Aufhebung RPG
History is tragedy becoming comedy
What do we think of the puzzle elements in Zelda. Why is Zelda a "fake puzzle" in terms of canonical puzzle games?
And to add to that that while Zelda puzzles are basic usually they take some time cause part of the puzzle is understanding the surroundings and the mechanisms in the room. It's a combo of exploring and solving the puzzle.Jon Blow seems to be kind of an asshole for no reason at all times. I get where he's coming from, Zelda puzzles are fairly basic and require only the most simple pattern recognition, but that's called "easy", not "fake". It's like saying Kirby is a fake platformer.
I don't know if I'm right, but I think the puzzles in the Legend of Zelda series were created largely based on intuition, especially BOTW and TOTK, in order to let the player know more about how to use the items, and therefore Zelda isn't a "logical puzzle" for Jonathan Blow.Jon Blow seems to be kind of an asshole for no reason at all times. I get where he's coming from, Zelda puzzles are fairly basic and require only the most simple pattern recognition, but that's called "easy", not "fake". It's like saying Kirby is a fake platformer.
Oh, and he's the creator of The witness and Braid.We're gatekeeping puzzles in video games now???
Idk who this person is but they sound miserable
The game is amazing, but I think you're kinda comparing apples and oranges here. Animal Well is designed to be fairly cryptic, with puzzles comprising the meat of its gameplay. Between combat, exploration, puzzles, and so on, Zelda's gameplay pillars are more multifaceted, so it makes sense that its puzzles wouldn't be as impressively designed as a game more narrowly focused on that particular area. Also, Zelda games are made with kids and teens in mind, as Danny mentioned further up, so there's a ceiling on how complex Nintendo is willing to make the puzzles.I mean, we can look at the recently released Animal Well, how long has it been since Nintendo has been able to make such impressive gameplay and puzzle designs?
So my problem is that Nintendo has always claimed that they value gameplay creativity above all else, yet haven't made enough progress in years, and TOTK has too many player-pleasing designs, which I don't think is a good thing for Zelda.The game is amazing, but I think you're kinda comparing apples and oranges here. Animal Well is designed to be fairly cryptic, with puzzles comprising the meat of its gameplay. Between combat, exploration, puzzles, and so on, Zelda's gameplay pillars are more multifaceted, so it makes sense that its puzzles wouldn't be as impressively designed as a game more narrowly focused on that particular area. Also, Zelda games are made with kids and teens in mind, as Danny mentioned further up, so there's a ceiling on how complex Nintendo is willing to make them.
He's a good puzzle designer, but his overall games are... well, see above.He's definitely a brilliant game creator
He didn't say much more than a comment that he hadn't played all of the Legend of Zelda series, but the BOTW and TOTK puzzles he thought were Fake PuzzleI think it would be helpful to actually have the argument spelled out. Otherwise we're going to have to focus on Jonathan Blow's character which will be pretty uncharitable to Jonathan Blow.
I agree with him that he worked on Braid and The Witness.I don't agree with this man about anything.
Yeah, the only response I had for the opening post was that it's a terrible opinion from a terrible person. I can only empathically disagree with him.I think it would be helpful to actually have the argument spelled out. Otherwise we're going to have to focus on Jonathan Blow's character which will be pretty uncharitable to Jonathan Blow.
Sincerely, I do not see how you can see Nintendo's wide variety of games, with their respective mechanics, themes and styles, and say with a straight face that they do not value gameplay creativity.So my problem is that Nintendo has always claimed that they value gameplay creativity above all else, yet haven't made enough progress in years, and TOTK has too many player-pleasing designs, which I don't think is a good thing for Zelda.
lol. Lmao even!Jonathan Blow
You perhaps might want to give specific examples of what you mean so people have something clear to discuss. It's not clear what Blow's argument is, nor is it clear what you mean by "player pleasing designs" or "not enough progress".So my problem is that Nintendo has always claimed that they value gameplay creativity above all else, yet haven't made enough progress in years, and TOTK has too many player-pleasing designs, which I don't think is a good thing for Zelda.
Yeah, but like... what does that mean? What is the argument here?He didn't say much more than a comment that he hadn't played all of the Legend of Zelda series, but the BOTW and TOTK puzzles he thought were Fake Puzzle
I'm not complaining in any way about Nintendo's claims, I just think that perhaps the biggest gap between Nintendo and these indie game creators is that Nintendo deliberately reduces the depth of the very interesting gameplay they have at their disposal in order to curry favor with the majority of gamers.Yeah, the only response I had for the opening post was that it's a terrible opinion from a terrible person. I can only empathically disagree with him.
Sincerely, I do not see how you can see Nintendo's wide variety of games, with their respective mechanics, themes and styles, and say with a straight face that they do not value gameplay creativity.
I disagree that Nintendo games lack depth. You need only check out the competitive scenes for Smash or Splatoon, or the intricacy of level design of Mario Odyssey, or the physics-based possibilities afforded by Tears of the Kingdom.I just think that perhaps the biggest gap between Nintendo and these indie game creators is that Nintendo deliberately reduces the depth of the very interesting gameplay they have at their disposal in order to curry favor with the majority of gamers
I don't know if TOTK's ability to attack puzzles at will with a few simple methods counts as an example (fitting bombs and shields together or rockets with shields to be able to skip a very large number of puzzle designs. This would destroy the point of a lot of puzzle design; puzzles should make the player think, not be toys). , but even if you exclude TOTK's freer gameplay itself, 2017 BOTW's puzzle design was already considered very simple compared to the old Zelda, and TOTK went further to become even simpler.Yeah, "fake puzzle" comes across as meaningless and it's difficult to know what's actually being argued here. Is he saying the puzzles are easy? That they're artificial or contrived?
You perhaps might want to give specific examples of what you mean so people have something clear to discuss. It's not clear what Blow's argument is, nor is it clear what you mean by "player pleasing designs" or "not enough progress".
But I think people have already addressed some of the fundamental points. Zelda is a series with a web of interconnected gameplay systems that wants to appeal to an all-ages audience. It isn't a game which places puzzles and puzzle-solving as the meat of its experience. Frankly Blow's "fake puzzle" phrase is meaningless without explanation and difficult to have a detailed conversation on that basis.
There's a simple paradox here in that you think the rich gameplay TOTK offers based on its physics engine is a reflection of its depth, and I don't doubt that, but TOTK is still an action-adventure game, and all of its gameplay roots have to be backed up by sufficiently interesting level design, or else it's going to end up being a self-indulgent game in the same way that Minecraft is, but TOTK's level and puzzle design is a disappointment.I disagree that Nintendo games lack depth. You need only check out the competitive scenes for Smash or Splatoon, or the intricacy of level design of Mario Odyssey, or the physics-based possibilities afforded by Tears of the Kingdom.
Rigid puzzle design is not the only method of adding depth to a game.
That's only going by your personal notion of what a puzzle should be.This would destroy the point of a lot of puzzle design; puzzles should make the player think, not be toys
I disagree, therefore I also disagree with Jonathan Blow.TOTK's level and puzzle design is a disappointment
Not it's not.There's a simple paradox here in that you think the rich gameplay TOTK offers based on its physics engine is a reflection of its depth, and I don't doubt that, but TOTK is still an action-adventure game, and all of its gameplay roots have to be backed up by sufficiently interesting level design, or else it's going to end up being a self-indulgent game in the same way that Minecraft is, but TOTK's level and puzzle design is a disappointment.
My argument is that too much freedom to interact with abilities and items completely undermines the point of puzzle design, and if a puzzle allows the player to break it any way they want then it's a classic "fake puzzle", and Nintendo doesn't want the player to get stuck or offended, so the puzzles in TOTK were designed to please the player, but as a game design they failed.Not it's not.
This. They're action-adventure games with puzzles that serve as breaks in combat and exploration.I don't view zelda as a puzzle game at all
I'll be honest and say that I have a problem with TOTK's puzzle design because it loses the thoughtfulness of "puzzle solving".Having reading this thread so far, this feels more like it was made to rant about Zelda's puzzle design under a veil of "famous person said this. What do you think?" I can't say it's an honest thread
My argument is that too much freedom to interact with abilities and items completely undermines the point of puzzle design, and if a puzzle allows the player to break it any way they want then it's a classic "fake puzzle", and Nintendo doesn't want the player to get stuck or offended, so the puzzles in TOTK were designed to please the player, but as a game design they failed.
That's like saying sequence breaking in a metroidvania game undermines the level design of the game.My argument is that too much freedom to interact with abilities and items completely undermines the point of puzzle design, and if a puzzle allows the player to break it any way they want then it's a classic "fake puzzle", and Nintendo doesn't want the player to get stuck or offended, so the puzzles in TOTK were designed to please the player, but as a game design they failed.