At least your puzzles aren't this ridiculous...

[Andail]

http://www.cracked.com/article_19974_the-6-most-absurdly-difficult-video-game-puzzles.html

I guess I kind of managed to forget these abominations, but the more I think of it, the absurdity of it is coming back to me.
How could so many of the big titles get away with this level of ludicrousness? We spend so much time here trying to come up with good puzzles, and we give each other feedback and make damn sure to tell one another when our puzzles get too silly. Nobody here at AGS would get away with designing a puzzle like those on that list, yet the professional developers did it again and again.

Are they to blame for the - sometimes - bad reputation of the genre?

Or are we too hard on ourselves, demanding too much of a game element that most players would just accept for it is?

Do we tend to forget about all the silly puzzles we've faced, and remember only the good ones?

[Radiant]

I don't think the genre has or had a bad reputation per se; every genre has its quirks that detractors love to point out. If you're designing a difficult adventure, then you need to find puzzles that are hard, but that afterwards make the player go "it's so obvious, why hadn't I thought of that." Of course, if you do it wrong, you end up with puzzles that make players think "what the f*** was that supposed to be for?" Turns out there is a fine line between them. Note that this is not just adventure games - other genres also tend to include situations that many players can't figure out without getting frustrated and resorting to a walkthrough (e.g. "That Barrel" in platformer Sonic & Knuckles).

Of course, this has a huge YMMV factor to it. For instance, personally I consider the Ifnkov puzzle from KQ1 to be fair by the standards of its time (which included e.g. Zork). Note that the EGA remake, since it is from a different time, does allow the answer "nikstlitselpmur" as well. Personally, I find dead end situations and pixel hunts way more unfair than obtuse puzzles.

[Snarky]

1. That Runescape puzzle sounds hilarious.
2-3. Sierra put in stunningly unfair puzzles in their games just to sell hint books or get people to call the Sierra Hotline.
4. Silent Hill is probably translated from Japanese, right? Maybe the Japanese texts were easier, or Japanese people just know more classic poetry.
5. HHGTTG is famous for being ridiculously difficult.
6. I feel like they played The Longest Journey backwards. If you start from the beginning (i.e. April's room), explore carefully, and accept the adventure game logic that says any conspicuous object is there for you to acquire and any complicated machine is there to be tinkered with, you'll probably already have the clamp and rubber ducky by the time you need to get the key, and it'll all make sense.

[Radiant]

2-3. Sierra put in stunningly unfair puzzles in their games just to sell hint books or get people to call the Sierra Hotline.

I've heard that rumor before and I wonder how true it is. Regardless, King's Quest I easily predates the existence of both hint books and hot line. So I think it is simply in the nature of adventure designers to think up ludicrously convoluted puzzles, until they have been taught not to.

[ThreeOhFour]

Say what you will about the rubber ducky puzzle, I agree with Snarky. I got it without even really needing to think about it.

[Ghost]

I remember quite a discussion how adventure games are becoming too easy by making shorter, simpler puzzles, and by reducing verb interaction and the like. Players these days expect clear in-game hints and sometimes seem absolutely unwilling to think "out of the box". Hard puzzles are often fondly remembered, but mostly by older players...

I actually loved the Babel Fish puzzle. It was just totally in tune with the books and the game, a playable, overly-long gag. Not too sure about some of the other examples in that article; I can really sink my teeth into a fiendish and even unfair puzzle if it feels like "it belongs there".

One of the worst offenders in my book is the Hush Puppy puzzle from Simon 2 (cast spell on dude to make him a puppy, then somehow wear him so a monster doesn't hear you sneaking past it). It just makes so little sense in-game:
* Simon usually failed to do any magic at all, so his spell working came out of nowhere.
* In addition to that spells hardly featured before, and it wasn't even a specific spell, just a generic "use all-purpose magic on random dude" situation.
* While it became clear that you needed stealth to pass the monster, seriously, who would try to wear a puppy (outside of a Drawn Together episode)?
* There were, if I remember correctly, at least two items in your posession at the time that would also have made good, more sensible solutions. A flying carpet, for example.
* While Simon was quite a douche, the whole sequence felt oddly cruel, though that might be just me.

[Chicky]

An all time favorite for me has to be the piano puzzle from Silent Hill. You find yourself hacking away at it, running through many different approaches before finally reaching the correct solution. The room containing the puzzle evokes a feeling of solace in a game where you are expected to get lost in an elementary school that is filled with groaning disfigured children. This is a strong motivator for persevering with the puzzle, the solution is written on the wall and everything you need to finish the puzzle is right there at your fingertips - but damn, it takes a while! There is blood across the piano keys and on the whiteboard is a poem written in blood, the poem tells a tale of birds without a voice and some of the piano keys are muted. The solution is hidden in the writing, with lines like 'first flew the Pelican, eager to win with white wings flailing'.

Spoiler:

Spoiler

hit the first white key (that is muted)

[close]

A great game, with a ridiculous hidden ending.

[Anian]

I actually loved the Babel Fish puzzle. It was just totally in tune with the books and the game, a playable, overly-long gag. Not too sure about some of the other examples in that article; I can really sink my teeth into a fiendish and even unfair puzzle if it feels like "it belongs there".

But limiting the number of times you can try this puzzle, while every time you discover part of the solution you find out that something else will stand in the way is really unfair, isn't it?
Plus, on a personal note, I hate when games that rely on comedy and jokes that come from variations, then limit you in your exploration. Imagine if MI sword fights gave you a limited amount of tries then kill you...it would take all the fun out of it.

The thing with Rumpley is just funny in the way it's wrong, wth wrong spelling that is solution to a puzzle. If you were playing this game at that time you'd never solve it. NEVER!

The Shakespeare puzzle seems very cool, even if it could be easier and still fun. Although since I played L4D map of Silent hill (it even had a nightmare change of scenery and puzzles like the one Chicky mentioned although easier), I am totally under stress every time somebody mentions that game.

And the rubber ducky is just a sign of clunky puzzle design, wasn't that hard or weird, especially compared to others on the list.

[Snarky]

I've heard that rumor before and I wonder how true it is. Regardless, King's Quest I easily predates the existence of both hint books and hot line. So I think it is simply in the nature of adventure designers to think up ludicrously convoluted puzzles, until they have been taught not to.

Yes, it has been confirmed from several sources. I seem to remember one designer (Jane Jensen talking about KQ6, maybe?) who described Ken Williams instructing them to add one of the game's most infamously unfair puzzles for exactly this reason. The LucasArts guys have also talked about how important this business used to be to the company (even though their games were much less punishing).

You're right that KQ1 predates this business (the hints would amount to about ten bullet points, wouldn't they?), but by LSL1 in 1987, they sold more copies of the hint guide than of the game.

[Ghost]

But limiting the number of times you can try this puzzle, while every time you discover part of the solution you find out that something else will stand in the way is really unfair, isn't it?

From what I know and how I like my games today, I would say yes, absolutely. Unfair, or at least annoying as hell. But back then it was standard to save your game AND make a copy of the saved game AND put that on a different disk before you hit pretty much any puzzle- especially in Interactive Fiction. I don't say that those were "better days" (or better games), but designers could expect to get away with such a chestnut

I think that's one really important thing, though, but probably off-topic: These days you expect to be able to play through an adventure without EVER loading a savegame (apart from returning after a break, of course). Dead ends were once part of most adventure games. Today they are considered a design sin. Even a sensible, logical puzzle will be deemed ridiculous or unfair if it contains a dead end/walking dead end.

[Radiant]

I actually loved the Babel Fish puzzle. It was just totally in tune with the books and the game, a playable, overly-long gag. Not too sure about some of the other examples in that article; I can really sink my teeth into a fiendish and even unfair puzzle if it feels like "it belongs there".

But limiting the number of times you can try this puzzle, while every time you discover part of the solution you find out that something else will stand in the way is really unfair, isn't it?

Not particularly, for three reasons. First, it is that it is clear you have screwed up. If it weren't clear, then yes the puzzle would be unfair. Second, restoring and redoing your last few actions is swift and easy. Having to restore is only annoying if it takes a long time to get back to where you were (generally because there are unskippable animations or cutscenes). And third, in classic games like this, saving often is the expected strategy, so any player can reasonably be expected to have saved as soon as they got in the spaceship.

Yes, it has been confirmed from several sources. I seem to remember one designer (Jane Jensen talking about KQ6, maybe?) who described Ken Williams instructing them to add one of the game's most infamously unfair puzzles for exactly this reason.

I would love to read more. Please give me a source or weblink or something?

[Radiant]

My personal example of ridiculous puzzles has to be King's Quest V. It has numerous pixel hunts where you can pass by a required object without realizing it is there, and have no way of getting back. Many puzzle solutions make no sense, the most infamous being the cheese, but even basic ones like giving a toy to a toymaker are counterintuitive. And, the game is known for its lengthy cutscenes, and the version I've played didn't let you skip any of those. And then there's everybody's favorite owl...

[Calin Leafshade]

I will hear nothing to the detriment of either young April Ryan or Zoe Castillo.. Simply no.

However, I will say that the absurdity of KQ1 and HHGTTG are sort of in line with computer games at the time.
They were *supposed* to be absurdly obtuse. In these days of the internet and FAQs the difficulty of a puzzle has to be *just* about the level where someone can not refer to a walkthrough because if they refer to a walkthrough (which they will within about 10 minutes) and the solution is stupid then they feel cheated.
However, when these games were around kids would spend *years* exploring a relatively small game by todays standards. Kids would talk about them in the playground and it would be all mysterious. We've sort of lost that now..

[MiteWiseacreLives!]

I'm kinda with Calin, I remembering being stuck on adventure games for several months as a kid.. and the times when someone you knew talked to a cousin in some other part of the province who figured out a certain puzzle that was ridiculous, then you where super exctited to get home and get further into the story. Internet ruined that, we have to adapt.

[blueskirt]

Those were different times, back then, when you bought or your parents bought you a game, it would be the only game you'd have in a while so you played the crap out of it, no matter how bad or difficult the game was. Nowadays, between Steam sales, humble bundle and freeware games, not to mention everything that's happening outside of the PC world, there are more quality entertainment out there than a person can consume in their lifetime. So if the difficulty curve kicks in before the plot or fun gameplay stuff does, or if anything in the graphics, voice acting, interface, controls or game rules rub them in the wrong way, your players will switch to something else.

And while I love good puzzles and certainly don't want to see them disappear from the genre, I won't hide that there have been some AGS games where I did just that. When I'm swamped in puzzle after puzzle before the plot kicks in, or when I'm faced with one bizarro situation too many (bizarro as in "to solve this puzzle I've got to fly back to L.A. to pick up a pencil I forgot in my office" bizarro), my brain starts thinking "Man, look at all those Steam and GOG games you could be playing right now" and that's it, you've lost me.