• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

Discussion Do you agree with Jonathan Blow when he stated on air that "Zelda is fake puzzle".

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aufhebung RPG said:
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?
Click to expand...

I wish I had Animal Well in such high esteem. What's so impressive about puzzle design? You can spoil me, I finished the game.

But to answer that, even if I am not a fan of the game, yeah Tears of the Kingdom runs circles in puzzle design and gameplay.
 
0
Enpsty said:
That's like saying sequence breaking in a metroidvania game undermines the level design of the game.

TOTK puzzles have a "correct" way to solve them while giving you the option to break them if you're creative enough. So they work both ways. And imo most great puzzles have something similar. For example I broke many puzzles in Talos Principle in a weird way. That didn't take away the brilliance of the puzzles themselves.

IMO TOTK puzzles are brilliant because you can solve them either with the obvious way or simply go wild.
Click to expand...
Because it takes away the "sense of challenge", and the player can solve the puzzles in any way they want, which also means that the sense of challenge and the difficulty curve is no longer meaningful, which is a problem with open air Zelda as a whole, and I hope they address it in the next installment.

Here, what I perceive as a sense of challenge is bound to offend players.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
I'll be honest and say that I have a problem with TOTK's puzzle design because it loses the thoughtfulness of "puzzle solving".
Click to expand...

i'd call it a new take on puzzle design if anything. it's created with creativity in mind, and the devs explicitely said they saw ways to bypass and let them stay on purpose. there's a dozen+ different ways to solve any given puzzle and you can make your own unique path rather than a designated single solution.

you can say it makes it easier, you can say it makes it cheesable, but that's player-choice. i chose to engage with them in increasingly creative and unintended ways that didn't even involve rockets and the like, and i consistently felt like a genius throughout the game.

normal puzzle design vs new zelda is "can i figure out what the developer is intending for me to see so i can figure the intended solution" vs "how do i use my tools to solve this" and that has a lot of value.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
Because it takes away the "sense of challenge", and the player can solve the puzzles in any way they want, which also means that the sense of challenge and the difficulty curve is no longer meaningful, which is a problem with open air Zelda as a whole, and I hope they address it in the next installment.
Click to expand...

they will not. it's working exactly as intended.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Having multiple solutions, intended or not, is not "fake".
Having an equation, wanting 1 solution, but there being multiple does not disqualify it from being an equation. Puzzle is a boat term, its not refering to a specific type of problem or game.

Perfect knowledge, inperfect knowledge?
Is there a clear defined answer, or is the solution tied to a set of rules?

Puzzled that work with social concepts need to have the answer tied and the solution can depend on social context. puzzles that work with rules either need to rely on rules in the natural world (math, physics, etc) or needs to communicate the rules properly. Figuring out what those rules are can be a puzzle on its own.

While some solutions in Zelda can be seen as "cheating" the puzzle (like solving a ring puzzle in real life by bending the rings, I would say bringing a bunch of metal weapons und Putting them all over the place could count as that), others are just a different interpretation of the rules set up to get to the solution (instead of using magnesia to move something using stasis).

Totks puzzles are designed a little to broad to be challenging. Sure. But fakes totally the wrong word.
 
Revolsin said:
i'd call it a new take on puzzle design if anything. it's created with creativity in mind, and the devs explicitely said they saw ways to bypass and let them stay on purpose. there's a dozen+ different ways to solve any given puzzle and you can make your own unique path rather than a designated single solution.

you can say it makes it easier, you can say it makes it cheesable, but that's player-choice. i chose to engage with them in increasingly creative and unintended ways that didn't even involve rockets and the like, and i consistently felt like a genius throughout the game.

normal puzzle design vs new zelda is "can i figure out what the developer is intending for me to see so i can figure the intended solution" vs "how do i use my tools to solve this" and that has a lot of value.
Click to expand...
You have a misunderstanding of traditional puzzle design, and Jonathan Blow is actually opposed to "let the player guess the developer's intent" puzzles because it takes the player from immersing themselves in the game's rules and thinking about them to guessing with the developer, but that doesn't mean that it's going to be solved by losing the sense of challenge and seriousness.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
Because it takes away the "sense of challenge", and the player can solve the puzzles in any way they want, which also means that the sense of challenge and the difficulty curve is no longer meaningful, which is a problem with open air Zelda as a whole, and I hope they address it in the next installment.

Here, what I perceive as a sense of challenge is bound to offend players.
Click to expand...
But solving the puzzle in other way than the intended one is a challenge itself. And this is not only in Zelda.
Portal puzzles for example can be solved by "cheating" its systems.
 
I feel like there's very few things that Jonathan Blow and I would agree on in general
 
Clov said:
I feel like there's very few things that Jonathan Blow and I would agree on in general
Click to expand...
But there are a few, I hope:
The earth is round, sleep is healthy, pizza is tasty...

Well ok, I'm not so sure if he would agree with the second point.
 
0
Enpsty said:
But solving the puzzle in other way than the intended one is a challenge itself. And this is not only in Zelda.
Portal puzzles for example can be solved by "cheating" its systems.
Click to expand...
I think the premise that a sense of challenge can be gained by "solving a puzzle using: a different method than expected" is that the expected solution is inherently challenging, and the problem with TOTK is that even the expected solution is simple.
 
The only fake puzzle here is how anyone can listen to Blow speak about anything and not conclude he's an out of touch lunatic. The puzzle design in Zelda has always been masterfully crafted, and Nintendo understands that a good puzzle needs to be just challenging enough for most players to solve and feel clever without getting stuck and needing a walkthrough. Cryptic, obscure bull shit that 90% of your player base won't find without looking up how on youtube isn't good design, and it's not like Nintendo doesn't have stuff like that in their games. Mario Odyssey has a ton of examples of coins and 1ups hidden in areas it seems like the player shouldn't be able to get to without doing some very specific movement tech.
 
If you can solve a puzzle in an unconventional manner because you truly understand the mechanics of the game and how they allow you to manipulate your environment, then I think that's all the more rewarding. It's open-ended problem-solving.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
I think the premise that a sense of challenge can be gained by "solving a puzzle using: a different method than expected" is that the expected solution is inherently challenging, and the problem with TOTK is that even the expected solution is simple.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on that, rarely is it really challenging, and more often then not it's obvious what a handfull of solutions are but the question becomes how long does it take to assemble the required zonai build.

I still likes a lot of the shrines, but from a puzzling perspective many felt lacking. But not fake. That's where I draw the line.
 
BassForever said:
The only fake puzzle here is how anyone can listen to Blow speak about anything and not conclude he's an out of touch lunatic. The puzzle design in Zelda has always been masterfully crafted, and Nintendo understands that a good puzzle needs to be just challenging enough for most players to solve and feel clever without getting stuck and needing a walkthrough. Cryptic, obscure bull shit that 90% of your player base won't find without looking up how on youtube isn't good design, and it's not like Nintendo doesn't have stuff like that in their games. Mario Odyssey has a ton of examples of coins and 1ups hidden in areas it seems like the player shouldn't be able to get to without doing some very specific movement tech.
Click to expand...
Then there's no real difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying, it's really the same thing, Nintendo is really trying to please the players, the biggest problem with OPEN AIR Zelda is that it lacks the kind of impressively difficult puzzles that you're used to, but the dungeons in the BOTW DLC are basically in line with what I've come to expect in terms of puzzle design.
 
0
They're not fake, they're a work.

And dressing up personal preferences as natural definitions is only shooting on yourself.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
I think the premise that a sense of challenge can be gained by "solving a puzzle using: a different method than expected" is that the expected solution is inherently challenging, and the problem with TOTK is that even the expected solution is simple.
Click to expand...
And yet in many puzzles in previous Zelda games you could only do the expected solution, which tended to be easy too. Like on the level of "bomb this obvious crack in the wall."
 
Without a more specific definition of what exactly they mean by ‘fake puzzle’, there are many different types of combinations of elements in games. Zelda isn’t a puzzle game or about deciphering cryptic clues, not in the way Mulana or Animal Well or even Tunic (with it’s literal Zelda clothing) are. It’s an action game combined with unpacking these dungeons that have a sense of place, where your growing familiarity with its quirks, spaces and your tools eventually have you break it wide open. Where your initial assessment of ‘that’s weird, what’s that for’ becomes an instantaneous ‘I interact with it like x leading to y’ after the ‘aha!’ moment. BOTW/TotK offer you many ways to do that interaction, some more creative than others, leading to a sense of ‘sequence breaking’, but really you’re still innovating with a set of tools, the breadth of the abilities of your toolset doesn’t necessarily make it easier as it also adds the uncertainly of ‘is this how I’m meant to do it?’ vs the fun of their freewheeling ‘whatever works!’ spirit. But you’re doing all this while also navigating and fighting.

It’s like saying ‘Braid is very poor at being Zelda dungeons’.
 
Last edited:
Puzzles are puzzles. I think the shrines are kinda ehhhhhhh and the dungeons are kinda ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh in the open air games but they're still puzzles. I do think there are points to be made about whether having 10+ ways to circumvent challenges is necessarily good game design.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
What do we think of the puzzle elements in Zelda. Why is Zelda a "fake puzzle" in terms of canonical puzzle games?
Click to expand...
What definition would you give to ‘fake puzzle’, OP? As I probably disagree with the idea that’s it’s a ‘fake puzzle’ based on any reasonable definition that I can imagine or what I think Zelda is trying to be, so without a definition that you’re claiming is a fact, it’s kinda hard to argue for or against.
 
0
eye0h said:
Puzzles are puzzles. I think the shrines are kinda ehhhhhhh and the dungeons are kinda ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh in the open air games but they're still puzzles. I do think there are points to be made about whether having 10+ ways to circumvent challenges is necessarily good game design.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I loved the ‘Scrapheap Challenge’ (loved that TV show) element of ‘get this thing to x point however you can, here’s a pile of batteries, fans, wheels and planks of wood’. But I think enough of the puzzles also had quite specific solutions too.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
You have a misunderstanding of traditional puzzle design, and Jonathan Blow is actually opposed to "let the player guess the developer's intent" puzzles because it takes the player from immersing themselves in the game's rules and thinking about them to guessing with the developer, but that doesn't mean that it's going to be solved by losing the sense of challenge and seriousness.
Click to expand...

It's seeming more and more clear that they perfectly understood puzzle design and it's you that doesn't.

"How am I going to get from A to B given this toolset" is far more of a puzzle than "hit the switch with the designated item" ever was in the pre BOTW zeldas. You would basically never have to stop and think, or come up with a new usage of an item once you're given it. You'll see basically everything it has to offer in the room you get it, or the one after, and that'll be that.
 
Not sure I can subject myself to reading this whole thread to catch up, but Zelda has two approached to puzzle design. Pre BotW scripted solutions and BotW/TotK immersive solutions. I can see arguments for the ‘immersive’ puzzles being less puzzley, but it’s kind of splitting hairs between ‘puzzle’ and ‘challenge’. Those scripted ones from earlier games are, to me, indistinguishable from something like Portal or The Witness. They might not always have been clear or great, but they were designed to be solved in the expected way, like most other puzzle games. They were also often based on player positioning and navigation through an environment which is fairly unusual for video game puzzles but I feel just as valid (Portal relied on this heavily, along side its actual main portal gun mechanic).

If this argument is based on puzzle difficulty then it’s a waste of time to engage with. Puzzle difficulty has to be among the most subjective things in video games. Blow made two great puzzle games and has probably been playing video games his whole life, of course he’s going to find puzzles in a AAA game not focused on its puzzles easy.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
You have a misunderstanding of traditional puzzle design, and Jonathan Blow is actually opposed to "let the player guess the developer's intent" puzzles because it takes the player from immersing themselves in the game's rules and thinking about them to guessing with the developer, but that doesn't mean that it's going to be solved by losing the sense of challenge and seriousness.
Click to expand...
I love the witness but the rules in that game are also a bit arbitrary and the "developer's intent".

In Zelda the puzzles follow rules as well. Physics, chemistry, and so on. You learn them by trying stuff (which is fun in itself).
Sure, sometimes it feels like you break a puzzle but giving players a lot of creative freedom in puzzle solving should be commended and not criticised, in my opinion. It is hard to do development-wise.
There are enough "oldschool" puzzle games out there already.

What I wish for in future Zelda are more puzzles out in the world, not mainly offered in these self-contained spaces like the shrines or dungeons.
I get why they do this (you play the game for a long time and you might forget stuff that you need elsewhere - and in the open world they might be even easier to break), but more mysteries that are connected over the whole map would be appreciated.
 
I don't know when or where he said that but If he means TotK, I don't agree. Furthermore, Zelda is, as everyone knows, not a puzzle game like The Witness, as it is also not a boss battler like Monster Hunter. It's about exploration first and foremost and it contains puzzles, some mandatory, some not, some obvious, some a little more obtuse.

In case of Tears of the Kingdom, we are even provided to work creatively with obstacles. Different people approach the same obstacle differently and it works, the game lets you circumvent it, break it without triggering a dead end, it's sometimes fascinating that the devs managed to create an environment that lets you play in a way they did not intend and find your solutions. That is not fake, it's a puzzle environment so well constructed, that the puzzles themselves do not need to be rigid one way.
 
Semi related. But I am remembering how many people got completely confused by the constellation puzzle to the point of ranting it made no sense.

2017 was a very memorable year
 
Scrapheap Challenge (Junkyard Wars in the US), the true inspiration for TOTK puzzle design *


I loved this series. There’s something really addictive about what’s essentially not just random people but often mechanics and engineers of various specialities and other practical types on the team too, doing what they can with a machine shop and a load of busted up metal and wood. All the ‘build a flying machine’ or ‘build a vehicle to cross a lake’ episodes are great. Reality TV that’s actually worth watching.

Clearly a ‘fake puzzle’ /s

*probably not
 
Last edited:
oomoepoo said:
What even is the point when OP doesn't even give the actual argument of Blow? Goodness knows, we really don't need a dedicated "I don't like Jonathan Blow"-thread.
Click to expand...
As I've already mentioned, Blow didn't give a concrete argument, but merely replied to a comment from an audience member who said "Zelda is a puzzle game" by saying "That's not true, I haven't played all of the Zelda games, but BOTW and TOTK's puzzle design is fake-puzzle".
 
As such things become more frequent, it will ultimately lead to a complete collapse of people's aesthetic perception of games.
Game scores have become increasingly meaningless nowadays.
Ultimately, the sales of the game will become the criterion for all evaluations. More precisely, it is whether the game can be profitable.
 
Why am I transported back to fucking 2012 with the wombo combo of Phil Fish and Jonathan Blow of "your games suck"

Man, those hot shot indie devs back then were absolutely toxic.
 
Secu said:
As such things become more frequent, it will ultimately lead to a complete collapse of people's aesthetic perception of games.
Game scores have become increasingly meaningless nowadays.
Ultimately, the sales of the game will become the criterion for all evaluations. More precisely, it is whether the game can be profitable.
Click to expand...

I thought this was about puzzles
 
They are just different from the stuff he puts in The Witness and Braid. But they're all puzzles, and they're all pretty awesome.

But well, Blow is a known asshole, so he's obviously going to word his opinions in the most stupid way possible.
 
Secu said:
As such things become more frequent, it will ultimately lead to a complete collapse of people's aesthetic perception of games.
Game scores have become increasingly meaningless nowadays.
Ultimately, the sales of the game will become the criterion for all evaluations. More precisely, it is whether the game can be profitable.
Click to expand...
If you ask me if so-called game ratings mean anything, I'd say that, at least for now, they are decreasing in significance, and it's by no means a collapse of the so-called game aesthetic, but rather the fact that game ratings are in fact controlled by the major review media, and that they have an absolute say in the matter, and the fact is that the media can't decide whether a game is philosophically good or bad in terms of its design.
 
big lantern ghost said:
Click to expand...

MV5BMjMzNDUzNjAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjU0Mjg0MjE@._V1_.jpg
 
0
Came into the thread for Blow's demented takes on modern gaming.

Stayed for the OP's comments that Nintendo doesn't value creative gameplay and that TotK has fake puzzles.

This is wild and everything, but given how much of a chud Blow has shown himself to be, I'm not sure we need a thread platforming his weird ideas.

EDIT

I forgot that Blow is an antivaxer who believes Covid was manmade. His opinions on game design are less than worthless.
 
Last edited:
Zelda puzzles make you feel like indiana jones, they aren't meant to be strictly logic puzzles with obtuse clues. It's a combination of exploration, world building and environmental puzzles that makes the games sort of amazing and satisfying. I wouldn't even call the puzzles easy.

There's a genre of games thats all about puzzles (they are a niche genre) compared to those it's certainly much easier. But it's far more engaging than most AAA games.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
There's no contradiction between letting everyone play the game and saying TOTK BOTW puzzles are too easy
Click to expand...
I mean... did Blow ever did a Zelda game, in the first place ?

Why are we comparing Zelda puzzles to a mysogynistic alt-right ass licker moron who only made puzzle games in the first place when the Zelda games are full on Adventure Action games with some puzzles ?

EDIT :
I removed the last part because it is unnecessary stupid.
Still, fuck Blow, he blows.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom