What Makes a Good Puzzle?

Summary

In this episode of Game Maker's Toolkit, Mark Brown explores the art of puzzle design in video games. He delves into the mechanics, the importance of clear goals, and the creation of 'catches' that challenge players. Brown discusses the concept of 'revelation' in puzzles, where players experience an 'aha' moment upon solving them. He also emphasizes the role of player assumptions and the presentation of puzzles for effective gameplay. The video concludes with insights on the difficulty curve and the iterative process of puzzle design.

Takeaways

• 🧩 Puzzle design is challenging and requires a deep understanding of mechanics and player psychology.
• 🎮 A puzzle game's mechanics, which are the core rules and limitations, dictate the potential puzzles and their difficulty.
• 🚪 The goal of a puzzle must be clear, ensuring players know what they need to achieve.
• 🧠 Good puzzles are built around a 'catch,' a logical contradiction that creates a challenge.
• 💡 Revelatory moments are crucial in puzzles, where players discover deeper aspects of the game's rules.
• ❌ Wrong assumptions are often used to lead players astray, forcing them to rethink their approach.
• 🕹️ Presentation is key: clear feedback and minimalist design help players focus on the puzzle itself.
• 📈 Puzzles should be presented in a sequence that builds on previous knowledge and gradually increases in difficulty.
• 🔍 Playtesting is essential in puzzle design to ensure balance and avoid frustration.
• 🛠️ Puzzle design involves iteration, feedback, and cutting unnecessary elements to refine the experience.

Q & A

What is the primary focus of this episode of Game Maker's Toolkit?

The primary focus of this episode is puzzle design in video games, exploring what makes a good puzzle, how to balance difficulty, and the elements that contribute to a satisfying puzzle-solving experience.

Why does Mark Brown find puzzle games fascinating?

Mark Brown finds puzzle games fascinating because they challenge players to think critically and creatively, providing moments of satisfaction when they solve complex problems.

What are some examples of puzzle games mentioned in the script?

Examples of puzzle games mentioned include Braid, Portal, Stephen’s Sausage Roll, Cosmic Express, The Talos Principle, P B Winterbottom, and Snakebird.

What is a 'catch' in puzzle design, according to the script?

A 'catch' in puzzle design is a logical contradiction or conflict that makes the puzzle seem impossible to solve at first glance, requiring the player to think critically to find a solution.

How does Mark Brown describe the concept of 'revelation' in puzzles?

Mark Brown describes 'revelation' as a moment when the player discovers a non-obvious but logical consequence of the game’s rules, leading to a deeper understanding and a satisfying solution to the puzzle.

What is the importance of 'assumptions' in puzzle design?

Assumptions in puzzle design are used to lead players into making an initial, often incorrect, hypothesis about how to solve the puzzle. Breaking these assumptions forces players to rethink their approach and discover the actual solution.

How does puzzle presentation affect the player's experience?

Puzzle presentation affects the player's experience by providing clear feedback, minimizing extraneous elements, and ensuring that the puzzle is not overly complicated. Effective presentation helps players focus on the core challenge without unnecessary frustration.

What are the criteria used by Square Enix Montreal to determine a puzzle's difficulty?

Square Enix Montreal uses four criteria to determine a puzzle's difficulty: the number of possible solutions, the number of steps required, the number of options available at each moment, and the mechanics the player needs to be familiar with.

What role does playtesting play in puzzle design?

Playtesting is crucial in puzzle design as it helps identify areas where players might get stuck, ensuring that the puzzles are challenging but fair, and refining the design based on player feedback to improve the overall experience.

Why is puzzle design considered a difficult craft according to the script?

Puzzle design is considered a difficult craft because it requires a deep understanding of game mechanics, creative thinking to devise clever puzzles, extensive iteration and playtesting, and the ability to cut elements that don't contribute to the core puzzle experience.

Outlines

00:00

🧩 The Art of Puzzle Design

The script introduces the complex and fascinating world of puzzle design in video games. The narrator expresses a deep appreciation for puzzle games, citing examples like 'Braid,' 'Portal,' and 'Stephen’s Sausage Roll,' and discusses the challenge of creating puzzles that are both challenging and satisfying to solve. The speaker outlines their journey to understand the principles of puzzle design, including discussions with game creators, hands-on experience with puzzle editors, and an analysis of various game levels. The goal is to share insights on what constitutes a well-crafted puzzle, starting with the fundamental mechanics that dictate how the game operates.

05:03

🔧 Mechanics and Goals in Puzzle Games

This paragraph delves into the importance of mechanics in puzzle games, which are the foundational rules that govern gameplay. It uses 'Cosmic Express' as an example to illustrate how limitations can actually foster creativity in puzzle creation.

Keywords

💡Puzzle Design

Puzzle Design refers to the process of creating challenges within a game that require players to solve problems using a set of rules or mechanics. In the context of the video, it is the central theme where the speaker discusses the intricacies of crafting puzzles that are both challenging and satisfying to solve. Examples include the design of mechanics in games like 'Cosmic Express' and the use of tools in 'Portal'.

💡Mechanics

In the video, Mechanics are defined as the foundational rules that dictate how a game functions. They are crucial to puzzle design as they set the parameters within which players must operate to solve puzzles. For instance, the speaker mentions that in 'Snakebird', the mechanics involve the unique movement of creatures influenced by gravity and eating fruit, which affects the length of the creatures.

💡Catch

The term 'Catch' in the video describes a logical contradiction or a point of conflict within a puzzle that seems to make the solution impossible at first glance. It is a key element that makes a puzzle engaging, as it requires players to think creatively to overcome the obstacle. An example given is a scenario where a player needs to stand on a button to open a door but cannot do both simultaneously.

💡Revelation

Revelation in the context of the video is the 'eureka' moment when a player discovers a solution to a puzzle, often involving a deeper understanding of the game's rules. It is the goal of good puzzle design to lead players to such moments, which are satisfying and enhance their experience. The speaker uses 'The Talos Principle' as an example, where connecting tripods in a non-obvious way is the solution to a puzzle.

💡Assumption

Assumption in the video refers to the initial, often incorrect, understanding or belief a player has about how to solve a puzzle. Developers use these assumptions to guide players into the puzzle's catch, creating a more engaging experience. For example, in 'Lara Croft GO', players might assume they need to break a tile to defeat a lizard, leading to a realization that a different approach is needed.

💡Presentation

Presentation is how a puzzle is laid out and explained to the player, which greatly affects the puzzle's difficulty and the player's ability to understand and solve it. The video emphasizes the importance of clear and minimalist presentation, providing feedback, and avoiding unnecessary complexity. A comparison is made between 'Portal 2' and 'The Turing Test' to illustrate the impact of effective presentation.

💡Game Maker's Toolkit

Game Maker's Toolkit is the name of the show being discussed in the script, hosted by Mark Brown. It is a series that explores various aspects of game design, and in this particular episode, it focuses on puzzle design. The show serves as a platform for the speaker to share insights and analysis of game design elements.

💡Puzzle Difficulty

Puzzle Difficulty is a measure of how challenging a puzzle is for players to solve. The video discusses factors that contribute to this, such as the number of possible solutions, steps required, and the complexity of mechanics involved. Balancing difficulty is key to creating puzzles that are neither too easy nor too hard.

💡Playtesting

Playtesting is the process of testing a game by potential players to identify issues and gather feedback. In the context of the video, it is highlighted as a critical part of puzzle game development, helping to refine puzzles and ensure they are well-balanced and engaging.

💡Epiphany

Epiphany, similar to 'Revelation', refers to the sudden realization or understanding that comes with solving a puzzle. It is a moment of insight that the video argues should be a goal of good puzzle design, as it provides players with a sense of accomplishment and deeper engagement with the game's mechanics.

Highlights

The episode focuses on the intricate process of puzzle design in video games, exploring the balance between challenge and player satisfaction.

Mark Brown discusses his personal interest in puzzle games and the motivation behind creating this episode.

The importance of game mechanics as the foundation for creating puzzles is emphasized, with examples from games like Cosmic Express and Snakebird.

The role of limitations within game mechanics in fostering creative puzzle solutions is highlighted.

The use of temporary tools to augment main game mechanics, as seen in Portal and The Talos Principle, is examined.

The necessity of a clear goal in puzzle games to guide the player's objective is stressed.

The concept of a 'catch' in puzzle design is introduced as a logical contradiction that challenges the player.

An example from The Talos Principle illustrates how a catch can lead to a moment of revelation for the player.

The idea that the best puzzles encourage lateral thinking and a deeper understanding of the game's rules is presented.

The episode discusses the balance between making a puzzle challenging yet solvable without external help.

The role of assumptions in puzzle design is explored, and how they can lead players to the puzzle's catch.

Examples from games like Lara Croft GO and Stephen’s Sausage Roll demonstrate the use of assumptions to guide player thinking.

The importance of puzzle presentation in making the puzzle's mechanics clear and understandable is underlined.

A comparison between Portal 2 and The Turing Test shows how presentation can affect puzzle difficulty and player experience.

The episode emphasizes the minimalist approach in puzzle design, focusing on core elements without unnecessary complexity.

The necessity of clear feedback within puzzles to guide the player and avoid frustration is discussed.

The concept of a 'puzzle curve' is introduced, explaining how puzzles should build upon each other in increasing difficulty.

Criteria used by Square Enix Montreal for establishing puzzle difficulty are shared, including the number of solutions and steps required.

The importance of playtesting in puzzle game development is highlighted, with insights from developers.

The episode concludes with a summary of the key elements of effective puzzle design and a call to action for developers to invest time and effort.

Transcripts

If there’s one episode of this show that I’ve wanted to make, but have never had

the guts to actually attempt, it’s this one: puzzle design.

Because I love puzzle games - like the time-travelling platformer Braid, the comedy sci-fi gem Portal,

and the cult hit Stephen’s Sausage Roll - but I have no idea what actually goes in

to making one of the puzzles for these games.

How do you make something that leaves a player stumped and scratching their head, and then

makes them feel very smart when they finally figure out the answer? What makes a puzzle

too hard, or too easy?

And so that’s what I’ve been trying to figure out these past few months. I’ve been

talking to the creators of great puzzle games, tried making my own puzzles in different editors,

revisited my video on Jonathan Blow’s puzzle design philosophy, and have analysed loads

and loads of different levels from different games.

And in this episode, I’m going to share what I’ve found out. So this is Game Maker’s

Toolkit, I’m Mark Brown, and here’s what I think makes a good puzzle.

Part One: The Mechanics

Every puzzle game starts with its mechanics: a set of ironclad rules that govern how the

game works.

So in a game like Cosmic Express, you can draw train tracks on a grid - but you can’t

cross over the tracks. One alien can jump into each train car, and then hop out into

the first box of the same colour they pass by.

These rules, and perhaps more importantly these limitations, are used to create puzzles.

The fact that you can’t cross over tracks, for example, might stop you getting back through

a tight gap - forcing you to find a different approach.

The overall… let’s say, cleverness, of the main mechanic will ultimately decide the

number and difficulty of the puzzles in the game. And so this favours outlandish concepts

like time travel and wormholes - as well as funky movement controls like those found in

Snakebird.

The way these creatures move - how their body follows their head, how they’re affected

by gravity, the way eating fruit makes you longer, which is both a blessing and a curse

- all leads to creative puzzles.

Of course, temporary tools can be used to augment the main mechanic - like light bridges,

coloured paint, and turrets in the Portal games. And they can even be used in place

of a main mechanic, as in a game like The Talos Principle which generates all of its

puzzles from external sources like jammers, cubes, and repeaters. Mechanics that can combine

together create even more possibilities.

A puzzle game also needs a goal. This is usually just an exit door, or some kind of collectible.

The important thing is that it’s clear what the player is trying to achieve. The player

shouldn’t be figuring out what to do - just how to do it.

Okay. Now it’s time it’s time to actually make a puzzle.

Part Two: The Catch

So I think a good puzzle is often built around a catch. Which is a logical contradiction,

where two things are seemingly in direct conflict with one another.

Here’s the absolutely most basic version of that idea, just to help explain what I

mean. There’s a door and a button. Standing on the button opens the door, but when you

walk to the door the button raises back up and the door shuts.

You need to stand on the button. And you need to walk to the door. But you can’t do both,

because doing one makes the other impossible.

The solution, of course, is to put a box on the button. So that’s a really crappy example,

but I think you can find some version of this conflict at the heart of every good puzzle.

Here’s an example from The Talos Principle, where, at this point in the game, we’re

using these tripods to route coloured light beams from these orbs, to these panels - which

makes nearby doors open.

So, after a bit of messing around we’ve got the puzzle like this. Two tripods are

being used to get blue light to this panel, and open a door. And one tripod is being used

to get red light to this panel, and open another door.

But, unfortunately, we need to put one of those tripods on this pressure sensitive switch.

Now the plan actually seems quite simple. Send red light to panel C to open this door,

and then use the opening to send blue light to A with just one tripod, instead of two.

Except... here’s that catch.

You can’t get red light to panel C, without already having blue light in panel A. So if

you remove either of these tripods, this door will shut and put a stop to your plan.

Now, resolving a conflict like this can come in many forms. Sometimes it’s about changing

the sequence of events that led up to the conflict. Other times it’s about rethinking

your spacial position, perhaps starting the puzzle from a different location. But there’s

another way, that I think is the gold standard that every puzzle designer should be shooting for.

Part Three: The Revelation.

So, the solution to that puzzle in The Talos Principle is to make this tripod connect to

the other tripod, and panel A - even though the door is in the way. Because when you then

open the door with the red beam, the connection is made and you can remove the second tripod

without breaking the link.

This puzzle is incredibly simple once you know the answer - and it’s effortless to

actually execute the solution, which is always a plus in my book. But it’s still really

challenging. And that’s because it asks you to think outside the box, reconsider how

the game works, and approach the concept in a lateral manner.

And, beyond that, it also reveals a non-obvious - but also totally logical consequence of

the game’s rules that now becomes a part of your toolbox going forward. And, in fact,

this Talos Principle solution does crop up in future puzzles as just one part of a larger

conundrum.

So solving the puzzle is like a revelation. A discovery. An epiphany of some deeper understanding.

And I think that’s, often, where those “eureka!” moments come from.

Now they can be quite significant revelations. So in the time travelling puzzler P B Winterbottom,

you’ve got this conundrum where you need to record a clone to help you pick up pies

in numerical order - but picking up pie three cuts off access to pie four.

After a lot of messing about, you’ll eventually realise that clones loop when they reach the

end of the recording. So if you have the clone start at pie number four, it will appear there

when it finishes its recording and loops back around. Boom. Revelation.

But often they’re just tiny, subtle things that you might not even think of as being

important lessons. Like, in Snakebird, where you need to understand that the bird can change

shape and fall in the same turn, to create shapes that protect you from spikes.

Now, this is actually a very delicate balance to hit. Because when you’re asking the player

to think outside the box and do things that are perhaps not obvious, or not entirely intuitive,

you could leave the player thinking “oh, I literally didn’t even know I could do that”.

Often after looking up the answer in a walkthrough.

Here’s an example of that from Braid, which largely has excellent puzzles but there’s

one that stumps a lot of people. So in the puzzle you essentially need to have an enemy

bounce off your clone’s head, and then you can bounce off the enemy to jump up very high.

Ultimately, yes, it makes sense. It is a natural consequence of a game where characters bounce

up when they kill other characters. But for many, it felt more like a trick than a revelation.

And it really didn’t help that there’s only one specific moment when it can happen,

meaning players couldn’t easily experiment.

So. Anyway. Lemme give one more example of a puzzle with a catch, and a revelation.

In Lara Croft GO, there are tiles that crumble when you first stand on them - and then break

if you stand on them again. And you can use that to deal with lizards that chase after

you - just lead one over a crumbling wall tile, and it will fall to the floor below.

That happens in this puzzle too, but if you go to break the tile, the lizard will kill

you before you can get back. That’s the catch. The solution is to pre-break the tile

once, then go taunt the lizard, and actually use the tile’s falling effect to make Lara

fall down, not the lizard. That’s the revelation.

But here’s something else interesting about that puzzle. This other lizard. It’s not

really part of the solution. You could actually remove all of these elements and the puzzle

would still make sense. So what’s the point? Is it just something to waste your time? No,

I don’t think so.

Part Four: The Assumption

The first lizard is actually there, I think, to trick you into making the wrong assumption

about how the puzzle works.

Because you will use the ol’ walk over a tile trick to defeat the first lizard, and

most players will assume that they need to do the same on the second - which leads to

failure. It’s only when they break that assumption and start thinking about other

avenues, that the solution can be found.

And you can find this sort of cheeky misdirection all over the place.

Take this puzzle from Stephen’s Sausage Roll. The goal of this game is to roll sausages

over grills to cook them on both sides, and like Snakebird, the weirdo movement controls

leads to many tricky levels.

So this puzzle, The Clover, looks really easy. The player assumes that they can just roll

the three sausages onto their closest grills and finish the stage. But actually, no, because

doing that means they cannot then manoeuvre themselves onto the exit.

The developer, Stephen Lavelle, has used an assumption to walk the player right into the

puzzle’s central catch. And it almost feels like a joke at your expense, with this moment

being a cruel punchline.

But setting up the puzzle in such a way that the player will make these wrong assumptions,

actually offers some key benefits.

One is that the player is not completely overwhelmed when they start the puzzle. Luring the player

into thinking they know how to solve the puzzle gives them a starting point.

And then, two, while they’re working on this wrong assumption they’re actually seeing

how the puzzle works and they get to build a mental model of how this conundrum is put

together.

Three is that it largely ensures that the player will fail the puzzle their first time.

They’re not going to just waltz into the solution, but will be carefully led astray

to create that feeling of being stumped.

And four is that it really focuses the player’s attention on the catch at the heart of the

puzzle. That Talos Principle puzzle isn’t really about “how do I get to the collectible”,

but it’s “how do I get these two doors open simultaneously”.

You want the player to be thinking critically and logically about the situation. And getting

them to walk themselves into the puzzle’s catch is a good way to achieve this.

So here’s an example of the assumption, the catch, and the revelation working wonderfully

together, in Snakebird level 10.

So, to finish the level, you need to eat these two fruits. You’re too short to get the

bottom one, so the assumption is that you should get the one on the left, go down, get

the bottom one, and then turn around and come back... except...

You’re now too long to turn around.

So that’s the assumption. Which focuses us on the catch: that you’re either too

short or too long to get the bottom fruit. And this forces us to reassess what we know,

and come at the puzzle from a very different angle - and do this.

Yeah. Not only is it a clever solution, but it’s also subtly revelatory as it it teaches

you important stuff about how Snakebirds move, which you can use in future puzzles.

Part Five: Presentation.

Now all of this stuff we’ve learnt so far can fall apart if you don’t present the

puzzle properly. Check this out.

There’s this really cool puzzle in Portal 2 where a laser beam powers up an elevator,

and a button opens the exit door. It has a small assumption, where you might think that

you can just release the laser beam, and then place the cube on the button. But then you’ll

realise that the elevator has gone up without you - revealing the catch.

You need to use this cube to weigh down the button. But you also need to use it to temporarily

block the laser beam. Huh!

Now the solution is pretty clever. You need to place the cube on a light bridge so that

it blocks the laser. Then stand on the elevator and remove the bridge so the cube falls down,

releases the laser, and lands on the button - simultaneously lifting the elevator and

opening the exit door.

I really liked this puzzle. It had that revelatory moment of being like “yeah - I can use gravity

to move blocks from afar”. And while it’s a very simple puzzle with very few moving

parts, the lateral thinking needed meant it took me a good few minutes to figure out the

answer.

It definitely took me longer than when I encountered, essentially, the exact same puzzle in another

game, called The Turing Test. Now it’s not because I remembered the solution from Portal

2. I played the games like five years apart and didn’t recognise the set-up at all when

I first played The Turing Test.

No, the reason it’s so much easier in the second game is because of how the puzzles

are laid out.

So in The Turing Test, the light bridge is already over the button. You just have to

remove it. Whereas in Portal, you have to both make and remove the light bridge yourself.

Also in The Turing Test, the button serves two purposes: it opens one door and shuts

the other. So it’s a lot more obvious that you need to press it when you’re in between

the two doors. In Portal, you’ve got to juggle both a laser and the button.

And finally, Portal requires a bit of manoeuvring to get the cube up on the light bridge, whereas

The Turing Test makes it obvious and effortless.

So you’ve got two puzzles with almost the exact same concept, but Portal’s presentation

is just so much more effective than The Turing Test.

I mean, you could make Portal 2 even harder if you wanted. The puzzle is actually full

of pretty obvious hints like how the cube starts off being in front of the laser, showing

that you can use it to block the beam. The only wall you can place a portal on will make

a bridge right over the button. And when you stand on the semi-transparent bridge, you’ll

immediately see the button right below you. But, hey, not every game needs to be as hard

as Stephen’s Sausage Roll.

So. Some other presentation tips. I think a good puzzle is pretty minimalist, with almost

no extraneous elements. If you ask me, the best puzzles are those that are so small,

with so few moving parts, that you can’t believe that it’s not more simple to figure out.

A puzzle with too many elements is either too complicated, or - more likely - most of

those elements aren’t actually part of the core puzzle and are just busy work that will

frustrate you when you need to reset the level.

A puzzle’s presentation should also provide clear feedback. Portal has lines running from

buttons to doors, which change colour when powered up, to clearly explain how the room

is put together. The puzzle is not, after all, just figuring out how the level is rigged up.

But feedback is also really important when working with assumptions. There’s a puzzle in Rise

of the Tomb Raider where you make a platform rise up and then run to the exit - but the

platform drops before you get there.

You definitely don’t want to make it look like Lara could make it in time if she was

just a bit quicker. Instead, the platform is positioned significantly far away so it’s

clearly impossible to get there in time - and the player immediately knows to break this

assumption and try a different approach.

Part Six: The Curve

No puzzle is given to the player in isolation. Every conundrum is designed to build on top

of the puzzles that came before.

Because if you randomly jumbled up all the levels in, say, Portal, the game would be

practically impossible for a new player to get into it.

For one, puzzles use all of the stuff you’ve learnt so far. From stuff that’s explained

in clear tutorials, to the subtle revelatory moments I discussed earlier. And secondly,

puzzles should generally ramp up in difficulty from one to the other.

There are lots of ways to establish a puzzle’s difficulty, but at Square Enix Montreal, where

they make the GO games, they use four criteria. The number of possible solutions - the more

there are, the easier the puzzle is. The number of steps required - more is more difficult,

but too many is tedious. The number of options the player can choose from at each moment.

And which mechanics the player needs to be familiar with beforehand.

Those criteria help put the puzzles in a sensible order - but that’s not to mention some heavy

play testing - puzzle games perhaps need more playtesting than most other genres, according

to the devs I talked to

So that’s what I learned.

I think a good puzzle is derived from the game’s rules, and has a catch that makes

the puzzle seem impossible to finish at first glance. The player can be made to stumble

upon that catch, if the developer exploits an assumption that the player will make. To

overcome the catch, and resolve the conflict, the best puzzles ask the player to think laterally,

and uncover a hidden nugget of knowledge about the game’s rules.

Does every puzzle need to be exactly like this? No, probably not. But I think you’ll

find that any puzzle worth its salt will have some version of this stuff.

And puzzles that feel lacking are probably missing a key aspect. Maybe they have a conflict

that’s too easy to resolve. Maybe it’s missing the assumption, so many players just

stumble into the right answer. Maybe the puzzle doesn’t offer enough of a revelation, and

just feels like busywork.

The main thing I’ve learned is that puzzle design is a very difficult craft, and the

very best examples of the genre require years of design, iteration, playtesting, and ruthless

cutting. If you’re a developer watching and you want to make a puzzle game, be prepared

to put in some hard work.

Hey thanks for watching. And a huge thank you to indie puzzle maker Alan Hazelden, Pierre

Mongrain and Etienne Jauvin from Square Enix Montreal, and some puzzle making Patrons of

mine, who all took time to answer my questions about making puzzles.