The game I have in development is similar to Dweep and Fitznik in that a puzzle is located in a "room" or single location. At the moment these locations are all connected by hallways so that the player doesn't absolutely have to complete the current puzzle -- they can head off to another room (following another path) through the game.

A map allows the player to keep track of what rooms have been visited and solved. A nice feature of this is that a puzzle can be created in a single room, but must be solved in sections by following different paths to the room (ie. come in from the left hallway to solve one section, from the top hallway to solve another etc.)

I'm a web site designer by day, so I know that a lot of users have no clue where they are within the general structure of a web site (even when looking at a site map), and many don't really care. Many experienced web site users build a mental map of a site as they go. In terms of my game I'm thinking more and more that the multiple paths don't provide enough benefit to warrant being in the game, and will possibly make it more confusing for some users.

So my question is about giving the player the choice of multiple paths that basically lead to more of the same type of puzzle. As long as the puzzles have enough variety in game elements, play, and appearance, and a solution is available so that the player doesn't get completely stuck, is linear presentation the more preferable way to go?

-Pat

You can possibly get around this problem by providing the player with a map. Pharaohs' Curse does this nicely with a small map in a corner of the screen. The map can be activated or deactivated by the player. This really helps a lot in knowing where you are in a level, since its levels can be as large as 64 screens (8x8 grid).

Most of the feedback we've gotten suggests that players prefer local puzzles that are limited to a certain (small) area. Spreading a single puzzle across too many rooms can lead to player frustration if you aren't careful. Rocknor's Bad Day does a good job of keeping puzzles localized even though its levels are much larger than one screen.

If you design your puzzle elements well, it's amazing what you can pack onto just a single screen. Dweep's puzzles are only 16x10 tiles, yet some of them will take over an hour for experienced players to solve. One of the benefits of single-screen puzzles is that players can more easily measure their progress through a level. You also don't have to do as much trial and error, since you can predict in advance how things will turn out. And of course there's the buddy factor too -- it's easier to have a friend help you solve a puzzle when the whole thing is visible at once, since the friend can be thinking ahead while you're making the moves.

Originally posted by Dexterity
And of course there's the buddy factor too -- it's easier to have a friend help you solve a puzzle when the whole thing is visible at once, since the friend can be thinking ahead while you're making the moves.

How prevalent is it for players to team up like this? I always imagined that most puzzle game players played alone.

Extremely common, especially among parents and grandparents who play with their kids and also among boyfriend/girlfriend and husband/wife.

Originally posted by Dexterity
Extremely common, especially among parents and grandparents who play with their kids and also among boyfriend/girlfriend and husband/wife.

Does this mean that an un-tapped market exists for cooperative puzzle games? Cooperative in the sense that both players can be active at the same time when solving the puzzle. I've only seen a few in all the years I've been playing games, and the only one that actually comes to mind is Oxyd.

-Pat

Originally posted by Mythago
Does this mean that an un-tapped market exists for cooperative puzzle games? Cooperative in the sense that both players can be active at the same time when solving the puzzle. I've only seen a few in all the years I've been playing games, and the only one that actually comes to mind is Oxyd.

That is one of my big selling points of Miko & Molly, 2 player coop. Unfortunately, from my experience so far it seems that the 2 player feature is underutilized by users. It seems more people, if they have someone else with them, prefer the player/observer method of multiplayer.

Agreed. I've heard from others that multiplayer features in these types of games tend to have a usage rate of around 1%. But you can still get a lot of fun out of puzzle games w/o working the controls. It can even be downright addicting. I can't walk past a screen where someone's playing Phraze Daze w/o trying to jump in and help solve the puzzle. It's surprising how much gameplay you can get just by "watching."

I think pairs of players is quite common as well, and I believe that there is an untapped market specifically targeting that group. The games that I feel do well for people that want to play together are more competitive things though like mini golf, or other casual sports games. I actually have an idea that I've wanted to implement for quite a while, which is specifically aimed at 2-4 players. Along the same lines I guess are the fairly popular "party" games sold by Nintendo and Sega. Mario party is a good example of a game for more than one player sitting at the same machine that sold very well.

I found the same thing with people playing and watching Fitznik.

If E3 wern't so expensive it would be a really good idea to just go there with a computer and a really large screen TV (or projector).

Letting one person play and a whole bunch watch really draws people in, Cycling the players works well because their confidance gets built up as they feel they have the solution only to find they were horribly wron when it is their turn to play.

Who knows, one day some one will organise an Indie Game Expo.

LordKronos, that's too bad. I thought the co-op was a smart addition to a puzzle game. I think it's like including a level editor though. People think they are going to use it and like the idea that they are getting more, so I think it's still a good marketing feature. I'm sure many decide not to do this feature because of the extra development time.

I get a lot of positive feedback from users about the "exploration" element of Rocknor's Bad Day, and the fact the exploring the levels to find out what's around each corner is an element a lot of my customers like.

But I think it helps to have landmarks, both for the "exploration" element and the "mental map" element. Not just unique level layouts, but unique colors, sounds, and scenery; it doesn't even have to affect gameplay, it just needs to be easily reconizable.

A mental map is easier for people to build when there are landmarks. I have developed UIs for settop boxes and Landmarking is a common tool used in keeping users from feeling lost in a sea of screens.


~Hanford

Back to the spectator factor for a moment...

I'm allways helping or being helped when playing puzzle games and with some of the more humourouse ones especially, having a small crowd of people over to play through something like Sam & Max can make for a good activity on a rainy day... ;)

Excuse me if the sentance is structured very badly - need sleep now... :p