Lara Croft Go is a brilliant puzzle game for Android and iOS (and PlayStation and PC). It's
Puzzle Games
Lara Croft Go is a particular type of puzzle game. It's type is defined by two tenants:
-It has finite options
-It has perfect information
The game's being finite means there are a limited number of actions allowed at
any given time: Lara can move and act in very few ways each turn.
The game's having perfect information means that players know what will happen
in response to every action and how the game elements themselves will act and
react at any given time.
Strategy Games
Let's discuss how puzzle games differ from single-player strategy games. Let's
consider Fire Emblem, for example, specifically The Blazing Sword for GameBoy
Advance (because that's the one I've played).
Fire Emblem is finite because players have only so many actions they can
choose from at any given time. Though the player's options are significantly
greater compared to a game like Lara Croft Go, because there are many more
units on the fields and the player can move them in any order, technically the
player is still restricted.
Fire Emblem is not a game with perfect information, but it does come
close. The AI is governed by a very simple set of rules. For example, opposing
units will always attack the weakest of the player's units within their range,
ignoring units who may be closer but stronger. So therefore, players can
confidently predict, if not outrightly know, how the AI will act.
However, attacks in Fire Emblem have odds of being successful. Any element of
a game that is random is referred to as RNG (random number generator), as a
shorthand. Players must consider their chances when deciding how to act. And
even if the game did have perfect information and were wholly a puzzle game,
it's far too complex to solve easily.
Puzzle Solving Methods
Puzzle games that are finite and have perfect information are solvable by a
number of methods. There is overlap between these methods, but it's fun to
consider the nuances between them.
Solve Ahead/Logic
Observe and analyze the puzzle and plan your actions in advance. Then execute.
No action is necessary until the puzzle has been mentally solved.
Exploration and Experimentation
Explore the puzzle and observe. Moving your piece around the board opens new
perspectives and visibility of new board states.
Elimination
Trial and error. Because there are finite possibilities, eliminate them one by
one.
Deduction
By looking at the puzzle, assume what's likely.
Try and Fail
Acknowledge that you won't solve the puzzle on your first attempt, and enjoy
the process of figuring it out.
Luck
Brute force. When all else fails, just keep doing your best. Eventually, you
might get lucky
In reality, we solve puzzles with a mix of these methods. Everyone solves
ahead, even if by only a couple of moves. But very few possess the mental
capacity or memory to solve complex puzzles entirely in advance. I certainly
do not. I can plan ahead maybe four turns; then I'm tapped out.
Puzzle Solving Process
The puzzle solving process more commonly happens in stages. Puzzles in Lara
Croft Go are constructed in stages connected by branching paths. Advancing
through a stage involves identifying the correct path by eliminating dead
ends.
Observe
Observe the puzzle to grasp its structure and elements, particularly the
obstacles and danger most near.
Deduce
This is almost an instinctual response. Rapidly derive a solution given your
understanding of the game's rules and your assumptions about the designer's
wiles.
Plan
Plan your solution. Planning is technically process of elimination. You're
just eliminating wrong answers mentally. Pretty soon, you reach a point where
you're confident enough to advance safely, if not correctly. That might only
be two steps, but you need to plan only so far as the next branching path to
commit, especially if you know you're able to return to the board's current
state without hitting an end-state. In Lara Croft Go, an end-state is either
death or immobility, forcing a restart.
Explore and Experiment
This is where players spend most of their time. You've reached a point where
the puzzle is too complex to plan ahead any farther. There are too many
branching paths to eliminate, so the next recourse is to explore the board and
experiment with it, like a toy. Your optimal goal at this point is to explore
each path while avoiding an end-state.
Eliminate
As you experiment with the mechanics and board states, you'll begin to
eliminate bad paths. Eliminate enough paths, and eventually you'll find the
right one.
As long as you avoid an end-state, you can explore the solution infinitely
and, by elimination, are guaranteed to eventually succeed. With careful enough
observation and sufficient planning, it's absolutely possible to solve every
puzzle on your first attempt.
Get Lucky
Eliminate enough wrong steps, and eventually you'll find the right step, even
if you happen upon it by surprise.
Puzzle Examples
Let's look at a few examples.
Solve Ahead
The Maze of Snakes - The Canyon of a Thousand Snakes - Puzzle Three
Here's a great example of a puzzle being solvable in advance, and being fun to
do so too. By this point in the game, players have learned the mechanics of
the snake and of the spear, so this puzzle is purely application.
This is also a good example of a puzzle having "breathing room", meaning
superfluous options. The entire left column can be removed from the puzzle;
none of those spaces are used in solving it. But then the player would have
too few branching paths. "Solving" the puzzle would involve traveling down the
only path available (more or less). Part of the challenge in puzzle design, at
least for the designer's of Lara Croft Go, was finding a balance of
complexity.
Eliminate
The Maze of Snakes - The Canyon of a Thousand Snakes - Puzzle Four
Here's the very next puzzle. It's the exact same challenge but more complex.
Sucker Punch calls this M+1. It's unnecessary to solve this puzzle ahead.
Instead, solving the puzzle looks much like the process detailed earlier; it's
solved in stages by eliminating branching paths.
The first two moves are scripted, but then, once you have the spear, you've
arrived at four branching paths.
They are:
-Right
-Left
-Forward
-Throw the spear at the snake down the line
Right is eliminated easily. It's immediate death. Most everyone would conclude
this without needing to actually witness it.
Left starts off fine. You'll survive the move, but then you'd have only one
choice: kill the snake from behind. But observing ahead to the consequences of
that decision, you'd conclude that the next snake would kill Lara. Because
this path leads to death pretty much immediately, you can close off the option
and consider your final two paths available.
Snakes lunge at Lara only when she moves to the adjacent space. So stepping
forward is a safe option. And so is throwing the spear. However, the spear is
a precious resource, and since advancing forward is safe, there's no reason to
throw the spear. So, of the four paths, you'll quickly identify the correct
one. And then repeat.
The Maze of Spirits - Using the Trap - Puzzle Three
Here's a much more complicated example of process of elimination. But it can
also be an example of "getting lost in the woods". The branching paths become
so long and winding that you may be on the wrong path entirely for ages and
ages.
Red Herrings
The Maze of Stones - The Dam's Edge - Puzzle Two
Here's a red herring, or a trap. You need to think two moves ahead to survive.
As the puzzles become more difficult, you start to assume that the obvious
next step is probably wrong.
The Maze of Stones - Through the Web - Puzzle One
Here's another red herring. This is a good example of where you can "go down
the rabbit hole". Once you've decided that a single way is the only way, you
may spend significant time trying to prove a mistaken assumption. You're
twiddling your thumbs, but you just haven't realized it. Eventually, you'll
either give up or try something else -- out of boredom more often than
realization.
Luck
The Cave of Fire - The Burnt Tree - Puzzle One
Best Puzzle
The Maze of Spirits - The Doorstep of Spirits - Puzzle Two
This puzzle is ingenuous. Just very clever design.
Most Impossible Puzzle
The Cave of Fire - A Restless Chase - Puzzle Two
Experience
While playing Lara Croft Go, I often asked myself if there was a "right" way
to solve a puzzle. Not if there was a correct solution, but rather a proper
method of approach. Did the designers intend for the puzzle to be solved in a
certain way?
I completed Lara Croft Go without cheating. But I often struggled to tackle
puzzles in a way that felt earned. Several puzzles took two hours to solve,
and I "solved" a couple purely by luck. I did not see the answer until I'd
accidentally found it. I expected more from myself, to be better at solving
ahead, and I felt guilty that I didn't measure up. I felt like I was failing
at the game.
My guilt derives from an unfortunate affliction of perfectionism and the
belief that the only excuse for failing at the game, as it felt to me, was my
own cognitive limitations. So solving a puzzle via excessive elimination, and
certainly by luck, was emotionally equivalent to cheating.
Games are all alike in that they're experienced and felt. Ultimately, a
player's emotional response to playing a game is the game. Everyone's
experience is unique and personal. A game may be invigorating to some but
frustrating to others. Or blissful, and to others boring.
Greg Kassavin was once asked if Hades was his best game. He responded that he
doesn't think of his games that way. For some people, nothing will match their
own experience playing Transistor, and the meaning it has to them. For others,
Bastion was significant for them. Or Pyre. Or Hades. The games themselves are
defined by their emotional experience, not some objective quality.
All of this is to say that my having perfectionist tendencies made for my own
experience with Lara Croft Go, in the form of frustration with myself. Someone
whose mind functions more fluidly may better enjoy the exploration process.
Which I did enjoy as well, a lot, but it was intermixed with guilt.
So asking yourself what's the "right" way to play the game, the answer is not
which method of solution did the designers intend, but what approach is most
pleasurable, for you, or puts you into a flow state. But even that argument is
invalid. Because there's no right way to play a game. There's no right
experience or wrong experience.
On a livestream of Previously Recorded, Rich and Jack talk about the Platinum
game Vanquished, which they had both just played. Rich played the game
aggressively. He said that's how the game was meant to be played. That was the
intention, he said, and that's how it is most fun. Jack, however, played
conservatively. He played from cover, rarely exposing himself or charging in.
He satisficed. You might also call it cheesing the game (though I hate the
term).
Rich very much enjoyed Vanquished. Jack very much did not. Jack's argument was
that the game, in its design, did not force him to play aggressively, so
therefore it was advantageous to play cautiously because he had greater odds
of winning.
So is it anyone's fault that Jack did not enjoy the game? If Platinum intended
for players to engage aggressively, is Platinum at fault for failing to design
the enemies and arenas in a way that forced that behavior? Or is Jack at fault
by playing Vanquished the "wrong" way and subjecting himself to an unenjoyable
experience. What if, while playing, Jack recognized that he may enjoy the game
better if he were to approach combat aggressively? What if, despite this
recognition, Jack could not force himself to play that way because of his own
biological predispositions and behavioral inclinations?
All of these are fair arguments. But here's another perspective. Perhaps there
is no wrong way to play the game. Perhaps Jack and Vanquished just don't
match. Because it's likely that another player engaged in combat
conservatively too, but actually liked their time with the game.
Ubisoft has trended towards freedom of approach in all of their IPs, and I
think this is partly why. Splinter Cell: Conviction and Splinter Cell:
Blacklist are perfect examples. Assassin's Creed is another. Watch Dogs is
another. Far Cry is another.
Our experience playing a game is only partly influenced by a game's design. When a game matches the player perfectly, the experience is frictionless. For me, this is Sly Cooper and Burnout 2. Ghost of Tsushima is a more recent example. But despite a likely attempt, some day, I very much doubt I will enjoy Sekiro. Other players thrive on the challenge and the satisfaction of success. This friction is basically flow theory at a grander scale. Most games, though, I would say are experienced with grades of friction. I absolutely loved Lara Croft Go, but the complete truth is that my experience was marred by my own expectations.
Think to games you've played. What games have been frictionless experiences? What games will you never enjoy? And most of all, with what games have you experienced some friction? And why? When you consider your opinion of those games and your recommendations for improvement, how much is influenced by your subjective experience with a game's elements mismatching your play style or mindset?
A Tangent on Splinter Cell
And here's a tangent on Splinter Cell that I wrote, but it didn't fit into this essay. I wanted to share my thoughts anyway.
Until Blacklist, Splinter Cell necessitated a very specific approach. They,
and stealth games in general, are essentially puzzle games, in fact. But
Splinter Cell never sold as well as many of Ubisoft's other franchises, so the
company mandated that the next game appeal to a broader audience. The
designers realized that they would therefore need to design Blacklist to
appeal to the aggressive shooter market, but also not alienate their core
fans. So they designed Blacklist to allow for a variety of play styles.
Unfortunately, there isn't much evidence that their new design model was
effective at increasing sales. Long-time Splinter Cell players lamented the
new style, saying that it was "watered down." This isn't actually accurate because the stealth design is as strong as ever, though it is missing some of the intimacy and pace of Chaos Theory. Conversely, I'm fairly certain that the series will never attract those who gravitate towards aggressive shooters. It's unfortunate because both games are
excellent, and Blacklist in particular has perhaps the best level design I've
ever played.
Ubisoft recognized that not every game is for every person. But they're an
enormous company that spends the most on development of any in the world.
Their concern is not only to recoup their costs, but also turn significant
profits because if one game isn't, then another game might. They want to
capitalize on their resource investment. The sentiment of the design is to
allow a broader swath of players to enjoy Splinter Cell on their own terms.
Their marketing, however, was not effective at selling this intention, despite
their building explicit play styles into the scoring system in Blacklist.
Posts
