Hi All,

I am developing a bit of a puzzle game, but I am trying to figure out whether to implement mechanics which would allow the player to get "stuck" and restart the level in order to finish. I was wondering if anyone had any rules of thumb on this?

To give a bit of context, the game is a puzzle game where the level is manipulated and reconfigured such that the player can get to the exit. There are certain obstacles, such as moveable blocks, deadly blocks, etc. The player would perform a combination of moves which would alter the placement of the obstacles such that the player can get to the end.

I am thinking about whether to add an obstacle similar to a "one way door", where the player can go through, but can not go back. What this game mechianic implies is that at a certain point, the player must have configured the obstacles/level in such a way that she can get to the exit after going through a (or multiple) "one way door". With this mechanic, a player could be at a point where they would have to "restart" the level in order to retry if they don't do things in the right order before going through the "one way door". I'm not sure I like this. Many great games with puzzle elements don't have a "suicide" mechanic, so the level designers had to take great care to not allow a configuration to arrise such that the player could get stuck (I don't consider exiting to menu to restart level or resetting the game to be a mechanic, it is a work around to get around poor level design in most circumstances). But, I'm wondering if there are cases where this is acceptable? I have seen some well-designed games with this mechanic (Little Big Planet for instance), but I still don't feel right about it.

So, there are three possibilities:

1) Player is allowed to get "stuck", forcing them to either a) "suicide" themselves if that is a feature of the game (with or without a cost), or b) reset the level using a work around, such as "exit to main menu, restart level" or something similar.

2) Levels are designed such that a player can NOT get stuck, thus allowing them to solve the level from any configuration at any point in time in the level.

3) Hybrid of 1&2: Players can NOT get stuck during completion of main goal of the level, but there is some auxilery goal (such as a bonus item, or something) which the player could lose the ability to achieve at some point in the level if they haven't done things in a proper order. This could add some replayability to the level (i.e. the player beats the level, then replays the level over and over to try to figure out how to get the auxilery goal).

So I guess my question is, are there any common design patterns about the above possiblities, when or when it is not acceptible to use each? I personally like posibility 3.

Thanks!

(4) Another option is put in the one-way doors and similar irreversables, but also allow infinite undo. (Like, say, Sokobond.) You can always get out of whatever mess you're in, but the logical structure of the puzzle is still such that there's a "one-way" door.

(5) A further option, midway between suicide and undo, is checkpoints. Overt ones, like in a precision platformer (VVVVVV, YHTWTG, etc.). I can't think of a puzzler that does exactly this, but it'd be kind of interesting. So have squares that "save your progress" such that you can always return to them at the touch of a button, like a less-granular "undo".

I mention this because of the interesting strategic tension that arises if checkpoints "overwrite" previous checkpoints. (That is, if "checkpoint undo" only allows one jump back.) Touching a checkpoint becomes a strategic consideration: if the player has gotten into an unwinnable configuration AND doesn't realize it and touches a checkpoint, then yes, they're stuck and need to suicide/restart. But that's a different kettle of fish than the normal restart. The checkpointing allows the player to fool around and try stuff without worrying about a restart, but the checkpoints themselves should be approached with caution.

Assuming that "deadly blocks" ends the puzzle, checkpoints also give you the possibility of a more mild punishment for a late-in-the-puzzle misstep.

IMO it's fine for the player to get stuck, as long as the game communicates it clearly. I don't mind resetting the puzzle all day as the game tells me I have no moves left the moment it happens. I think the only way I get frustrated with these styles of games is when I'm stuck but I'm not sure if there are still moves left I'm not noticing. Worse yet is when the game is adding a new mechanic to a level and I get stuck and I'm not sure if its because I'm not using the new mechanic properly or if I'm legitimately out of moves.

Some games like Puzzle Quest don't even wait for the player to reset if there are no moves left - they just explode the board and reset everything right away.

I think your uneasiness is appropriate, and it would be best to try to avoid the situation described.

For the one-way door, what if instead it was a door that isn't always accessible? To even reach the door, the player need to reconfigure the local area of the level sufficiently to allow access to the door. However, there are some easy ways to do this that will prevent the next step of the puzzle from being solved, after the player goes through the door. But if it's not a one-way door, they can go back to the first area, and try to reconfigure it again. In the process, they'll probably block off the doorway again (especially if they just move everything back the way it started), and they'll have to figure out a different way to unblock the door, such that things are arranged appropriately not just for getting through the door, but also for solving the next bit of the puzzle.

Some very popular and good puzzle games had suicide mechanics where if you messed up you had to restart the level again. The fact that you had messed up wasn't immediately obvious but the way out was,via a "nuke it all and start over" button.

This game was lemmings and although this worked, the game was also "Nintendo hard" at times. It depends on your audiences patience i guess.

With this mechanic, a player could be at a point where they would have to "restart" the level in order to retry if they don't do things in the right order before going through the "one way door".

requiring a specific order of task completion without making the player aware of it (other than by trial and error) is usually considered bad design that leads to player frustration. but this does not necessarily hold true for puzzles, where proper order can be part of the puzzle to be figured out. and indeed, the fact that some specific order is required might also be part of the puzzle to be figured out. so as long as you use it as part of the puzzles, id' say its fine. just don't be TOO cruel! <g>.

Failure of a puzzle game really should either be effectively instant, such as falling into the acid in portal, or should allow the user to seamlessly return to the beginning if they feel they may have messed something up.

Add a 'teleport pad' or something beyond the 1 way door, which carries the user back to the initial part of the level, and clearly tells them that the task has been reset.

I think it is fair so long as ypu clearly message that this outcome has been reached. Players need closure so they need to know the game is lost. Pointlessly trying to figure out a solution when there is none would be cause for frustration.

I don't think that players strictly need a big flashing red sign saying "YOU LOSE!" when they have failed the puzzle, but rather the mechanics should allow them to gracefully revert and move forward again.

Take a look at how portal (Probably one of the most commonly known puzzle games that is so well executed) handles things:

The player either dies, and the level reloads for them (fell into fire, acid, allowed themselves to be shot too many times, or possibly crushed? I haven't played through in awhile and forget all the ways you can die), and this represents a 'hard failure'. This is opposed to a soft failure, such has dropping a block in acid, or passing it through the nullification field. You've screwed up, but it is fairly obvious that you probably weren't supposed to do that, and either they automatically give you a new tool piece to work with, or you have to manually go and press the button to get one yourself. (And if you try to request too many then it will very obviously destroy the previous one on you.)

Challenging is fun. Deciphering a complex system and working out a solution? That is interesting. Being frustrated is not fun. You don't want to simply hold the player's hand and make things a cake walk, but do make the process of moving through puzzle sections as streamlined as you can. Give them clear methods to reset or revert easily if they need it, and make cause and effect fairly obvious. (Don't have a button in a 3 stage puzzle that has a 'random' effect for example on the last room, but can only be pressed in the first.)

And avoid the 'false choice' effect in puzzles. If you have 3 'doors', two of which contain your death and one the solution, and zero information before hand about them, then you haven't actually given the player a choice. You're just slapping them in the face going "HAHAHA, I'm so much cooler than you because I'm the developer and I already know all the answers you stupid little twit" because they have zero useful knowledge to help them make a choice short of making a choice and then memorizing the outcome. If the only way I can pass a puzzle is by pure luck or having already failed in all the possible ways, then it is a bad puzzle because it is instead a memory/luck based obstacle that you grind your way through, not a puzzle which you actually devise a solution to.

Some very popular and good puzzle games had suicide mechanics where if you messed up you had to restart the level again. The fact that you had messed up wasn't immediately obvious but the way out was,via a "nuke it all and start over" button.

This game was lemmings and although this worked, the game was also "Nintendo hard" at times. It depends on your audiences patience i guess.

Bringing up Lemmings raises another interesting point: If failure has as much charm and entertainment value as the "nuke" had in Lemmings, it takes a lot of the sting out of restarting!

Getting stuck is often a part of puzzles, but if restarting is handled gracefully (say, at the touch of a button), rather than awkwardly (going through several menus) or insultingly ("wrong, loser!"), it's not necessarily going to be discouraging or be blamed on bad level design.

I thought of another possibility, too:

(6) Iterating back through the player's moves and deducing at which point in the past the level *was* solvable, then, upon suicide/death, rewinding time to that point. I don't know of any game that does this, but it's an interesting idea. It ends up being a hint, of course, because once the player realizes what's happening, they understand at what point in time they made their fatal move. But depending on the game that might be an entirely appropriate kind of hint.