The Longest Journey has a particularly infamous one (it’s on the adventure games examples page — the first one listed for TLJ (I don’t remember the others)). Nearly all moon logic puzzles are...
The Longest Journey has a particularly infamous one (it’s on the adventure games examples page — the first one listed for TLJ (I don’t remember the others)). Nearly all moon logic puzzles are infamous in their own right, but TLJ is noteworthy for having mostly straightforward puzzles for most of its runtime. The game is a beautifully told story with complementary gameplay, which makes that particular moon logic puzzle stick out in a terrible, awful way.
Many other adventure games tend to have a more comedic tone, which can soften some moon logic — puzzle absurdity becomes just another part of the game’s humor. But The Longest Journey is serious, thoughtful, and earnest the whole way through. It’s no place for that kind of thing.
Also, if I recall correctly, the egregious moon logic puzzle occurs pretty early on in the game. I feel like a lot of people probably bounced off the game entirely because of it, which is a shame, because the game itself and the world it builds were truly exceptional at the time (and maybe even now, but I haven’t played it in who knows how long, so I have no idea how it holds up).
It is my impression that most puzzle games are filled with moon logic and pixel hunting and those that don't are happy exceptions. Creating reasonable yet challenging puzzles is exceedingly...
It is my impression that most puzzle games are filled with moon logic and pixel hunting and those that don't are happy exceptions. Creating reasonable yet challenging puzzles is exceedingly difficult and most game creators either lack that ability or believe they are being logical when in fact they aren't. It must be hard to ascertain the difficulty of a puzzle when you know everything about it.
I kind of think that puzzles are the things that have held adventure games back as a genre. Especially when you can get a bad ending from them. Think back to the most iconic adventure games you...
I kind of think that puzzles are the things that have held adventure games back as a genre. Especially when you can get a bad ending from them. Think back to the most iconic adventure games you have ever played, and think about what it was about it that you most remembered about them. Chances are that it isn’t the puzzles.
(Though if it is the puzzles that’s ok too. But I would bet that the games you are thinking about are not going to be exactly the same as the rest of us)
It’s interesting to note that the Adventure genre evolved very differently in Japan. Though they share the same roots in text adventures, adventure games eventually became what we westerners lump together as visual novels. While the adventure genre in the west was entering its golden age before it crashed, Japan was already making games like Psy-O-Blade and Snatcher, where there were few puzzles if any, and you might not even have an inventory.
On the one hand, you're right. Not because puzzles are inherently bad, but because creating excellent and coherent puzzles is a lot harder than many realize. Many visual novels are hardly games....
On the one hand, you're right. Not because puzzles are inherently bad, but because creating excellent and coherent puzzles is a lot harder than many realize.
Many visual novels are hardly games. Being brutally honest, visual novels could only emerge in a country with ferocious copyright enforcement. They are barely interactive, providing hours of entertainment that are very cheap to produce, and therefore very cheap to purchase (given the hours of content).
Adventure games often fail in their design, but they fail while being games. Most visual novels don't even try to be games. They're mouse-click-treadmills with a plot (some can even auto advance...), or audio dramas with graphics. They are light novels with visuals. Literature.
Comparing visual novels with games is like comparing Crime and Punishment to Super Mario.
I guess you’re in the same crowd who says Dear Ester and The Disappearance of Edith Finch aren’t games either. I for one would love it if I could be seen around town playing Muv-Luv Alternative...
I guess you’re in the same crowd who says Dear Ester and The Disappearance of Edith Finch aren’t games either.
I for one would love it if I could be seen around town playing Muv-Luv Alternative and be thought of by everyone the same way as if I were reading Tolstoy.
You are very wrong about visual novels being cheap to produce, though. It is true that they can be cheap but the reality is that they are far more work than most people realize. There is a much higher bar for quality within the meta genre.
I have played Dear Ester, and I do believe it is a game. I don't know the other one. It is important to notice that visual novels are artistically valuable as literature or visual narrative. A lot...
I have played Dear Ester, and I do believe it is a game. I don't know the other one.
It is important to notice that visual novels are artistically valuable as literature or visual narrative. A lot of them are not games. Not being games does not mean that they have no value, but, in my opinion, it is often imprecise to classify them as games.
In my personal experience, expecting visual novels to behave as games only worsen my enjoyment.
Also, I only meant to address their cost in comparison to nearby mediums, such as anime and video games. They obviously can be deeply meaningful and high-value in other regards.
I’d be fine leaving you saying VNs aren’t games but I can’t understand what logic you are applying if you think that Dear Esther is any different. Taking in a narrative while looking at visuals...
I’d be fine leaving you saying VNs aren’t games but I can’t understand what logic you are applying if you think that Dear Esther is any different. Taking in a narrative while looking at visuals without any interactive elements or puzzles - is that not the exact same kind of experience? What is the thing that divides the two in your mind?
I played Dear Esther years ago and only briefly so I can't talk much about it. But aren't you supposed to find objects in the setting to advance the narrative or at least your understanding of it?...
I played Dear Esther years ago and only briefly so I can't talk much about it. But aren't you supposed to find objects in the setting to advance the narrative or at least your understanding of it? Isn't that, essentially, gameplay?
I am not a gaming theorist, so I don't have a compelling argument to present to you. So I'll write you some things that are brand new to me, which is very helpful because by telling you about them I'll better understand my own opinion.
I just think that, as a genre, the term "visual novels" is an apt description of what they are. The important bit of a visual novel is the story, and the definition of the genre does not require any gameplay. A visual novel must be a narrative, but it does not require gameplay of any kind. If clicking the mouse for 20 hours to advance text is gameplay then my Kindle is a videogame console.
You may argue that some visual novels present you with choices, and I'll agree. But making a few relevant choices in a 30 hours experience does not make a visual novel a game, in the same way that a few interactive choices do not make Black Mirror: Bandersnatch a game instead of a film.
It may be helpful to acknowledge that, while it is true that all gameplay is interactive, not all interaction is gameplay.
That said, some visual novels have many choices, and many systems of interaction and are in fact games -- and some people will then say that because of that they're not "real" visual novels... because visual novels can also be games, but that is not an essential property.
One might argue that visual novels are interactive fiction, and, like interactive fiction, sometimes they're games, and sometimes they're not. IMHO, often not.
I wonder how you'd judge the Zero Escape games. They're tagged "Visual Novel" and they certainly have tens of hours of largely non-interactive conversations, which you can seek back and forth,...
I wonder how you'd judge the Zero Escape games. They're tagged "Visual Novel" and they certainly have tens of hours of largely non-interactive conversations, which you can seek back and forth, presented in a fashion very typical of Visual Novels. However, they also have considerably more gameplay and agency than Dear Esther.
As I said, many visual novels are games as well. The distinction is that, unlike video games, visual novels are not required to have a salient gameplay aspect. But they're not prevented either. I...
As I said, many visual novels are games as well. The distinction is that, unlike video games, visual novels are not required to have a salient gameplay aspect. But they're not prevented either.
I didn't play much of Zero Escape, but the little that I did tells me that it is an example of a visual novel that is also a game.
And yeah, genre classifications are necessarily fuzzy.
I’m really not interested in arguing whether VNs are games or not; to me it’s a pedantic argument about semantics. It really doesn’t matter if I agree or disagree with you. (For what it’s worth, I...
I’m really not interested in arguing whether VNs are games or not; to me it’s a pedantic argument about semantics. It really doesn’t matter if I agree or disagree with you.
(For what it’s worth, I do disagree with you because there are tons of VNs with interactive elements to them but I am not looking to change your mind nor anyone else’s.)
I just wondered why you thought that Dear Esther was any different. It’s been a long time since I played it as well but I don’t remember looking for items; it was just slowly walking through scenery while listening to a narrator talk about things.
As I said, I don't remember Dear Esther well enough to provide much valuable commentary on it. I apologize if I offend you in any way, but I tried to give you a satisfying answer despite that....
As I said, I don't remember Dear Esther well enough to provide much valuable commentary on it. I apologize if I offend you in any way, but I tried to give you a satisfying answer despite that.
Please don't dismiss my poor attempt as "pedantic", as I argue in good faith, even when arguments are deeply flawed.
It's okay that you don't find this discussion interesting or valuable, but that is not very kind of you to put things that way. Have a great day.
I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to offend you. I didn’t mean to call you a pedant, but rather to say that it was pointless to argue over semantics. I have been asking you about why you feel different...
I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to offend you. I didn’t mean to call you a pedant, but rather to say that it was pointless to argue over semantics. I have been asking you about why you feel different about Dear Esther because I am genuinely interested in knowing why you think that. It’s fine if you don’t have any reason beyond it being your opinion.
That's okay. Well yeah, it is valuable to talk semantics. When you're discussing genres the entire discussion is semantics. We're essentially arguing what the genre actually means. That's...
That's okay.
Well yeah, it is valuable to talk semantics. When you're discussing genres the entire discussion is semantics. We're essentially arguing what the genre actually means. That's semantics.
Yeah, I don't remember Dear Esther super well. I don't play a lot of art games so I don't have a similar example to throw in.
Akir may be conflating: What Remains of Edith Finch The Vanishing of Ethan Carter Both are good walking simulators with excellent visuals you might be interested in playing. There's some gameplay,...
Both are good walking simulators with excellent visuals you might be interested in playing. There's some gameplay, especially in Ethan Carter. CW for mental illness, suicide, child deaths.
I pretty much agree, but I'll also say that this is a bit of a minority position in the genre. Lots of people definitely do love the puzzles that are standard, and I don't want to yuck their yum,...
I kind of think that puzzles are the things that have held adventure games back as a genre.
I pretty much agree, but I'll also say that this is a bit of a minority position in the genre. Lots of people definitely do love the puzzles that are standard, and I don't want to yuck their yum, but most of the narrative adventure games I've loved have, like you identified, been loved for things that aren't their puzzles (at times even in spite of them!).
Broken Age was an interesting case study in this, actually. It was Kickstarted in 2012, and its promise of creating a modern point-and-click adventure in the classic style had it breaking records and becoming the highest grossing crowdfunding project at the time.
The developers, despite the incredible funding, ran out of money before completing the game. Thus, they released the first half of the game as Act 1, which they then used to generate proceeds to fund the second half of the game, which released over a year later as Act 2.
I loved Act 1. Absolutely adored it. I thought the art was wonderful and the voice acting was incredible. I was thoroughly charmed by the world and characters that were shown. I actually replayed through it multiple times, which I rarely do with games, because I enjoyed it so much.
One of the most common criticisms of Act 1, however, was that it was dead simple. There were few puzzles and very little in the way of challenge. Many people who Kickstarted the game felt cheated, as they felt like part of the classic point-and-click experience they'd been promised was the existence of headscratchers.
The devs noted this and, upon releasing Act 2, included significantly more and significantly harder puzzles -- what the fans wanted! Unfortunately, Act 2 left me cold. Part of that was for narrative reasons (Act 2 didn't deliver on the amazing setup that Act 1 gave, I thought) but another part of that was that the puzzles got in the way of my enjoyment with the game. I was there for the characters and the world, and I didn't like the arbitrary stop signs I hit along the way. The puzzles inhibited my enjoyment of everything else, which I think is people's primary complaint about moon logic in the first place.
The older I get the less free time I have, and consequently the less patience for video game difficulty. That's across the board, not just for adventure games. I grew up in the 8-bit age of...
The older I get the less free time I have, and consequently the less patience for video game difficulty. That's across the board, not just for adventure games.
I grew up in the 8-bit age of Nintendo Hard. I would spend literally hours playing and replaying the same levels, memorizing enemy patterns, mastering jump timing, and dying over and over and over again. On the PC, my best friend and I slogged through and beat the first two Monkey Island games, moon logic and all, without guides or the internet. It took us months to slog through but we did it and felt like we accomplished something afterwards.
I can't do it anymore. I've got a narrow window of time for gaming in the evenings between when my kids go to bed and when I go to bed, and I'm not going to spend it all on frustration and zero plot advancement. Life's too short.
I still have the old games I liked as a kid but I can't play them anymore. The difficulty is the whole game with those, and as a discerning adult gamer they're just not fun for me now. I recognize that plenty of people, including tons of folks my age, still relish a brutal challenge as their reason for play; there's a reason the Soulsborne games sell like gangbusters. Like you said, I'm not going to yuck on anyone's yum. If hardness is the thing that makes a game fun for someone, who am I to say they're wrong?
But for me, I'll usually crank down the difficulty to "Easy" or whatever the equivalent is when I fire up a new game. A lot of games these days have "Story" difficulty modes but I don't want the game to be an utter cakewalk either so I'll go up a notch from there. One of the things I do like in games is the power fantasy, and the illusion of that is shattered when everything is just handed to you.
I'm the same. I keep wondering if it's an age thing, or if modern society has just trained me to want instantaneous rewards, or if games are my escape from difficulties I confront elsewhere, etc....
I'm the same. I keep wondering if it's an age thing, or if modern society has just trained me to want instantaneous rewards, or if games are my escape from difficulties I confront elsewhere, etc. I don't know the exact root or even if there is one, but given the choice, I'd rather cruise through a game on easy than let it genuinely challenge me.
I also used to love point-and-click adventures but I haven't played one in years. This topic is kind of making me want to return to them, but I genuinely don't know if I'd have the patience.
That's also fair. As much flak as I gave them, adventure games are home to some of the most satisfying puzzles out there. And I would go so far as to say that the closer you get to moon logic the...
That's also fair. As much flak as I gave them, adventure games are home to some of the most satisfying puzzles out there. And I would go so far as to say that the closer you get to moon logic the more memorable the puzzle will be; that's part of why Douglas Adams' text adventure games have managed to stay so popular over time.
While I normally find myself being exasperated about puzzles getting in the way of the plot, there are some like Puzzle Bots that have me thinking the plot is getting in the way of my puzzles.
There definitely seems to be some appetite for moon logic puzzles among point and click adventure fans. Part of the fun and charm, especially in earlier games, was trying out different...
There definitely seems to be some appetite for moon logic puzzles among point and click adventure fans. Part of the fun and charm, especially in earlier games, was trying out different action/inventory combinations and having the character comment on them. Zany or odd combinations would often elicit equally odd or zany commentary from the character, or they might chastise the player for doing something that doesn’t make any sense.
I also think the line for what players consider “moon logic” is very blurry. One person’s fair headscratcher is another person’s “moon logic”. Plus, I also think long ago, when games were fewer and harder to come by, people were more willing to stick with difficult or vexing puzzles rather than just bounce off of them and move on to something else. I think that’s why they’re common and somewhat notorious in older 90s games especially. Guides were also harder to come by, so people might be stuck for days or weeks on puzzles with no direction. These days, however, the solution is just a quick web search away.
That said, there are plenty of point and click adventures that don’t have moon logic at all. In the comments of the reddit topic you linked someone mentioned the publisher Wadjet Eye as a good example, and I fully agree. I haven’t played all of their output, but I followed their early stuff. The Blackwell games in particular do a great job of avoiding moon logic entirely (and are also just plain great games). Resonance and Gemini Rue were also fantastic standalones.
Personally speaking the reason I never got into The Longest Journey is because just like many of its contemporaries the game has so many bugs that it’s unplayable.
Personally speaking the reason I never got into The Longest Journey is because just like many of its contemporaries the game has so many bugs that it’s unplayable.
So, in thinking about this, I'm curious as to whether a certain type of puzzle solution would be considered "moon logic" by people here. I don't know whether to call it a "meta" solution or a 4th...
So, in thinking about this, I'm curious as to whether a certain type of puzzle solution would be considered "moon logic" by people here. I don't know whether to call it a "meta" solution or a 4th wall break or whatnot, but I've provided some examples below.
I've marked them with spoilers on the off-chance that people don't want a particular game ruined for them.
Another Code: Two Memories/Trace Memory spoilers
This one has two puzzles that I can remember that fall into the type of solution I'm interested in examining.
The first: you encounter something covered in dust (can't remember what it is). No matter what you do in-game, nothing seems to clear the dust.
The solution: you, in the real world, blow into the Nintendo DS's microphone to blow away the dust.
The second: there's a foldable photo frame with some symbols on it. The symbols don't seem to make sense.
The solution: you, in the real world, have to mostly close the Nintendo DS until you're able to see the reflection of one of the screens on the other. This reveals the completed symbols to you.
(This one is actually mentioned on the TVTropes page)
Chaos on Deponia spoilers
The puzzle: there's a noisy marketplace, and your character says he can't focus with the music from it.
The solution: go into the game's settings menu and turn the game's music volume down.
What do people think? Are these moon logic, or just clever lateral thinking? Is it "fair" of game developers to incorporate elements like that in puzzles, or is that breaking the player contract?
The Longest Journey has a particularly infamous one (it’s on the adventure games examples page — the first one listed for TLJ (I don’t remember the others)). Nearly all moon logic puzzles are infamous in their own right, but TLJ is noteworthy for having mostly straightforward puzzles for most of its runtime. The game is a beautifully told story with complementary gameplay, which makes that particular moon logic puzzle stick out in a terrible, awful way.
Many other adventure games tend to have a more comedic tone, which can soften some moon logic — puzzle absurdity becomes just another part of the game’s humor. But The Longest Journey is serious, thoughtful, and earnest the whole way through. It’s no place for that kind of thing.
Also, if I recall correctly, the egregious moon logic puzzle occurs pretty early on in the game. I feel like a lot of people probably bounced off the game entirely because of it, which is a shame, because the game itself and the world it builds were truly exceptional at the time (and maybe even now, but I haven’t played it in who knows how long, so I have no idea how it holds up).
It is my impression that most puzzle games are filled with moon logic and pixel hunting and those that don't are happy exceptions. Creating reasonable yet challenging puzzles is exceedingly difficult and most game creators either lack that ability or believe they are being logical when in fact they aren't. It must be hard to ascertain the difficulty of a puzzle when you know everything about it.
An interesting discussion on this subject on /r/patientgamer.
I kind of think that puzzles are the things that have held adventure games back as a genre. Especially when you can get a bad ending from them. Think back to the most iconic adventure games you have ever played, and think about what it was about it that you most remembered about them. Chances are that it isn’t the puzzles.
(Though if it is the puzzles that’s ok too. But I would bet that the games you are thinking about are not going to be exactly the same as the rest of us)
It’s interesting to note that the Adventure genre evolved very differently in Japan. Though they share the same roots in text adventures, adventure games eventually became what we westerners lump together as visual novels. While the adventure genre in the west was entering its golden age before it crashed, Japan was already making games like Psy-O-Blade and Snatcher, where there were few puzzles if any, and you might not even have an inventory.
On the one hand, you're right. Not because puzzles are inherently bad, but because creating excellent and coherent puzzles is a lot harder than many realize.
Many visual novels are hardly games. Being brutally honest, visual novels could only emerge in a country with ferocious copyright enforcement. They are barely interactive, providing hours of entertainment that are very cheap to produce, and therefore very cheap to purchase (given the hours of content).
Adventure games often fail in their design, but they fail while being games. Most visual novels don't even try to be games. They're mouse-click-treadmills with a plot (some can even auto advance...), or audio dramas with graphics. They are light novels with visuals. Literature.
Comparing visual novels with games is like comparing Crime and Punishment to Super Mario.
I guess you’re in the same crowd who says Dear Ester and The Disappearance of Edith Finch aren’t games either.
I for one would love it if I could be seen around town playing Muv-Luv Alternative and be thought of by everyone the same way as if I were reading Tolstoy.
You are very wrong about visual novels being cheap to produce, though. It is true that they can be cheap but the reality is that they are far more work than most people realize. There is a much higher bar for quality within the meta genre.
I have played Dear Ester, and I do believe it is a game. I don't know the other one.
It is important to notice that visual novels are artistically valuable as literature or visual narrative. A lot of them are not games. Not being games does not mean that they have no value, but, in my opinion, it is often imprecise to classify them as games.
In my personal experience, expecting visual novels to behave as games only worsen my enjoyment.
Also, I only meant to address their cost in comparison to nearby mediums, such as anime and video games. They obviously can be deeply meaningful and high-value in other regards.
I’d be fine leaving you saying VNs aren’t games but I can’t understand what logic you are applying if you think that Dear Esther is any different. Taking in a narrative while looking at visuals without any interactive elements or puzzles - is that not the exact same kind of experience? What is the thing that divides the two in your mind?
I played Dear Esther years ago and only briefly so I can't talk much about it. But aren't you supposed to find objects in the setting to advance the narrative or at least your understanding of it? Isn't that, essentially, gameplay?
I am not a gaming theorist, so I don't have a compelling argument to present to you. So I'll write you some things that are brand new to me, which is very helpful because by telling you about them I'll better understand my own opinion.
I just think that, as a genre, the term "visual novels" is an apt description of what they are. The important bit of a visual novel is the story, and the definition of the genre does not require any gameplay. A visual novel must be a narrative, but it does not require gameplay of any kind. If clicking the mouse for 20 hours to advance text is gameplay then my Kindle is a videogame console.
You may argue that some visual novels present you with choices, and I'll agree. But making a few relevant choices in a 30 hours experience does not make a visual novel a game, in the same way that a few interactive choices do not make Black Mirror: Bandersnatch a game instead of a film.
It may be helpful to acknowledge that, while it is true that all gameplay is interactive, not all interaction is gameplay.
That said, some visual novels have many choices, and many systems of interaction and are in fact games -- and some people will then say that because of that they're not "real" visual novels... because visual novels can also be games, but that is not an essential property.
One might argue that visual novels are interactive fiction, and, like interactive fiction, sometimes they're games, and sometimes they're not. IMHO, often not.
I wonder how you'd judge the Zero Escape games. They're tagged "Visual Novel" and they certainly have tens of hours of largely non-interactive conversations, which you can seek back and forth, presented in a fashion very typical of Visual Novels. However, they also have considerably more gameplay and agency than Dear Esther.
It's hard to draw the line!
As I said, many visual novels are games as well. The distinction is that, unlike video games, visual novels are not required to have a salient gameplay aspect. But they're not prevented either.
I didn't play much of Zero Escape, but the little that I did tells me that it is an example of a visual novel that is also a game.
And yeah, genre classifications are necessarily fuzzy.
I’m really not interested in arguing whether VNs are games or not; to me it’s a pedantic argument about semantics. It really doesn’t matter if I agree or disagree with you.
(For what it’s worth, I do disagree with you because there are tons of VNs with interactive elements to them but I am not looking to change your mind nor anyone else’s.)
I just wondered why you thought that Dear Esther was any different. It’s been a long time since I played it as well but I don’t remember looking for items; it was just slowly walking through scenery while listening to a narrator talk about things.
As I said, I don't remember Dear Esther well enough to provide much valuable commentary on it. I apologize if I offend you in any way, but I tried to give you a satisfying answer despite that.
Please don't dismiss my poor attempt as "pedantic", as I argue in good faith, even when arguments are deeply flawed.
It's okay that you don't find this discussion interesting or valuable, but that is not very kind of you to put things that way. Have a great day.
I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to offend you. I didn’t mean to call you a pedant, but rather to say that it was pointless to argue over semantics. I have been asking you about why you feel different about Dear Esther because I am genuinely interested in knowing why you think that. It’s fine if you don’t have any reason beyond it being your opinion.
That's okay.
Well yeah, it is valuable to talk semantics. When you're discussing genres the entire discussion is semantics. We're essentially arguing what the genre actually means. That's semantics.
Yeah, I don't remember Dear Esther super well. I don't play a lot of art games so I don't have a similar example to throw in.
Akir may be conflating:
What Remains of Edith Finch
The Vanishing of Ethan Carter
Both are good walking simulators with excellent visuals you might be interested in playing. There's some gameplay, especially in Ethan Carter. CW for mental illness, suicide, child deaths.
I pretty much agree, but I'll also say that this is a bit of a minority position in the genre. Lots of people definitely do love the puzzles that are standard, and I don't want to yuck their yum, but most of the narrative adventure games I've loved have, like you identified, been loved for things that aren't their puzzles (at times even in spite of them!).
Broken Age was an interesting case study in this, actually. It was Kickstarted in 2012, and its promise of creating a modern point-and-click adventure in the classic style had it breaking records and becoming the highest grossing crowdfunding project at the time.
The developers, despite the incredible funding, ran out of money before completing the game. Thus, they released the first half of the game as Act 1, which they then used to generate proceeds to fund the second half of the game, which released over a year later as Act 2.
I loved Act 1. Absolutely adored it. I thought the art was wonderful and the voice acting was incredible. I was thoroughly charmed by the world and characters that were shown. I actually replayed through it multiple times, which I rarely do with games, because I enjoyed it so much.
One of the most common criticisms of Act 1, however, was that it was dead simple. There were few puzzles and very little in the way of challenge. Many people who Kickstarted the game felt cheated, as they felt like part of the classic point-and-click experience they'd been promised was the existence of headscratchers.
The devs noted this and, upon releasing Act 2, included significantly more and significantly harder puzzles -- what the fans wanted! Unfortunately, Act 2 left me cold. Part of that was for narrative reasons (Act 2 didn't deliver on the amazing setup that Act 1 gave, I thought) but another part of that was that the puzzles got in the way of my enjoyment with the game. I was there for the characters and the world, and I didn't like the arbitrary stop signs I hit along the way. The puzzles inhibited my enjoyment of everything else, which I think is people's primary complaint about moon logic in the first place.
The older I get the less free time I have, and consequently the less patience for video game difficulty. That's across the board, not just for adventure games.
I grew up in the 8-bit age of Nintendo Hard. I would spend literally hours playing and replaying the same levels, memorizing enemy patterns, mastering jump timing, and dying over and over and over again. On the PC, my best friend and I slogged through and beat the first two Monkey Island games, moon logic and all, without guides or the internet. It took us months to slog through but we did it and felt like we accomplished something afterwards.
I can't do it anymore. I've got a narrow window of time for gaming in the evenings between when my kids go to bed and when I go to bed, and I'm not going to spend it all on frustration and zero plot advancement. Life's too short.
I still have the old games I liked as a kid but I can't play them anymore. The difficulty is the whole game with those, and as a discerning adult gamer they're just not fun for me now. I recognize that plenty of people, including tons of folks my age, still relish a brutal challenge as their reason for play; there's a reason the Soulsborne games sell like gangbusters. Like you said, I'm not going to yuck on anyone's yum. If hardness is the thing that makes a game fun for someone, who am I to say they're wrong?
But for me, I'll usually crank down the difficulty to "Easy" or whatever the equivalent is when I fire up a new game. A lot of games these days have "Story" difficulty modes but I don't want the game to be an utter cakewalk either so I'll go up a notch from there. One of the things I do like in games is the power fantasy, and the illusion of that is shattered when everything is just handed to you.
I'm the same. I keep wondering if it's an age thing, or if modern society has just trained me to want instantaneous rewards, or if games are my escape from difficulties I confront elsewhere, etc. I don't know the exact root or even if there is one, but given the choice, I'd rather cruise through a game on easy than let it genuinely challenge me.
I also used to love point-and-click adventures but I haven't played one in years. This topic is kind of making me want to return to them, but I genuinely don't know if I'd have the patience.
That's also fair. As much flak as I gave them, adventure games are home to some of the most satisfying puzzles out there. And I would go so far as to say that the closer you get to moon logic the more memorable the puzzle will be; that's part of why Douglas Adams' text adventure games have managed to stay so popular over time.
While I normally find myself being exasperated about puzzles getting in the way of the plot, there are some like Puzzle Bots that have me thinking the plot is getting in the way of my puzzles.
There definitely seems to be some appetite for moon logic puzzles among point and click adventure fans. Part of the fun and charm, especially in earlier games, was trying out different action/inventory combinations and having the character comment on them. Zany or odd combinations would often elicit equally odd or zany commentary from the character, or they might chastise the player for doing something that doesn’t make any sense.
I also think the line for what players consider “moon logic” is very blurry. One person’s fair headscratcher is another person’s “moon logic”. Plus, I also think long ago, when games were fewer and harder to come by, people were more willing to stick with difficult or vexing puzzles rather than just bounce off of them and move on to something else. I think that’s why they’re common and somewhat notorious in older 90s games especially. Guides were also harder to come by, so people might be stuck for days or weeks on puzzles with no direction. These days, however, the solution is just a quick web search away.
That said, there are plenty of point and click adventures that don’t have moon logic at all. In the comments of the reddit topic you linked someone mentioned the publisher Wadjet Eye as a good example, and I fully agree. I haven’t played all of their output, but I followed their early stuff. The Blackwell games in particular do a great job of avoiding moon logic entirely (and are also just plain great games). Resonance and Gemini Rue were also fantastic standalones.
Absolutely, it makes total sense that some players actually cherish moon logic!
I'll look those up thanks ;)
Personally speaking the reason I never got into The Longest Journey is because just like many of its contemporaries the game has so many bugs that it’s unplayable.
I haven’t tried it myself, but it now runs in ScummVM. No idea if the bugs are still present using that though.
Hot dang, I’m going to have to give that a try.
So, in thinking about this, I'm curious as to whether a certain type of puzzle solution would be considered "moon logic" by people here. I don't know whether to call it a "meta" solution or a 4th wall break or whatnot, but I've provided some examples below.
I've marked them with spoilers on the off-chance that people don't want a particular game ruined for them.
Another Code: Two Memories/Trace Memory spoilers
This one has two puzzles that I can remember that fall into the type of solution I'm interested in examining.
The first: you encounter something covered in dust (can't remember what it is). No matter what you do in-game, nothing seems to clear the dust.
The solution: you, in the real world, blow into the Nintendo DS's microphone to blow away the dust.
The second: there's a foldable photo frame with some symbols on it. The symbols don't seem to make sense.
The solution: you, in the real world, have to mostly close the Nintendo DS until you're able to see the reflection of one of the screens on the other. This reveals the completed symbols to you.
(This one is actually mentioned on the TVTropes page)
Chaos on Deponia spoilers
The puzzle: there's a noisy marketplace, and your character says he can't focus with the music from it.
The solution: go into the game's settings menu and turn the game's music volume down.
What do people think? Are these moon logic, or just clever lateral thinking? Is it "fair" of game developers to incorporate elements like that in puzzles, or is that breaking the player contract?