
I’d planned on writing my next post about the Next Fest demos, but then I suddenly won another game on SG, so…
Puzzle game. All you can do directly is move up/down/left/right and push blocks, but the game’s central premise is that some blocks can be moved inside of, shrinking everything that goes in and regrowing what gets pushed out. The premise is expanded further by having some blocks be duplicates of the play area, allowing for various recursion effects.
The game starts off great. The difficulty curve is very gradual, with many levels only being minor variations of earlier levels so you can get used to the minutiae and edge-cases of how the mechanics work…or at least that’s what I thought the game was doing at first. But then, you start to notice that the game is taking a really long time to start introducing harder puzzles, instead opting to introduce more and more mechanics and gimmicks. For the first 2-3 hours of the game, the most difficult puzzles only took around 5 minutes to solve, 10 tops. I was already starting to get annoyed at the “Clone” world, but the game kept introducing (and even abandoning) more and more gimmicks, and when I got to the “Flip” world and the game introduced yet another new mechanic, I started to wonder if I was the one being played. Some gimmicks are even only used for a few levels in an optional side path, so it’s not even like you have the implicit promise that the game will keep building on them like the other mechanics. There are even levels that replace the graphics with ASCII, and the entire challenge is deciphering which characters represent which game objects. Some levels also lock your ability to zoom in/out, which only serves to make levels more annoying rather than challenging.
Worse still, a lot of the challenge in later levels comes from the fact that there are so many mechanics, you either start to forget or were never taught about the minutiae or edge-cases required for their solutions, completely undoing the ONE potential positive its light difficulty curve could have had! It’s not like B.i.t. Lock or Klonoa: Moonlight Museum where you can solve puzzles you’re stuck on just by thinking about the level design and game mechanics after you’ve turned the game off; you NEED to do trial and error. This even extends to levels that are supposed to be easy tutorials, like the first level of the “Transfer” world, because the new mechanic is just different enough from how the rest of the game worked that you won’t be able to intuit its existence, only blindly stumble into it. If you’ve ever wondered how some people think the game is too easy while others get stuck on early levels, this is why. This game doesn’t have “aha!” moments; it has “oh yeah, I guess I can do that” moments.
However, I think the worst example of this mandatory trial-and-error are the first few “Infinite Entrance” levels because they hide crucial information until after you make it to a point-of-no-return zone that you can’t see from the main play area (not even if you zoom in or out). This is in stark contrast to every other level in the game (except Challenge 32, which has the same problem). The third level in that world even has an obstacle course in that zone, effectively guaranteeing you’ll have to reset the puzzle because you wont know what moves would screw you over until after you get there, at which point you’ve likely already screwed yourself over from not doing the specific setup needed to win before entering the point-of-no-return zone in the first place.
After you beat the game, you unlock an additional “Challenge” world and three “Appendix” worlds. The Appendix worlds each have their own exclusive gimmick that reverses a previously-established rule (e.g. entering a block has priority over pushing said block instead of vice versa), so you’d think the Challenge world would focus on testing what you’ve been taught in the main game instead of introducing even more gimmicks and never-before-seen edge-cases, right? Ha ha, nope. Some of the Challenge levels are decently tricky and some you’ll solve in just a few minutes like before, but those remaining ones go right back to testing your patience rather than your puzzle-solving skills. When that became undeniable after I solved Challenge levels 15, 24, and 37 (and tbh 32 as well), I finally looked up a walkthrough for one of the four remaining levels I had no idea where to begin solving: Challenge 4. Sure enough, it was more unintuitive, bespoke edge-case nonsense, so I gave up and left Challenges 5, 6, and 12 unsolved.
Overall, this is a good example of why I stopped buying puzzle games, no matter how well-made they seem or how well-received they are. It’s too easy for too long, and when it does get hard, it’s for the wrong reasons half the time. It does have plenty of fair, tricky puzzles the other half of the times it gets hard, but I cannot in good conscience recommend a game that I myself did not complete. At least wait until it gets a much bigger discount than what it’s been getting.

Congratz on persevering for so long in a game you find problematic !
Really good (and somewhat dispiriting hahaha) critique. I do struggle a bit with puzzle games, as I think a few of them rely on those gimmicks you mentioned, and lack consistency or a gradual difficulty curve. They become difficult not because they gradually increase the difficulty of the mechanics introduced, but instead, become difficult by requiring you to trial-and-error things until you figure it out, and that defeats the purpose.
I don’t know, the bane of my puzzling existence is Baba Is You, because I never felt there was a gradual learning curve. For me it was always binary - either you look at something and get it, or you’ll have to play with every permutation until something works, and you barely know why. I know that’s not the experience to everyone, but that’s definitely how it feels to me. On the other hand, I absolutely adore Superliminal. While it introduces and drops mechanics like candy, every level gradually takes you from the barest form of a mechanic to its logical extension and limit. I know a lot of people critique that ‘add and drop mechanics’ element of it, but for me it was better to always feels like you’re learning and improving on something rather than trying to combine all of it in a hot mess that doesn’t work.
I had Parabox pretty high on my wishlist, but maybe I should be more critical of the puzzles I play to avoid frustration, or abandoning games like I abandoned Baba. I’m still super keen to play The Witness thou, I think that’s my highest-ranked puzzler in the wishlist
Now that you mention it, I, too, had a similar experience when I played Baba Is You. It’s probably the most apt comparison that can be made about this game.
I never played Superliminal, though (the trailer gave me Antichamber vibes, so I won’t dare touch it), but I did play The Witness for a bit when it went free on Epic, and it may be worth warning you that I also wasn’t a fan of that game, either.
So, any other puzzle games on your wishlist? :P
Whoa, I always thought I was in the minority about that. I wonder why so many games keep doing it, then…
I assume it’s just one of those things that come up in game development. Not sure if you watch Game Maker’s Toolkit, but Mark Brown made a series of video essays about his game development process, and he had a ‘puzzle matrix’, where he had each mechanic on each row and each mechanic on each column, and he tried to make a level combining each two mechanics. I.e., one level for mechanics 1 and 2, one for 1 and 3, one for 2 and 3, etc. It’s definitely an exhaustive process, but it doesn’t mean the end result is cohesive. I assume it’s easy to fall onto a situation like that when you’re designing a puzzle game.
Well, I got Talos Principle, Kairo, and Heaven’s Vault on my backlog. There’s also Cloud Gardens, Vignettes, and Nauticrawl, but I’m not sure if they count? Haha
On my wishlist, the main ones are Manifold Garden, Antichamber (hehe), Void Stranger, Lorelei, Hyperbolica, Cocoon, Unpacking – the list goes on. I also have Obra Dinn, Golden Idol and Fez if they count? Hahahah too many, too many hahaha
Fair enough. :) Maybe we just like different types of puzzle games and only coincidentally share opinions on Baba.
I will say, FEZ is another one I wouldn’t recommend. I beat it before joining the site (so no post to link), but from what I remember, the main game is really easy and boring while the optional paths are so obtuse, you are (were) expected to work together with the online community to solve them. The one thing I remember distinctly was when I stumbled across a couple invisible platforms you can only stand on if the camera is pointed a specific way, so even being in that spot with the camera turned 180 degrees would cause you to fall through.
Also, the game’s developer, Phil Fish, isn’t a very good person, if that’s something you care about.