For example, you might suggest that the diary talks about the dude next door and how he frequently checked "my calendar". Then in the other room there might be some hint of an important date to this man's life etc.

But, sure, the connection might still be somewhat weak, as long as it isn't completely random it can still be satisfying.

The best example of this being well done is The Return of the Obra Dinn.

[MeltingComet]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the examples you've given for the "weak connection" type of puzzles. Just because the connection isn't strong enough doesn't mean it can't be something that a player will likely deduce through their understanding of the game's logic and rules. As long as both the logic and rules are either easily defined to the player or can be grasped by the player it will probably be fine.

[Josh Bossie]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the examples you've given for the "weak connection" type of puzzles. Just because the connection isn't strong enough doesn't mean it can't be something that a player will likely deduce through their understanding of the game's logic and rules. As long as both the logic and rules are either easily defined to the player or can be grasped by the player it will probably be fine.

This is a more succinct way of what I was trying to say