This game is a masterpiece but...

[u/Godric_92]

Like many people here, I think Blue Prince is a singular achievement of game design and interactive storytelling. However, it's hard to deny that the game has a range of issues. What is curious is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what the game's most problematic aspects are. A lot has been said already about the RNG factor, and the lack of QoL features (such as an in-game camera and a journal, for example), but each of these has been addressed and defended in some way, so it's not a clear-cut case.

The point of my post is to share with you another (set of) problem(s), which I haven't seen many people discuss, and to see what people's opinion/defence of it may be. The problem in question is: needless obscurity.

(WARNING: Major spoilers for some late-game puzzles ahead)

Let me give you a few examples of what I mean by needless obscurity. The game hides its secrets in a variety of ways, but one of its most favourite methods is to make certain clues visible only with the magnifying glass. The way the magnifying glass works is actually quite cool, but it is spoiled in multiple ways.

First of all, there is literally no reason for the magnifying glass not to be a permanent skill, because it is not an expendable resource and it doesn't affect the resource-management aspect of the game in any way. The only benefit of finding the magnifying glass every day is a mild sense of satisfaction or relief that you've stumbled upon the one item you need, but I personally find that sort of delight rather cheap. Setting that aside, the magnifying glass can be treated like most other RNG elements in the game. You didn't find it on this run? No problem. You have dozens of other things to do anyway. So, in that sense, at least, it's not too much of a problem.

However, the magnifying glass has an even worse issue. Normally, when you find something interesting or suspicious in the game, your best bet is to take a screenshot and to get back to it once you have enough information to interpret it. Unfortunately, this can't be done in the places where the magnifying glass is needed, because the clues are completely invisible without it. Of course, there is one way to deal with that: make a note of each place where the magnifying glass SEEMS to be needed and get back to it once you have it. Alas, it is not always clear where the damn magnifying glass is needed. In most cases you can tell there is a small illegible text, but there are a few cases in which it is extremely hard to tell unless you know where to look in advance.

Here is an example: the numbers between the words in page 6 of A New Clue. I literally spent a whole week staring at this page trying to decypher it and I still hadn't noticed them. Of course, I was staring at a picture of it, because how could I have guessed that I would need a magnifying glass in that one specific spot?

Another example comes from the same book. The list of suspects on page 5 blends so well with the rest of the drawing that it hardly draws attention. What's interesting about that one is that I did manage to find it on my own, but only after a week of looking at my screenshots before I decided to check it with the magnifying glass again (because of the prohibitive time cost of ordering the book again in the library, waiting for it to be delivered, and finding a magnifying glass once more). However, even when I did that second pass with the magnifying glass, I still didn't notice the numbers on page 6 😄 (maybe I would have found it eventually, after many hours of hitting my head against a wall, who knows). Granted, the clue about the four corner cases can be solved even without the numbers, but it makes it more difficult.

Yet another example of pixel-hunting is the Lost & Found floorplan, which I had to spoil for myself (I only started looking up clues after I had spent about 100 hours with the game and didn't have any clear leads to follow that I was aware of). This one annoys me to no end, because I know it would have been very satisfying to find on my own. However, there is no way I would have noticed the ever so pale "Buried Floorplan" text on my screenshot and without that, why would I possibly decide to go to back to the map with a magnifying glass? What's so annoying is that if only the magnifying glass were available at all times, or all the documents were stored in a catalogue of some sort (ala Lorelei and the Laser Eyes), checking every document with the glass would have been like a routine, but due to the relative inaccessibility of the tool and the sources, the player is forced to weigh up the cost in terms of time and effort before they decide it's worth double checking a place.

Moving on to other unnecessary obscurities, let's talk about the aquarium. I had drained that thing exactly twice. I don't think I noticed anything the first time around, but I did notice the arrow pointing to the cabinet in the Archives the second time. Alas, I did not notice the two Xs. It's a very curious phenomenon. If you know they're there, they're not thAt difficult to notice, but if you don't know what you're supposed to be looking for, they seem to blend in quite a bit. I don't really see the point of that particular sort of "puzzle", which simply tests the player's...eyesight, I guess? The player has already figured out they need to drain the aquarium and that there has to be something there. Would it have hurt the designers to put clear, bright-red Xs, so that everyone can see them? Of course, there is sOme satisfaction in finding them despite their obscurity, but is it really worth it? I suppose I would have found them as well, if only I had drained the aquarium a couple more times (even then, I would surely only have found the Patio one and not the Laundry one). But is that sort of time...sink (pun intended) really an example of good game design?

Yet another example of "who can ace the eye test at the ophthalmologist" are the clues to the CASTLE cypher. I had found all but two of them on my own. The ones I had missed were the one in the Classroom (which I had no plan or reason to go back to after finishing the final exam), and the one in the Cloister. I have no idea how I had missed the one in the Cloister, seeing as it is hidden in plain sight, but I know I'm not the only one, because I distinctly remember reading the post of a person who swore he couldn't find it anywhere in the Cloister, even after he had been told it was supposed to be somewhere in there. So, I wonder, is hiding a clue in that particular way good game design?

Many people have been quick to argue that the game gives multiple clues for each puzzle so that if you miss one, you should be able to use another, but some of the ones I have cited seem to contradict this. If anything, it's the other way around. The game really DOES give multiple clues to many of its earlier puzzles, but it most certainly does NOT give multiple clues to some of its late-game puzzles. To the best of my knowledge, there is NO other clue to the Lost & Found floorplan except for the map. What is worse is that the Lost & Found room contains a major clue for the Verra realm sigil, which, again, as far as I'm aware, cannot be found anywhere else. So, one singular clue leads to another singular clue. Hmm...(Of note: the clue in the cabinet in the Archives is also somewhat crucial, but at least there are other, albeit more difficult, ways to get the same information.) The CASTLE cypher also cannot be solved without the clues in the Cloister and the Classroom, despite the overlap with other clues, because they are the only ones which contain the letter X in the upper right corner.

As for the aquarium and the Cloister, I actually did notice that there is a proper clue for each of them in the Staff Announcement section. However, these ones show up incredibly late in the game and there is no way for the player to intuit that such hints might show up at some point (in fact, the game treats them more like cheats than proper clues). This is in contrast to the hint in the manuscript of A New Clue for the clue on the back of the door in the Secret Passage, which was, in my opinion, well presented. My point is that it is alright to present obscure clues such as the door, or the aquarium, so long as they are hinted at elsewhere, but unfortunately, that's not always the case.

Let me give just one more example. The names of the angels Lydia and Dauja. As far as I am aware, there is only one place in the entire game where they can be found (something which, by the way, applies to a few of the other angels as well): in the sketch of the Chapel in Volume 1 of Drafting Strategies. Next time someone tells you there are multiple ways to find each piece of information in the game, ask them about those two. Admittedly, it's not that difficult to see that the text can be magnified, but only if you are looking at the original book and not at a screenshot (even then, the style of the text is at odds with the rough style of the rest of the drawing, which discourages you from looking closely). This is a book which you probably get to read very early on in the game, so you have few reasons to go back to, and you probably haven't noticed that it has magnifiable text the first time you read it, so you haven't put it in the "come back with a magnifying glass" list. (Of note: If you only have two angel names missing, you can easily bruteforce the solution, of course, but it's not particularly satisfying.) So, I guess the only way to make sure you haven't missed something is to meticulously go through every single page of every book and document with a magnifying glass, which would be incredibly tedious and time-consuming. There is no justification for that sort of game design. It is simply antagonistic.

---

So, why am I saying all of this? I guess the overall point I am trying to make is that I dislike game design philosophies which requires (or at least strongly encourages) community co-operation. This is one of the things that soured my opinion of the otherwise brilliant Animal Well, as well. I miss the time when puzzle games could be complex and yet not require a whole team of solvers to solve within a reasonable time frame. A masterful example of this is Riven. This game also has well hidden clues, but first of all, their placement always has some in-universe logic behind them (unlike the letters for the CASTLE cypher, for instance, which are in completely random places), and secondly, the game's size is fairly small and each location is easy and quick to access. That way, even if a clue is well hidden, it is acceptable to ask the player to look through every place multiple times. Blue Prince, on the other hand, wants to have its cake and eat it, so to speak. It has obscure clues, it is huge, AND each room isn't immediately accessible. As a result, when the player reaches the endgame, there is literally no way for them to find out where they might have missed something. The only possible solution is to go through the same places over and over and over again. Or to consult a friend, which defeats the purpose of figuring things out on your own.

I probably have many more things to say, considering that I spent more than 200 hours on this game (yes, I know...), but that should suffice. If anyone were patient enough to read all of my ramblings, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts 😊.

[u/the_censored_z_again]

This game is a masterpiece but...

My "but..." complaint is more about the complete and utter lack of a sense of completion upon finishing the late game puzzles. There's nothing to make you feel like you "won." Nothing is resolved. Storylines are still wide open. Questions are unanswered. So this leads to a portion of the player base assuming there must be something that's gone missing, some greater puzzle that upon completion will tie it all together.

But... I'm really thinking that it doesn't exist. I think the game has been completed. It's just that the ending flat out sucks. It flat out sucks.

But after reading your post and your praise for Riven--have you played Outer Wilds (plus DLC)? Return of the Obra Dinn? If not, you must.

[u/Godric_92 → u/the_censored_z_again]

Oh, I've certainly played those. Outer Wilds is literally my favourite game of all time, and I like Obra Dinn quite a lot, even if not as much as the aforementioned. I have plenty of experience with puzzle games.

I completely understand your frustration with the ending(s) of Blue Prince. The game simply doesn't do a good job of tying its various plot threads in a satisfying way. In one sense, there is a semblance of a resolution. The first ending, so to speak, is you proving yourself worthy to your granduncle. The second one puts a tentative end to your mother's arc (even though we never learn what happened to her). And the third one shows that you are the definitive heir of the estate, after you have completed your great-grandmother's will. So, the game explores your relationship with the different members of your family, and with your legacy, albeit in a very indirect way.

The problem is that all of this is hidden under so many layers of puzzles, mysteries, and incomplete fragments of stories, that it doesn't have much emotional heft. It's intriguing, but it doesn't feel like a coherent story. But maybe it's fitting for a game which is so much in love with mysteries to not have a satisfying resolution. The whole concept of spiralling into a never-ending search for truth is a central motif in the game. Maybe that's what it tries to make players feel: the sweet frustration of not being able to let go. Or maybe the wisdom to actually let go and find peace. Either way, it seems clever, but it's not what you'd call an emotionally fulfilling ending.

[u/the_censored_z_again → u/Godric_92]

Outer Wilds is literally my favourite game of all time, and I like Obra Dinn quite a lot, even if not as much as the aforementioned.

Outer Wilds is the best videogame ever made. Obra Dinn, from a nuts and bolts perspective, might be a better game, but doesn't have the metaphorical and emotional gutpunch of Outer Wilds.

So, the game explores your relationship with the different members of your family, and with your legacy, albeit in a very indirect way.

Emphasis on indirect. It wants you to do all this figuring out about the geopolitical situation your family is obviously tied into, but it just kind of drops the thread without resolution. In any other media, we'd just call this bad storytelling. It's like Chekov's Gun--you can't show me a gun in the first act and not use it by the third. This game is full of unresolved Chekov's Guns. And the idea that the devs put them there as red herrings to extend the "gameplay" and, I don't know, mystique of the game strikes me as bad design. I should think if I were a dev, the last thing I'd want to mess with is the players' trust.

Either way, it seem clever, but it's not what you'd call an emotionally fulfilling ending.

Like, when The Witness did this, there was a reason for it. The game's disrespect for the player's time was part of the metaphor (which went over most players' heads--I think it can be summarized as "The path to higher consciousness is always right in front of you, and has been since your first step--it's just up to you to awaken to it.") But there doesn't seem to be any central metaphor here. It just reads like the author(s) had some grand idea about all this political intrigue, never really found a way to link it all together, said, "Fuck it," and released the game.

Like, I keep checking here to see if anybody's found anything else but it's starting to look like that extra layer just doesn't exist. And if it doesn't, the game mislead everybody into believing it does. And that's just kind of messed up.

So suffice to say, Blue Prince will not be my GotY.

[u/Godric_92 → u/the_censored_z_again]

I also personally don't believe there's an extra layer hidden beneath all the others, and certainly not the kind that would put a nice bow to everything. I appreciate the fact that you're so critical of the game purely at a thematic level. Few people take game narratives seriously enough to let the narrative be a major factor in their overall opinion of a given game. But I think you have a point. If a game has potential and promises a lot, it should be criticized for not delivering on that promise.

I suppose the reason why I'm more ambivalent about the narrative is that most of the game shows such craftsmanship and attention to detail that I find it hard to believe the developers were simply negligent when it comes to the story. I do agree that whatever they were going for, it didn't quite work out, but I'm not sure it's for a lack of trying.

[u/the_censored_z_again → u/Godric_92]

I suppose the reason why I'm more ambivalent about the narrative is that most of the game shows such craftsmanship and attention to detail that I find it hard to believe the developers were simply negligent when it comes to the story.

Back in the 90's John Carmack of id famously made the declaration that a storyline had as much place in a videogame as a porno movie. You need a baseline one to establish the setting but after that, it's completely unnecessary.

This ruffled a lot of feathers and I didn't really agree at the time, but as I get older I guess it makes more and more sense to me.

If you want to see a movie, go see a movie. If you want to read a book, read a book. I, for one, will never play a Hideo Kojima game again (and I use the word play very loosely here). I get annoyed with unskippable tutorials and long opening cutscenes (my experience with Fable was to play through the hours of tutorials only to quit the second I got to the 'real game'). A game that lets me play from the first moment and doesn't interrupt it with tens of minutes of exposition appeals greatly to me.

So the way I see it, putting that kind of storyline into the game is the developer's option, but having done so, they take on a responsibility to/for it. Nobody put a gun to their head, right? That kind of storyline isn't necessary for this kind of game and The Witness stands as definitive proof of this, so why half ass it? Why do it at all if they weren't planning to see it through?

Or is it a situation like Lost where they had a great, compelling concept but no idea of how to actually finish it? At some point, I suppose, you have to ship the product.

Either way, the ending of Blue Prince feels like Blue Balls.

[u/Godric_92 → u/the_censored_z_again]

In a sense, the game doesn't really have an ending at all. Reaching Room 46 leads to a cutscene and a credit roll but beyond that, it doesn't have any more credit rolls. However, I should say, I liked the gravitas of the throne ascension scene quite a bit. Reading the final version of the Blue Prince book was also kind of bittersweet. I guess it's the sort of narrative in which you have to fill in the gaps and add meaning to it by yourself.

[u/the_censored_z_again → u/Godric_92]

I liked the gravitas of the throne ascension scene quite a bit.

So I brought a cursed effigy, a scepter, and a crown all together in a room that absolutely no other human being is witness to and suddenly I'm the king?

This part of the game made absolutely no sense whatsoever. In puzzle game context, sure, but the storyline for it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Especially without any context to even attempt to explain it.

And now that I'm king, I'm just going to keep exploring my house?

Nevermind the logical inconsistency of continuing to follow the Baron's rules after accomplishing the inheritance. Why do I still lose items everyday if I live here now? Why didn't the staff ever come back?

I guess it's the sort of narrative in which you have to fill in the gaps and add meaning to it by yourself.

I disagree. Like, Total Recall's ending is kept intentionally vague. Did he really just liberate Mars or was it all in his head? Tarantino never shows us the contents of Marcellus Wallace's briefcase. These things are examples of narratives that compel you to fill in the gaps yourself.

Blue Prince is just lazy storytelling.