Messages

No - they're fake difficulty.

Agreed.

Certainly. For example, Monkey Island 2 (if not set to lite mode) is a very difficult game, with zero dead ends.

Basically, it's more satisfying to finally solve a puzzle and realize how it made sense all along, than to finally finish something and wonder how on earth you were supposed to know that you shouldn't eat a pie when hungry.

The Monkey Islands were tough, but annoying in my opinion. I don't think the solutions were as logical as Sierra, relying more on crazy/intentionally-ludicrous paths rather than trail of thought. That was part of the comedy of course, but I ended up resorting to trying everything a lot of the time (only to be annoyed when I found out what did work).

I never had that issue with Grim Fandango, which is surprising because that game's mad also.

I too loved thinking about what to do while I was playing outside, at school, eating dinner. That AHA moment when you figured it out was the greatest! As long as the puzzle made some sense, I loved getting stuck.

This I can definitely relate to, especially after your mind solves your problems whilst you sleep.

I genuinely think being challenged like that was educational.

[why]

I think the question is, why do people get stuck?

Is it because of an intelligently designed challenge, or because the game was downright unfair?

For instance, and notably in the KQ entries, if the game becomes unbeatable because you didn't happen to chuck a boot at a cat to save a rat the very first time you saw it - I'd personally call that cheap and unfair.

But I agree there's a difference between getting stuck for the right reasons, and getting forced into these inescapable situations which the original titles get a lot of stick for (although some like this approach).