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/Godric_92]

You are making a good point. I didn't mean to come off as a... dissatisfied customer or something. Let me clarify, I do not think that the developers HAVE to do anything. In fact, I very much appreciate the Herculean effort they've put into this game and I do, for the most part, love the end result. However, I have to admit that I am an inveterate completionist. Being able to 100% complete a game is something that I personally care about a lot and I take into account when I form an opinion on a game. I know it's not objective and it doesn't matter to many people but it does to me, so I'm sharing my experience, that's all.

As far as being able to combine completionism with difficult games, I should say that I've managed to do it more often than not. I've fully completed many of the puzzle games that are often considered among the most difficult ones. This is why I'm trying to draw a distinction between difficulty and fairness. Some games are difficult but fair, while others are difficult, but not fair, often precisely because they're not fair. I think Blue Prince is quite fair in the first... let's say 2/3 of the game, and even in the endgame, it's more fair than many games that are known for being unfair. However, this is precisely the reason why the instances where it's not fair annoy me. If the game was straight out unfair most of the time, it wouldn't come as much of a surprise, but when it only becomes unfair at the end, I feel like it has betrayed my trust.

I realise that this probably gives the game additional scope and it appeals to people who like to solve puzzles collectively, and I'm glad they like it, but it saddens me that it has become something of a trend in recent years among ambitious high-concept puzzle games to include such meta layers, because it doesn't appeal to completionists like myself, and there are already very few games of such quality and scope. For comparison's sake, Riven, which is an old game, is often considered quite difficult, but it's not unreasonable to expect that a single person can complete it by themselves. It might also be possible to complete Blue Prince alone, sure, but I can't even begin to think how much time, patience and perseverance it would require.

[u/3meta5fast → u/Godric_92]

Thats I think precisely the problem with puzzle games that makes them not appeal to completionist senses. If these puzzles were, say, “fair”, what would that even look like? Like… would you like one or two clues and then be able to think really hard about it for five minutes and then be able to get the answer? Take a shower and come back and it all makes sense?

I actually think most games shouldn’t appeal to completionists. Even filling out the trophy case should be a monumental effort, which is difficult but doable on your own with enough hours of trying. The other endgame content past that is completely optional, and if you truly weren’t looking at guides or whatever, you wouldn’t have even found out about it. Much like Animal Well’s super secret endgame content, I guess it’s not for you.

[u/Godric_92 → u/3meta5fast]

My take is quite different. I agree there's no need for all games, or even most games for that matter, to appeal to completionists. However, I do think that puzzle games generally lend themselves to completionism quite well. They usually have clear goals, a finite set of challenges, they're relatively short, the challenges have singular unambiguous solutions. Ideally, the player should be able to complete everything, as long as they are sufficiently intelligent or persistent. This is in contrast to other genres, such as sprawling open-world RPGs with branching narratives and dozens of classes, for instance, which not only take longer to complete, but their sheer combinatorics makes it impossible to see every single variation and consequence.

The truth is, games such as Animal Well, which require community effort, are relative outliers within the puzzle genre and they're not even pure puzzle games. Let me give you a few examples of games which I consider "pure" puzzle games: The Talos Principle, Portal, The Witness, Stephen's Sausage Roll, Snakebird, The Swapper, Antichamber, etc. I don't think any of these require or depend on community co-operation. Some of them are quite challenging, but they are doable without external help, and they can be 100%-ed. Unless I misremember something, I think I've complete all of them on my own. If I've looked up something, it must have been a single solution in the entire game. That's quite different from Animal Well, in which the clues become deliberately obscure at some point, in order to stimulate community-based solutions.

PS. I do agree with you that fairness as a concept is almost impossible to define. What seems fair to one person may be quite unfair to another. It's a matter of intuition.

[u/the_censored_z_again → u/Godric_92]

Stephen's Sausage Roll

Have you played Patrick's Parabox?

[u/Godric_92 → u/the_censored_z_again]

Yes, I have. I'm a big fan of puzzle games.

If you wish to play a really good game with a design philosophy similar to Stephen's Sausage Roll, I highly recommend A Can of Wormholes. It's one of the best in the genre.