As a long term computer-game-player of various types and genres, it is quite easy to notice patterns that follow in the stories and challenges of various types of game. However there is one precise puzzle I have seen so much that it genuinely bothers me now. Yes, I understand it is one of the few types of mathematical and logical problems that can be represented with ease visually, but the number of times I have seen it renders the puzzle moot and pointless.
This is the puzzle. You have three sections of a vaguely triangular shaped object stacked on top of each other, forming the aforementioned vague triangle. This object is located on a single signifier, usually a pole forming a solid physical anchor for the object (which usually has a hole in the middle to fit the pole). There are two more anchors to one side of this. The player must, without stacking a 'larger' section of the triangle on top of a 'smaller' section, or moving a larger section if there is a smaller section on top of it, transfer the entire object to the far anchor.
Usually there are only three sections, sometimes they try to confuse it with four, but it never makes it harder. Assuming there are three sections, this is the (or maybe just a) solution.
1. Top section to far anchor
2. Middle section to middle anchor.
3. Top section to middle anchor
4. Bottle section to far anchor.
5. Top section to beginning anchor
6. Middle section to far anchor
7. Top section to far anchor
It's a seven step puzzle, and I've done it so many times in various games and other situations that I know the solution off by heart.
Why is this puzzle so common? Like I mentioned before, it is a logic puzzle that can be represented pictorially, without the pictorial representation making it ridiculously easy at first glance.
However this leads me on to a tangentially related point: Where is the decision for logic puzzles in games made? Either a game's designer goes "Shit, we need something to lengthen this point" and tries to come up with something, or there's a meeting somewhere where a large number of men in suits (and, let's be equal opportunity, a small number of women in suits) sit around and debate if there should be a logical puzzle linking point A to point B, and what particular puzzle they should use.
So, what inspired this rant? In the first expansion of Neverwinter Nights, there's a riddle section. I friggin' hate riddle sections. Once you know a riddle, you know it, and you can't unknow it. Riddle sections (just like some logic puzzles) just kill replayability. That one section you spent twenty minutes and three pieces of scrap paper (as well as a lifetime of frustration) is now suddenly gone in a matter of minutes.
Even with a strategy guide, some action and timing challenges can be a pain in the ass. The moment you catch a brief glimpse of a logic puzzle section anywhere on the internet, you get that ONE clue you need to ruin it forever. Yahtzee has quicktime events, I have logic puzzles. They ruin the replay value of the game, they're either breathtakingly, balls-achingly hard or so easy you don't even NOTICE the friggin' things, and worst of all, worst of friggin' all... Actually I can't think of a third thing to neatly round off that rant, but they're bad, ok.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment