I saw this back to back in Her Story and The Turing Test (no spoilers).
There are puzzles that can be solved the way devs want, and with novel methods. It sure feels like cheating, but whose fault is that? Is the point of a puzzle not to solve it?
Say for example a code can be brute forced. If it only takes 10 minutes to brute force, it might be faster than using the intended method. Should a game be ok with that? Should the code take 1,000 hours to brute force so that no player does it this way?
My problem is that it often feels like games punish you for being clever. If you find a method that works better than the intended method, at the very least it feels like you missed out on part of the game.
So what should be done? Better puzzles with only one method to solve them? Putting less of a focus on how a puzzle is solved and give many methods?
There are puzzles that can be solved the way devs want, and with novel methods. It sure feels like cheating, but whose fault is that? Is the point of a puzzle not to solve it?
Say for example a code can be brute forced. If it only takes 10 minutes to brute force, it might be faster than using the intended method. Should a game be ok with that? Should the code take 1,000 hours to brute force so that no player does it this way?
My problem is that it often feels like games punish you for being clever. If you find a method that works better than the intended method, at the very least it feels like you missed out on part of the game.
So what should be done? Better puzzles with only one method to solve them? Putting less of a focus on how a puzzle is solved and give many methods?