One of the things I did not like is the sometimes incredibly obfuscated association of symbols with mechanics. For example, the panels with sun symbols. [Spoilers] It didn't take me incredibly long to figure out that they needed to be grouped in twos, but it did take me longer to figure out than to solve the first ~8 introductory panels. And the worst part, how is a star in any way connected with grouping by twos????
When a new rule is introduced, the early panels can be easily solved by trial and error. However, it's a mistake to continue until you can articulate the rule. That means experimenting with a panel even if you accidentally get the correct answer on the first try.
I do not mind new panels introducing concepts; what I mind is the symbols not always being clearly connected with the mechanic they introduce.
For example, the black and white symbols that needed to be separated were intuitive.
While I sort of agree, I must say that part of the fun of the game (and much of the challenge) is learning the 'language' of each puzzle. In the case of the little orange suns, it was like learning from scratch, one letter at a time.
First panel: "Okay, I can't go between them."
Second panel: "Oh, I can, but have to end up on one side... which amounts to having them in the same section. How is that different?"
Third panel: "There were 4, and the only path that worked divided them? What the hell?"
Fourth panel: "Oh with six I have to make them into groups of two - so maybe I have to divide them equally?"
Fifth panel: "Aha, no, it's groups of two!"
And now that's part of your vocabulary; you discovered it organically, not by bringing in some outside knowledge like symbols from off the island. Notice there aren't any numbers or letters? Like, anywhere? That's part of it...
True, I should have mentioned that and have added. Pretty much everything is spoilery in threads about the game, though. What I described is fairly early and basic, though, not some big revelation. Go try the game if you haven't!
Well, it's a puzzle game. So I might argue that not being intuitive is kind of the point.
And to that point, maybe one reason I've found so many recent major game titles boring recently is that there is no puzzle to them. They're just activities. Go here. Shoot that. Collect that. It's nice to actually be stumped. And not just frustrated by my lack of hand-eye coordination.
Hmm, a non-intuitive puzzle isn't really a puzzle anymore, is it?
Q: I have three oranges and one grapefruit. I have to get all of them through a door that's been glued shut. There is no way to open the door. How do I get the fruit through?
A: Blend them and use the tube lying next to the door and pour them through the keyhole.
That's a non-intuitive puzzle. You can't intuit that there's a keyhole, a tube and a blender accessible. With creativity it's solvable, but then again, with creativity you also could argue you could use the hole saw nearby and cut a hole in the door and deposit the fruit on the other side. At this point you're just making things up.
Please please please do NOT PUT SPOILERS INTO THE SECOND COMMENT IN THE THREAD. That's incredibly rude. At the very least, if you're going to do something like that, rot13 it, because people like me will see the spoiler before they read the word "[Spoilers]".
We are discussing a puzzle games. Part of that will be discussing puzzles. Maybe don't read comment threads talking about things you don't want any more information about.
There's a ton of ways to discuss The Witness without spoiling the game. The entire point of the game is to solve the puzzles, spoiling the puzzles is incredibly counterproductive. What's more, if you're actually genuinely stuck and want someone to give you hints, Hacker News is not the appropriate venue for that.
