Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Tl;dr Witness is not for lower IQ people or people who dont like puzzles, who'd have thought -_-
I'm guessing this is George's main problem judging from the puzzles he uses as examples of his frustration.
And way to ignore the parts where he actually criticises the game's design (static gameworld, puzzles are completely detached from the gameworld thus making you question as to why this is even a game in the first place, no narrative aspects to create intrigue, puzzle mechanics are communicated through vague symbols that are more a matter of trial and error to learn as opposed to making visual associations and I could go on).
This is a weak puzzle game that was only made to impress the easily-amused gaming press.
There are plenty of things to help the user to be inspired to explore (investigating where the lasers go, what they are used for etc) as well things that aren't in the main game (environmental obelisk puzzles).
As for the symbols it's a very hard thing to be able to set up "tutorials" for learning a new piece of logic if you are not using the generic piece of text or voiceover to spoon feed the user rather than them having to use their brain. It's a puzzle game for heavens sake. Take a look back at the original Zelda games where you have to learn the logic.
It seems nowadays people just want to be spoon fed and not stray from the path of handholding.
Also I would be pleased to hear that you "could go on", it would be delightful to hear more of where this astounding sense of logic comes from...
What? You don't know what you are talking about.
Portal may use geometry as part of it's puzzle design, but other than that the puzzles are completely detached from the gameworld.
The witness is the opposite. It may not use geometry as part of how you input the answer (except it does, but we are talking about the panels here), but it's puzzles and the keys to their solutions are carefully integrated into the gameworld.
What's the next claim? Are the infamous fire-marble "waffle iron" puzzle from Riven not a part of it's gameworld just because you input the answer on a 2d grid?
Thats the big thing here, if you arent someone who thinks logically/laterally, then this just... isnt for you. I dont understand how thats so hard for some people to grasp. There are plenty of games that arent to my tastes, so I dont play them, but it doesnt stop me being able to critically analyse and understand how its catered audience DOES enjoy them.
There isnt a direct narrative no, but there is eluded to mystery, and an atmosphere that makes you want to keep pushing into the next area or discover more secret nooks and crannys. The art is frankly amazing, and very unique, which was one of the first things to draw me to the game all those years ago. I've been following its blog forever and a day, and I can tell you it wasnt created purely for easily amused gaming press. I know its so much easier to make pithy half hearted remarks, but the truth is that the guy put everything on the line to make this game, and core members of his team left big AAA companies to work on the passion project.
Yes! It is all based on the one simple idea, of drawing lines through a maze. Well done people. Give yourselves a clap? Thats what it always was meant to be, to see how it could be extrapolated upon and used in a diverse range of ways; it achieves this with grace.
You say it needs narrative, that the player needs guidance and the puzzles are vague...
Sorry, but I completely disagree.
Each 'rule' has a series of tutorials set out for it. I and many others basically went with the idea that if I ran into something I didnt understand, I would run off and do something else, not trial and error or try and brute force it. Before too long I would find simpler versions that showed how puzzle worked, and the 'rules' became clear.
Isnt that good design? Leading the character through the environment not by large blinking beacons, not through a narrator telling you what to do, but just actual exploration?
I didnt ever find myself needing to find a guide, nor ever frustrated to the point that I would want to.
Basically, its subjective, and different people will think differently. Of course there is going to be stuff you dislike, stuff you dont understand, but that doesnt necessarily make it 'bad' or an example of poor design.
All of that said, anyone thinking they are smarter than everyone, or think enjoying and 'getting' a game like this makes them a rocket scientist, or have a higher IQ... I pity you.
Sorry to say, but it sounds like you have some major preconceptions.
Not quite sure where the need for the last remark came from though. Also I'd disagree with the idea that being good at games like these doesn't mean you don't have a higher IQ, as IQ tests pretty much use puzzles about abstract logical principles as measure (just like this game does).
Of course, in a real IQ test you have limited time, whereas you can take forever in this game. But I could virtually guarantee you that a person who finished this game in 20 hours has a higher IQ than a person finishing it in 30.
Doesn't mean that person is a morally better person of course. But IQ is a measure, just like height or weight or strength and pretending it doesn't exist or has no infuence on ones capacities is just stupid (not saying that this is what you're doing, but I get the feeling a lot ofpeople just pretend IQ doesn't matter/doesn't exist, whereas it's one of the single most predictors of how good people are at a wide range of things)
The game world is static because having a living world would be distract you from those sets of puzzles that require you to observe your surroundings. For example, there are no sounds of animals anywhere on the island, so when you walk past a section of a jungle and hear a bird chirping it should strike you as something "different" and clue you in that it's probably relevant to solving some sort of puzzle. Another is when you walk past a couple of trees (just like any trees on the island) but notice they have apples hanging from their branches - it should make you go "hey, I haven't seen something like this before, it probably means something".
Everything on this island has a potential meaning and nothing is a coincidence - hell, there are even excerpts from development blogs where the team writes how the artists were told to make models "more boring" to make models that had no gameplay purpose stand out less.
Saying puzzles don't tie in to the environment is just plain and simple false. I'm not even talking about the stuff he mentions at 7:20 - you have puzzles that require observing your surroundings, puzzles that require altering your surroundings, puzzles that utilize perspective and puzzles with multiple solutions that affect the movement and rotation of platforms.
People defending The Witness by saying it is a game that requires "high intelligence" and call people who don't like it unintelligent are making both themselves and the game a disservice. "Intelligence" is not a factor to your enjoyment of this game, instead, I'd say the main factor to whether you have a good time with The Witness or not is your ability to quickly accept that your assumptions are incorrect and your ability to experiment until you discover a new "truth". Lack of "bullheadedness", I guess you could call it.
Through tutorial panels, you "learn" that colored spots are supposed to be separated by color and you "learn" that colored stars need to be paired 2-and-2 with other stars of the same color. But what happens when you discover a panel with two colored spots and just one colored star? Going by your assumptions that stars need to be paired with other stars, this puzzle is impossible, so what do you do? The answer: you assume a new theory ("maybe stars can be paired with non-star symbols of the same color?"), test it on the panel and, depending on if it worked or not, assume it as the new ruleset to these patterns.
Only thing I feel I agree with him on is the lack of a story or narrative (there is a story to The Witness, but it's so tucked away and bare bones that it barely counts), but on the other hand, I do not personally feel story is always required. For example, he mentioned that he liked AntiChamber, which has even less of a story but manages to be an enjoyable game to most of its players anyway.
It's going to be really interesting to hear his, Jimmy's and Matt's discussion about this on this week's TOVG Podcast, considering the other two really seemed to like it.
There was a famous scientist who I cant recall off the top of my head, may have been Hawking, who when asked for his IQ gave a rather blunt and rude reply; because its an arbitrary number.
I mean IQ tests were a massive disaster when originally brought in, and handed out to high school teachers to administer like it was some kind of crystal ball. "And yoooou will be a janitor! For ever! Because you are stupid and deal with it!"
The result? Lot of suicides actually...
Modern IQ tests account for a lot more factors sure, but they still arent a catch all way to gauge intelligence. Major issues are ones of economic, language, or just plain old class divides and just being overly Western focussed.
Its just kinda silly to try and gauge, and conversely judge someone(because thats exactly what it is, scoring someones brain out of 10) based on such things. Anyone with real drive and aptitude for science et al will obviously score highly, but be judged more on their achievements and hard work.
Practical example, Im a creative guy, who also thinks rather logically, and am pragmatic. I suck at socialising however, because like Spock I dont pick up on social cues, and basically am always way too honest. Im good at analysing and problem solving, but I suck at remembering facts such as dates and times, I love history but have no head for it.
In lots of ways, Im clever, and in lots of ways Im an idiot. Personally Im just the kind of person thats willing to admit that and say 'I dont know', because... you know, its usually the first step to finding out.
I've taken IQ tests, and didn't fare too badly at all, but unlike my GPA which I busted my ass for it has the same bearing as a facebook quiz on what Game of Thrones character Im most like. Im unlikely to share either to my wall... mainly as I will look a pratt.