I believe that to be exactly what TWP does, but you were arguing TWP is doing something wrong.
Right, I probably confused two different things:
First, I donât believe that puzzle is flawed. in fact I consider it one of the best puzzles ever. The reason why I think itâs not flawed is that, for me, the puzzle was simply this: "Given that some people are walking on the puddle, deduce that "if you color the puddle, you will discover where they are going".
So, for me, the puzzle was just that. I had no idea there was a rendezvous, and I had no idea what I was looking for. it was simply âforwardâ reasoning, not âgoal driven reasoningâ. And that is perfectly fine. because there is an interesting deduction to be made. so, Iâd say there is no flaw, if we define the puzzle as above.
but if we define the puzzle to be : âgiven that someone is walking in the woods, you need to deduce that there is a secret rendezvous, and also that you can find the location of that rendezvous by using the puddleâ, then I would say the puzzle is flawed. (because there is not enough information for that deduction, and also we have a situation where both the âwhatâ and the âhowâ are not given. )
So it all depends on what we define the puzzle to be. Until we define the puzzle in English , by distinguishing what is given and what must be deduced, I cannot say much.
I donât remember if in TWP the fact that there
was a rendezvous was given or had to be deduced.( If it had to be deduced, deduced from what? )
Didnât the pizza guy give you a flyer about it at some point?
In my case I really noticed too early, but iirc not completely.
- Went to play in the woods.
- Noticed banana guy walking into and out of the woods.
- Solved the obvious puzzle mentally.
- Got a flyer from banana guy.
- Finally got access to missing but fairly obvious piece to solve puzzle.
Ok, now I remember the flyer. But then this means that it was known that there was a rendezvous in the woods. So, if the game presents you the objective âfind the location of the rendezvous in the woodsâ, that is not a giveaway. It works.
You just spoiled a puzzle for every Lucasarts game! 
use spoiler tag in-order-to avoid loss of fun for those who didnât play those games yet, or for those who forgot and want to replay them
And I cannot repeat it often enough.
As far as spoilers go the age of a thing is irrelevant. Not everyone watched everything at the same pace YOU did and not everyone is the same AGE as you and had the same TIME to digest every piece of culture.
The ignorance of âxyâ is so old now EVERYONE should know it so it cannot possibly be spoilt to anyone anymore still baffles me.
I´m so glad I saw The Empire Strikes Back for the first time in 1994. Before I had any idea what the Internet might be.
1 Like
Hm, are you younger than I thought or did you see that on the later side? I figure I saw it sometime between '96 and '98.
Edit: hold on, that canât be quite right. I saw it in the original '90s VHS version at least a year before those CGI things came out, which was heavily advertised in the media. I then saw those about a year later. So that puts my timeline at '95/'96 original, '98 CGI. Which makes sense because that was indeed sometime during my first year of high school. I also saw Braindead then, in '98.
Sorry about the spoilers, thanks for reminding me.
(I was 100% focused on these complicated matters. my brain can only do one thing at a time)
2 Likes
Verbs. No verbs, no deal as far as Iâm concerned in an adventure game. I just wonât play it.
Have never been able to even persist with CMI.
1 Like
Like this?
3 Likes
Precisely. Wow