The scales have fallen from my eyes! Thank you for this crucial piece of info. I guess this game needs a colour blindness warning as it's actually a very common vision issue.
Joseph Anderson also pointed out that it can be hard to even look at the tree if the game doesn’t teach you beforehand that the environment matters. I’m not colorblind at all but those apple-tree puzzles were amongst my first and I brute-forced all of them. I did figure out environmental puzzles after that but by then there was no point in returning and realizing what I missed.
@@jacksonw453 He struggled with a lot of these puzzles because he has a form of colorblindness that makes it difficult to tell some colors apart. So he wasn't able to see certain puzzle elements very well.
I can see why you didn't like it. This is the definition of a niche game. It's made for that audience and pretty much no one else. And If Blow wanted to make something for that specific group of people without dumbing it down for mass appeal then I can respect that.
Being a "niche game" doesn't make it a better game tho. Anyway, The Witness it's the new shit in twitter, has been acclaimed by the majority of journalists and already sell more in one week than Braid in an entire year...talk about "Niche Game". Jon Blow surpasses the Ultra-Pretentious line with his $40 Open-World Sudoku Book Game.
+Azlandir Absolutely nothing, if anything Blow did what most makers of puzzle games do...they give games more credit than most people when it comes to the kind of thing they feel will entertain them.
I remember Blow at some point characterizing The Witness as "a game about noticing things", and it sounds like he achieved that. I'll definitely be approaching it with that in mind.
Came back to the Witness after a long time. I love it for many of the reasons you don’t, but I completely agree with your point on the game’s accessibility. People will argue all day about accessibility and games “not being for some people” - which is usually BS - but The Witness should at a bare minimum have options to help out colorblind players, or some kind of subtitle readout for the sound puzzles (which IS feasible, since the puzzles stem from sound pitch and how long the sound is held).
This would mess up the bunker area for multiple reasons. Plus, that area actually has 12 test puzzles for each kind of colour blindness. Same with the sound area for deaf people
The game is not accessible by its nature. That's why you don't need to do all the puzzles to finish the game. Some people just won't be able to do the tone based puzzles. Others just can't do the colour ones. Others may just find some of them too hard. That's fine - the game gives you some flexibility.
They tried to add accessibility, actually. Specifically for different kinds of colour blindness. They just couldn't figure out how to do it, likely because it was impossible based on the design. But they did try. So the reason there isn't accessibility is not for being cheap or ignorant. They just couldn't do it. Most people don't know that because, well, nobody advertises the game with "we tried but it wasn't possible". Accessibility is a nice bonus feature. It is not supposed to be mandated. A game lacking it is fine. A game having it is just a nice bonus.
I love your content man, but it was clear that this just wasn't for you. I'm not going to say your opinion is wrong because that's silly. But let me explain Everything you complained about is what I loved about this game. I love that it didn't hold your hand. I love that there was always an air of mystery to both the game and the mechanics. I love the point where you walk up to something new and go. "How does this work. What makes this tick?" What makes The Witness so good is how it completely masters the 'Ah ha' moment. When you're looking a puzzle and it's just you and world. It forces you to put yourself in the shoes of the puzzle. What does it expect out of you? What logically could this mean. Those tutorial panels you say are bad because you can 'get lucky' is just a slow burn attempt to build you up to the realization of what the mechanic means. And what's brilliant about a lot of mechanics is that they have a way of evolving as you progress in the area. What was working before, and you thought was the full explaination of a mechanic suddenly evolves and forces you on your toes. To some people, this constant questioning could be frustrating like it was to you. But to me it just added to the mystery and wonder of the game. I love how much the game tests me. I love how it's not afraid of me 'getting stuck' or not understanding something on my first look. Playing this game with no outside help has been an experience that I've never had before. In a world where every Nintendo game that isn't Mario has 20 hours of constant hand holding, I really loved how this game didn't insult me. Things you say are 'problems' aren't problems to me. It's the reason that I keep coming back instead of just getting bored. Also there's no way the 'average' gamer beat this in less than 30-40 hours like you did. The website you use puts full faith in people being honest about it, and it's probably the result of a lot of people lying to make themselves look smart.
+ZygonCannar you don't need to complete EVERY puzzle, numbnuts. the game is completable in 15 hours. if you want to beat everything, it'll take 40. not that hard to add up. the rest of your comment is forfeit since you're too dumb to add.
Where did I say you had to complete EVERY PUZZLE, numbskull? The rest of your comment is forfeit since you're too dumb to take a comment at face value without adding assumptions and then making judgments based off of that.
+bratsampson Agreed. There's no way that's the true average without assistance. Just because someone spent that much time on it doesn't mean they truly solved each of those. I'm sure many of those people _believe_ they beat it in that much time, but that's because they discount how long it could have taken them to reason the solution. Thekla's own numbers on average times were ~40 hours just to beat it, and much longer to clear all content. One tweet said it took ~5 hours to speed run just to get from start to finish. I refuse to believe that the *average* time is only 3x that of someone who already knew the solution to EVERYTHING. His time is based on strict input needs. There's no way they are solving the puzzles with only 3x as many seconds as it takes to input the solution. That is absolutely ABSURD.
"Its a sheet of math homework" - SBH You're either going to delight in toiling away at obtuse problems and find the exercise a reward in itself or you're not. That is pretty much this game
from what you said and what you've shown it seems like you missed a large chunk of environmental puzzles that make the travel between locations a lot more palatable. Personally I think the witness is brilliant for a lot of reasons that I plan to outline in a future review, but the big one is that it's ALL about the mazes. It's still as much an adventure game as Myst, but you only ever have to worry about one kind of interaction, and there's no muddling with inventory items to get between you and actually solving the puzzles. And while I'm usually loath to say that a reviewer is flat-out wrong about a game, you're definitely wrong about how the witness teaches players by having them solve puzzles. The "tutorial" sections in each area are designed to engage your critical thinking faculties, increasing in complexity from things you basically can't fail (so that random guessing will get you to the right answer) to things you can't possibly solve without understanding how they work. And the previous puzzles aid in that understanding - leading you to question "okay, why did this work when this didn't?" The tree puzzle you were struggling with is a perfect example of this - the solultion is RIGHT THERE, on screen, directly to your left, and for some reason you can't be bothered to just look away and think for a second.The game shouldn't be faulted for your own unwillingness to step back and look at things around you - to take a breather and try to figure shit out for yourself. It's designed perfectly for its intended audience - people who like solving puzzles that are both immensely challenging and entirely possible to intuit without a guide. The game doesn't just demand that you stare at puzzles trying to solve them in sequence - it demands that you take a step back and think for a bit - consider the space around you and how it relates to the puzzles. and the footage on this review makes it seem like you were unwilling to do even that. This is like someone coming down on super mario bros because they find reflex tests exhausting, and then saying that "the rest of the world around the pits and enemies is just window dressing on what are basically just elaborate QTEs. This could just as easily be a simon machine and nothing would be lost." I apologize if this comes off as me just coming down on someone for not liking something I like a lot. I'm fine with someone not liking the witness - it's not a game for everyone, and frankly it would be pretty awful if it tried to be. my concern is that you're representing it inaccurately, and possibly scaring off players who would otherwise really enjoy it. The only salient point I found in this review was "it's not for me."
I think people who like puzzles think that they're easier than they actually are. The tree thing was a good point, but I also played this and straight up hated it. But then, I don't like mazes. especially 500 of them and that's the game. It was so insanely boring for me. Make your Witness episode, Geoff. I want you to tell me how the Witness is something more than a salt machine/sleep aid.
Mother's Basement I’ve just started the witness and I’ve unlocked six of the laser things so far. I have to say I loved the symmetry section but the keep section seemed almost impossible. I couldn’t find any logical way to answer three of the four mazes. I ended up just looking online for the answers to those three mazes. Another complaint I had was about the bird noise section. I thought that it was awfully unfair and pretty unclear at times. Please respond if you knew how to solve the last three mazes from the keep. I’m interested to know if there actually was a technique to solving them
Mark Randomlastnamethatisnttaken you have to avoid walking over the grass in the 2nd maze, 3rd your footsteps change sound when you go the wrong way, and in the 4th the maze and the panel have different layouts and you have to find the path that runs through both.
+Ricardo Rios The apple one I only got after watching the video with the context of ENVIROMENT. when I was doing it, I brute forced it in a complete slog of a marathon of resetting. it's a joke of a puzzle, and pretentious as hell.
I normally like Super BunnyHop, but when I first watched this, it seemed very apparent that his experience was marred by his admitted inability to solve these puzzles. The puzzles can get pretty tough and based on that review, I think his frustration blinded him from judging this game more objectively. Like, I'm watching it again and there are so many erroneous, or just silly statements. For example: 1. He says the game has barely any aesthetic wrapper, which is so absurdly far from the truth. He may not have enjoyed the aesthetic, but to deny it's existence seemed petty. I can't think of a single game that's put more attention, care and subtlety into the visual design of it's environment as much as the island in the Witness. 2. He later talks about how the puzzles rules are conveyed not through words, but by symbols. He says this like it's a bad thing. Like he expects the game to pander to him. Part of what makes this game so good is that it respects the players intelligence to unravel it's mysteries and Sir Hop is over here suggesting that the game "Tell me how do dis". 3. Then he talks about how some of the tutorial puzzles for a specific mechanic can be beaten with dumb luck, which is partially true, but you won't get more than 2-3 puzzles into a mechanic on luck before you need to know how the mechanic works. He says it "punishes you later", but all you need to do is go back and look at the puzzles you just solved minutes ago and discover the solution by applying your brain. 4. When he says solving puzzles made him go "How was I supposed to know that???" I tried my hardest to think to a point where that happened. At no point, upon solving a puzzle, did I ever think "How was I supposed to know that". The game had either taught me how I was supposed to know that, or I had figured it out by observing my surroundings. I literally never once had that thought. In fact, when I had been stuck on a puzzle for a very long time and finally solved it, I usually realized what preconceived perspective I was clinging to that was preventing me from seeing the solution. The Witness has a consistent theme of learning and discovery through open mindedness and a willingness to shift your perspective. but it sounds like Sir Hop just wanted to beat his head against a wall until the game magically progressed. I'd probably hate the game too if I viewed things so narrowly. Again, I'm normally a fan of his, but this review was very off base.
He didnt say the game didnt have any aesthetic wrapper, he said the puzzles didnt which from all the puzzles i see in the video seems pretty accurate as its just like lines.
I’ve always struggled with puzzles my whole life and felt stupid because of it. But for some reason The Witness came naturally to me. It’s my proudest platinum and I often debate deleting my save and doing it all over again. Something about this game boosted my confidence in my intelligence and self esteem, I’ll always love it for that
+JamLover247 most of other "reviews" praise the game without explaining why it's any good, then saying that it's worth 40$ (which is total bullshit) and giving it a 10/10.
+Leonid Chernyshov I just watched the IGN and GT reviews and they literally explained why they liked it. I mean sure, you can defend George's opinion and disregard the others because they're the big, bad reviewers.That's totally not double standards of opinions.
I understand this video is largely, "this game is not for me", but between this and your assessment of The Old Hunters, I couldn't be more disappointed. I was excited to hear your analysis (even though it's titled a review) of the implications Blow is making with what is video-gaming, what is experiencing, the evolution of scientific knowledge, and how Blow views the world. Alas, this game was made for me, and I thought it was the exact stroke of genius Blow thinks it is.
I don't understand comments that claim he spent the whole video shitting on the game, when what he said was "it's not for me, but I can see why other people would like it." That is completely NOT the same as "it sucked and it's bad."
+Richard Blank Where did I say he should be immune to criticism? I just think "it was bad" and "I didn't like it" are different statements and should be treated as such. I'm sure we could find things to criticize without putting words in this mouth.
+silver Harloe he often times stated that the puzzles themselves were monotonous and boring, or not interesting and such. yes he also said that "it's not for me" but then said that sometimes the rules weren't clear or that it broke it own rules and such.. and those things are simply not true. this game might break the rules you've build up in your head, but all that means is, that you had the wrong rules in your head to begin with.
The gameplay footage of him trying and failing at a puzzle that resembles a tree with an apple very obviously placed within view of the puzzle with him talking about "Frustrating, ambiguous puzzle design" isn't helping the argument. I haven't played this game before, but c'mon man... that tree and the puzzle were EXACTLY the same, and the tree had a bright red apple on one of the branches. Figure it out.
I played it blind, no walkthroughs, no guides, no reviews, no footage... completed the game in 19 hours and I HAD A BLAST! It is an awesome game, but you have to be driven by your own curiosity instead of a abstract carrot in a stick in order to tackle it, in order to have fun exploring and figuring stuff out :)
You're not supposed to smash your face against the puzzles until you beat them. I'm getting to the end of this game now and I would asspull that only 30% of the time I solve a puzzle the first time I encounter it. If you don't feel like you're going to solve it any time soon, you just need to walk away. The difficulty curve comes from leaving the puzzles you have the most trouble with for last. The structure comes from figuring out what the symbols mean and what the rules are. If you don't understand what a symbol represents, that means it's not time to solve that puzzle yet. It will come to you, it just takes time. If there's a puzzle that's frustrating you just take a stroll and relax. Look around for totem puzzles. Maybe take a boat ride. I usually take long walks and end up revisiting old areas and discovering new things about them that I completely miss. By the time I'm done my little adventures I'm mentally equipped to solve the puzzle I was stuck on, and then I can complete about two more before being stuck solid again. Basically just don't assume you're going to tear through this game in a weekend like you did with Portal. You need to find out how to enjoy being on the island and do puzzles because that's what you want to do. I hated this game too in the beginning, but as it started to unravel and I found out what really is I learned to love it.
You know what? I think this is a fair review. The Witness was absolutely phenomenal for me, but that's because I love puzzles. The game was just a pretty wrapper for some neat puzzling. If the puzzles are a barricade to what you want, and not the actual thing you want, then you won't like The Witness. If you want to be made to feel smart, instead of wanting to put your smarts to the test, you probably won't like The Witness. If you have a problem with admitting you might be wrong about how you think a certain puzzle element works, or if you can't handle walking away from a puzzle you don't feel equipped to solve and coming back later, you will not enjoy The Witness. It seems to be a very niche game, and it only makes sense that people who don't enjoy puzzles enough to pay forty bucks for a pretty puzzle book just won't like it. If you like puzzles though, The Witness is fucking fantastic all the way through and definitely 100% worth your $40.
When I watched a friend of mine play this game and he got one of the pretentious meta-non-endings, it occurred to me that this is the game equivalent of the movie Boyhood. It's something meant for people who think they are artsy to feel superior and cultured, but really there is no substance to the game. At least not any that's worth $40 dollars.
As much as I love your videos, and I really don't think this game is for me either. But when you used the example of some of the puzzles having environmental clues and it shows you trying constantly at a puzzle in a small forest of pink trees LOOK AT THE FUCKING GREEN TREE WITH THE APPLE ON IT. Jesus christ how did you not notice that first time? It's literally right in front of your screen and the puzzle is shaped like a fucking tree!
+whityouyahbam He was... That's why it was on his screen while he was trying to do the puzzle... But he had no idea what the tree was supposed to mean in the context of the game. There's a tree, and there's a pencil drawing of a tree. Puzzle: Start. Go ahead and draw things.
What I meant was that it's pretty obvious to just follow the path of the branches to reach the apple, but he followed every single one except for the branch with the apple on the drawing. I'm not sure if he was just doing that as an example or really couldn't figure it out. It's on the same level as a 'follow the line to reach the end of the maze' puzzle you find in kids books.
whityouyahbam This isn't comparable, kids books have instructions. This game doesn't. He didn't get it. YOU getting it and him not getting doesn't somehow "invalidate" his opinion that the game was poorly designed, if not just boring as sin. You're upset because he doesn't agree with your own feelings about the game. That's what this boils down to.
Jade Venator What? Literally my first sentence of my first comment was 'I really don't think this game is for me either'. I don't like the look of the game at all, it looks like on of the least inventive puzzle games I've seen in recent years and I agree with him on most of his statements about the game. I mean, it literally is a cheap puzzle book with a fancy coat of paint in the form of an explorable world contained in it. What my original comment was about was that that puzzle was ridiculously easy, I'm dumb as bricks and could figure it out within the twenty-second clip we got in the video, so I felt like his criticism and actions in the footage during that puzzle either weren't genuine (He was playing it up for the video) or he simply didn't even look a few inches to the left of the screen to see the solution to the puzzle right in front of him.
I think his main point with showing that section in the video was that at the time it wasn't obvious because never before that point was it shown that using resources outside of the puzzlebox was a solution. So when he got to that point he didn't even think to look at the tree in the background.
Yep, while I enjoyed the game immensely and fully intend to 100% it (second achievement), I have to admit, I agree with you on many points. It's cold-hearted and very strange beast of a game. Pretty looking but utterly lifeless. Not only hard, but alien and distant. Yet to me it is very intriguing and interesting, partly because of this, partly because of its' very thorough and deliberate design. In some ways it is anti-Undertale in nature. It certainly wasn't made to warm hearts and feel good about yourself, but rather melt brains and feel unworthy. Sorry, my English is bad, but I tried. ;-)
Gotta disagree on the tutorial puzzles being poorly designed. In fact, they do the opposite of what George says. They very clearly explain the rules for all the different little symbols. They purposefully give you ones you can brute force, and then one you can't. You have to go back through the ones you unintentionally solved until you figure out the rule. Because you have to learn the rule, you teach it to yourself in a way that sticks in the memory. Calling that "bad design" is not accurate. Wanting more explanation is fine, but what is in the game is not bad design
If you want a good puzzle game, play Infinifactory :-) As for this game, looks like something you could play in a web browser, no need for the fancy graphic world.
+xisumavoid Browser? This could easily be an app on the android store. And the philosophy quotes are the dumbest most up your own ass shit I've seen in a game for some time.
+xisumavoid Love both infinifactory and the witness, and there are a lot of puzzles that use perspective, reflections and positional lighting. Not really suitable for a flash game.
RedWurm They don't need it. Putting yourself in the right position in a 3D space to solve the 2D puzzle is neat but really unnecessary, it comes off as bad design and a really lazy way to pad out your game.
+xisumavoid If this game were just the 2D puzzles as a browser game or app, I would have little-to-no interest in it. But as the full game that it actually is, it's quickly becoming one of my favorite games. I assure you, there's a lot more to it than just walking from one puzzle panel to the next. Infinifactory is a great game too! But honestly, it's way more "puzzles for the sake of puzzles" than The Witness. There's a huge part of the gameplay that is completely unmentioned in this review. The moment I accidentally discovered it, my mind was blown. It completely changes the way you look at everything on the island and it's incredibly satisfying to hunt down. It also would be completely impossible for a simple browser game or phone app.
I think SBH's description of accidentally solving a puzzle and moving on to the next illustrates the kind of mindset you need for this game. If I lucked into solving a puzzle without understanding the concept, then I would try to get wrong solutions so that I understood why my original solution worked. This game is about experimenting with the rules until you have a firm grasp on them, not mindlessly trying to brute force every puzzle.
+Min Lungelow They are both. For me this game captured what I liked about the Myst series more than any other puzzle game if that is what you were looking for. Of course we all have our own likes and dislikes so maybe it wouldn't be as good to you, but I found exploring the island super exciting, mysterious, and fun.
I just really really love puzzles. My only gripe is that, when I hear a bad review of this game, it almost always comes down the player not being "smart enough", and I would have to disagree. I think it's less a lack of intelligence and more a lack of patience, maybe with a side order of high expectations. Every puzzle in The Witness can be solved using very basic logic and I firmly believe that anyone could solve them (without resorting to random luck). The game is designed to engage your brain and enhance your ability to think analytically. It really is just a puzzle book made into a video game, but to have it presented in beautifully stylized landscapes with overarching connections and plenty of hidden goodies is simply amazing. This game scratched an itch I never even knew I had, but after the mixed player reception I fear that it may stand alone... which sucks.
"In fact, all these screen are why I think this game is generations behind Portal, Antichamber, even Braid. Unlike those games a vast majority of the puzzles in the Witness aren't organically built into the level design. Whearas those other games make use of simulated space, time, and physics, most of The Witness' puzzles are so flat and archaic that they could work exactly the same on a piece of paper." ^ Hearing this tells me that you missed the most exciting revelations in this game and what makes the design of the island so awe inspiring. You do need paper to take notes (I think that's a better method that running to photoshop - that sounds rough!) but the way this game uses simulated space to solve puzzles is actually amazing. I love your videos and enjoyed hearing why you didn't like the game. I hope after some time you're able to go back and maybe see what I think is so special about it.
I couldn't agree more. I just don't understand what the appeal is to solving flat mazes to unlock the beautiful lush environment. Surely there must be a way to use these environments to solve puzzles so the art isn't just another onlooker to a flat confusing game.
I absolutely loved The Witness, one of the best games I've ever played. It's absolutely magical to me, shame it didn't do much for you. And you had to use Photoshop!?
I felt the same way. The puzzles felt so arbitrary and pointless it made me wonder why should I even bother finishing the game. There's not even any context to these puzzles. Its just "here some panels, now solve them!" rinse and repeat for 16 hours. I was better off just doing exam paper questions from my university course :/
Some of your criticisms seem to stem from the game being simply too hard. Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with that. But a lot of your other criticisms do highlight things that have made me apprehensive to buy this myself. It's good to hear that perspective some someone who has actually played the game, as it seems almost everyone else has showered it with nothing but praise, yet I've not seen anything about this game that makes it seem worthy of that. I mean, not that it's not well or cleverly designed, but rather it just doesn't look interesting or fun. And that's a disappointment to me. I really wanted to love this game. I'm a huge fan of Braid, and have been anticipating this one ever since it was first announced, albeit cautiously. Seems my worries were not unfounded. Maybe I'll pick it up when it gets a lot cheaper, but not any time soon.
+Scrustle Its not even hard its just purposefully abstract and badly designed which makes people think its smart because you're only solving puzzles. Also it comes off as really pretentious with its ending and use of quotes. Jonathan Blow really wants us to know how deep he is.
+Scrustle I think you have to really know you will like this kind of game. I knew when I saw material of the game that I would enjoy it but this game is NOT for everyone. There has only been 3 panels out of 500 that I personally felt weren't designed well. If you are unsure if you would enjoy it you very likely might not. I knew I would like it and I was right. Loved every second of the game.
+Thanatos388 jfc, this game is not deep story-wise. it is very straightforward. I'm not sure why people are predisposed to thinking that every indie game is predisposed to attempting to be narratively deep when just some of them attempt to present a story in a nonstandard way. not deep, just not standard. and then wat, badly designed? good god, man
happyguyxlii Did you watch the video where he talks about how nothing is explained and its easy as hell to clear the tutorial puzzles without learning anything? Or how you need to stand someplace specific in the 3D space to solve a 2D puzzle? Sounds cool but its superfluous and just pads the game.
+Thanatos388 If the perspective puzzles were not in the game, it would be a shorter game for sure. But, that does not make those puzzles any less valid, and in fact, they serve to justify the reason for the Island in the first place.
you know what's interesting tho, b-hop didn't seem to experience the conversation-like process of tutorial panels. i say this because he wrote "didn't want to spoil all of them i guess..." aren't the ones you don't want to spoil at the beginning?
Hm, I am not sure, but it sounded like you didnt know you were able to solve solved puzzles again. That would allow the player to test their hypotheses and figure out the rules. Every puzzle - even the harder ones - allows the player to refine their hypotheses and zone in on. Or rethink their hypotheses entirely, potentially having missed one. The player can build up their own person knowledge base and ideas of how everything works. Kind of like every one of us does in "real life/reality". Personally, the game taught me a lot of why the scientific method works so well. As well as that not everything needs to make sense or needs to be understood in order to experience it.
"Maybe the puzzles couldn't have been constrained to the screens" -- Evidently Super Bunnyhop was oblivious to the other 50% of the game, and hence people watching this review left wondering why a line-drawing game needs fancy 3D graphics.
Yo, seen your comments on a few Witness reviews. Which was your favourite Witness Let’s play? Been looking for a decent one to watch but they all suffer from the same lack of attention span and direction.
How many of the obelisks have you activated? Because your line about environmental puzzles being "too few and too late" or whatnot suggests to me that you missed a solid 20%+ of the game, minimum. I was finding environmental puzzles just two or three hours into what has so far been 25+ hours of play, and I find multiple more every couple hours. Technically, you can find a puzzle in the environment about five seconds after starting the game, and two more minutes later. That suggests you haven't actually found any, and are referencing something else entirely when you discuss 'environmental' puzzles.
From this footage, it seems to me that you didn't engage with the game at all but tried to brute force your way through every puzzle by guessing instead of trying to understand the rules and language. And if you didn't understand the rules, then you don't see the thematic synergy between them, the audio/visual records, and the island itself.
There is no inconsistency. If you find inconsistency in “the rules” it is because you haven’t worked out what the rules are and you need to re-evaluate the rules. This reviewer seemed to miss like 90% of the content of the game. 😂
Considering that George sat down with pen and paper to take notes and solve through 100% of the content of FEZ, his feelings on the gameplay are sort of surprising to me. I found much of the FEZ secrets far more opaque than The Witness. There were many I stumbled upon through absolute dumb luck. Whereas as least with The Witness, it was(in all but one accidental case) because I understood something. There are very valid criticisms and shortcomings. I definitely agree that some difficulty changes were odd, as well as the lack of any animals making the island feel strangely static. Also agree it was weird how some puzzles were set in sequences, but didn't open anything or offer any reward when all completed. It's strangely inconsistent. There are odd details and issues with its design that are surprisingly sub-optimal considering how much time was spent on it. I definitely had to get hints for one of the simpler puzzles because I got distracted and didn't notice something that changed in the environment. I think there's sort of a general issue with telegraphing when/where something is about to happen, or which puzzles will have consequences. I heard the sound, but I looked in completely the wrong direction(no surround sound). I think how he relates it to the other examples basically says everything, though. George likes the ones that are dynamic and involve space/movement. Those are more intuitive and pleasurable to the human brain. The Witness is definitely more interested in extreme abstractions. It's a harder thing to like, and it requires you to focus, but also be calm and careful. Some people just have the right kind of thinking cap for this, and others don't. This game isn't really for the masses, but was bought by the masses purely because of the developer's recognition and this isn't the first I've heard of someone not enjoying themselves. There was way too much attention and anticipation for something that doesn't appear to have been made for broad users in mind. It's definitely unrelenting and unapologetic in its own way.
Hey, thanks for putting this out there. I've seen nothing but glowing praise for the game in the early reviews, and I was holding off on a purchase until someone actually addressed the concerns I had about the game. You went into depth on all of them! Like you said, I can see where this game is appealing to a certain kind of gamer but I am not that kind of gamer. You gave me the information I needed to know whether I should buy this game - thanks! P.S. I've been watching your videos for a long time and really like them. I wish you had a Patreon so I could support you directly!
I'm at the beginning of your video and I loved The Witness, but I appreciate that you have the wisdom to recognize it is not for you. I've read several reviews which try to pass their personal experience as a general truth and it's annoying. The game is definitely not for everyone and people genuinely disliking is not surprising.
Maybe him missing a lot of them over the span of 40 hours is a sign that it's unintuitive to find them in the first place, and that finding them isn't exactly easy for some people, even if they try. 🤔
So if that's the case, what are your thoughts on Professor Layton? Could it be excused on the basis that most of Professor Layton's puzzles are comparatively more self contained and diverse? And that the story and surrounding narrative is vaguely-self aware of it's own absurdity?
I feel like even though you stated that this game isn’t for you, you were asking for the game to be something it isn’t. The game is flat screen line puzzles that sometime use the environment. Not environmental line puzzles. If you were looking for that there are the other games you mentioned, but it felt like your argument was contrived because you found line puzzles boring.
It's so weird hearing someone who didn't like this game talk about it. There is just a complete breakdown of communication or something. Complete lack of understanding of what is cool/new/good about it. I don't expect everyone to like it, but almost every single point was like someone just told me 2+2=5 and the sky is green. It's like an alternative reality or something. The funny thing is, a lot of the stuff this review says is completely true. There are no rewards. The puzzles are hard and the symbols unintuitive. The "tutorials" don't teach you the mechanics. All of that is completely true. However, none of those are negative points against the game. All of it is completely intentional (I mean the game WAS in development for 7 years!!). And I completely agree with all of those decisions. Firstly, the lack of rewards is not only refreshing, it's smart. Extrinsic rewards devalue the activity itself. There are multiple studies that have found extrinsic rewards in the long term have a negative impact on people's engagement with an activity. Not only do people enjoy the activity itself less, but if it requires any sort of creative thought, they perform worse. In other words, according to current scientific understanding of how we respond to reward systems, puzzle games should definitively avoid them. As for teaching the mechanics, the point isn't that you are shown how to solve puzzles. The whole game is basically a tribute to the scientific method. You solve the very basic panels (by guessing generally. very reasonable if there are only 2 or 3 possibilities), form a hypothesis, test it, adjust it to fit new data etc. You go on about how it isn't "fun". Perhaps you have a different definition of fun, but it's not really meant to be "fun". I personally got a lot of enjoyment out of it and found it very rewarding (despite the fact the game offered no rewards). But I wouldn't really say it was "fun". That's a very limiting word. Plenty of things that are worthwhile are not what I'd call "fun". One final point, and it's kind of an important one: you say a lot of the puzzles could work in a puzzle book. That's simply not true. Once you fully understand the rules, yes. But the every single series of puzzles fundamentally rely on the interactive medium for one simple reason: it needs to tell you if you're right or not. A puzzle book has answers in the back, but you can only check them once because then you know the answer. in The Witness you can check your answer as many times as you like. Which is important because until you have narrowed down the rules completely there are multiple solutions which seem like they should be valid.
I think it's an acquired taste, when I started playing it I was *this* close to refunding because it seemed like a game with a bunch of fluff around some obscure, but mechanically simple puzzles, but something about it really grabs me. I personally felt extremely gratified from some of the solutions as I was forced to think outside of the box and figure things out for myself. It's usually not my jam, and I'm generally pretty dumb, but I just love everything about it so far. It feels refreshing to play a game with almost no pretense, something that just throws you into the world and expects YOU, the player, to understand it, rather than channel your perspective through a preset story. Even if it boils the mechanics down to such a basic level it feels unique in that sense, it sacrifices that "organic" quality of design that games like Braid or Portal have but makes up for it in sheer cleverness and surprise.
Thank you for listing antichamber in your short list of great puzzle games. Antichamber is awesome and definitely the most fun I've had in a puzzle game, and I don't hear about it enough.
The thing that separates the witness from Myst, is that Myst is a better game in my opinion. Myst does a better job conveying the solution to you, and it's a lot shorter. The only thing that compares the two games is that they are both set on an abandoned island. If johns objective was to bore the shit out of me then mission accomplished.
+Goatsee If you want a puzzle game where the gameplay and narrative really add to each other play "the Swapper". My biggest problem with the Talos Principle was that the game really lacks something that really binds everything in the game together.
+Hattori Hanzo +Le Green Bean It absolutely did though. Didn't you finish the game? The whole game is an AI test, so puzzle solving is the very core of the concept. The story is build around that. You are one AI among many to be tested in your logical thinking as well as your "human" qualities. Your logical thinking is tested by the puzzles, your humanity by the interactions with the terminals and your obedience to Elohim. Even the level design factors in, introducing these new AI's to humanities culture and past.
UGOTNUKED thats what the game tells you, but to me it always felt like "ok, now in order to get the next batch of terminal dialogue and messages, complete 5 more puzzles and you are set to progress". Talos Principle isnt something like Portal. Great Puzzles, Great Writting, but they definitely werent built around each other.
I am so glad to find someone else who just isn't enjoying The Witness. Let me first say that I think The Witness is a fantastically crafted game, the environments are beautiful and exploring them was a joy. And yet for as objectively as I can call it a good game, I can also say that I didn't enjoy it in the slightest. Now, when it came to many of the first few areas that use the environment surrounding the puzzle to give you the solution, I was enthralled. Those were the moments where I was most enjoying the witness, the parts that felt doable and satisfying. However, come the later areas of the game this idea seems to be dropped, and as SBH said many of the puzzles seem completely confined to their puzzle-boards. To me it became very tedious to go through the process of elimination in expending all possible solutions to come to the one that is arbitrarily correct. Puzzle after puzzle began to take me longer and longer to solve, with their numbers seemingly inflating in the process. There are over 50 puzzles in the Treehouse area and it just felt like way too much. The joy of figuring out the rules is quickly lost after having to apply the rules you've already figured out time and time again on puzzles that grow in size and complexity. Maybe I'm just impatient, but I could not find myself able to finish all 11 areas of the game, and the ending for getting any less was extremely lack-luster. There may be a better ending beyond what I've found, but I'm not hopeful and not in a rush to find it.
It's completely possible he never found a single one. Judging by his frustration and complaints he's done the minimum required to unlock the first ending which is pretty barebones.
This is like if Professor Layton used the same puzzle for the whole game, and completely lacked a narrative. How this was so well received is beyond me, and I like puzzle games.
Para Soul just keep telling yourself that, you damn TROLL. Why dont you go twirl your markiplier meme mustache while XD'ing to epic fnaf scare cam compilations.
I'm so glad for the quality of this channel's presentation. I remember watching Reviews on the Run as a kid, sitting on the couch wondering when I should turn the TV off and actually PLAY video games. This channel actually makes me want to watch, even if it's a game I wouldn't normally care about.
This video is a great example of why reviewers are so useful. Your distaste of this game had you deliver information in a way that gave me insights about the game that I feel other content I've consumed was missing. I'm actually more interested in this game then I was before. Thanks. Great video.
Thanks for making this video. This is almost exactly the experience I had playing The Witness, and even more frustrating than the game itself was that it seemed *everyone* else was on board with the game. I understand the strengths of the game, but it just does nothing for me.
Sure, the average player beats it in 16 and a half hours, but they'll use guides, help, and the community. Beating this game without guides, though? Jeez, that seems like a nightmare.
I still have one big problem with this review. At 9:30 George makes a big assumption about the demographic of New York Times crosswords. I've been doing them since I was 10, and my love of puzzles has only grown in the 8 years since then. Again, I'm 18 and I _completed_ a sudoku book for fun this summer (not to mention putting 30 hours into Picross 3D). Aside from that I respect everything George said about The Witness. Disliking puzzles is fine. In all honesty, I have as much trouble getting into fast-paced games as George does getting into slow ones. I just wanted to point at that specific moment and say "No! The idea of packing those puzzles into a video game with an allegorical message is _extra_ appealing to someone young who also appreciates New York Times crosswords". Anyway, The Witness gets 2nd place in the Game of the Year competition for 2016, right after Picross 3D Round 2.
So the only puzzle I was able to see the solution to was the one where there's an apple in the tree behind the puzzle. Everything else made absolutely no sense whatsoever. And if the island is pretty much pointless, just some boring scenery to walk through between puzzles, why does it even exist? Why not just have a game where you play one puzzle, and then it loads the next one, and then you solve that and it loads the next one, and you can replay them all via a simple menu? Why the island? Think I'm going to give this a pass.
+Julien Iafrancesco I don't know if he'll answer, but I will. I think it'd be neat, but that still doesn't answer the question of the relevance of the island. Does the island convey a story that's not told in words, but in actions? Does the island have any puzzles that aren't "draw a line" (over-simplication for conciseness)? Does the island enrich my experience of solving the puzzles or is it mostly cut off from the puzzles? These are questions that can be answered without spoiling anything in the game but do place value on the island overworld beyond a pretty set piece. If a pretty set piece is enough justification for you and many other people who seem to enjoy the game, then great. However, that might not be (and sometimes isn't) enough justification for others. Asking people to put up with something they don't see any value in (especially asking them $40 for the experience) is akin to asking them to listen to poetry in another language. They may enjoy it and think its pretty, but they aren't getting any deeper value or sensations from the experience.
As a fan of colorful puzzle games I actually feel mostly the same as you do. The biggest problem I have with the game is exactly that the core puzzle - maze panel - simply isn't fun for me and takes me out of the game by forcing me to focus on a 2D flat screen 90% of the time. The environments look dead and creepy due to lack of texture, I do like the colors though. And some of the messages in the game are interesting.
If you don’t wanna drop 40 on this game, go get a book of mazes or a sodoku book and it will scratch the same itch. This game is random disjointed puzzles; there’s no overarching narrative or point to anything you do; it’s puzzle here and puzzle there, and it’s all pointless
Most of the really cool stuff in the game cannot be experienced in any other way than it being in a video-game. It's true you can put most of the panel puzzles in a phone/tablet app but the environment and perspective play a massive role in a lot of it, including those same panel puzzles. Potential spoiler: There are over 100 environmental puzzles where there is no panel. You need to look around and find them and they are built into the world itself or, in at least one specific case I've seen, the lack of world (negative space). You can't buy a book of sudoku and call it the same. It's an insult to this game and completely disrespects how much incredible craftsmanship and polish was required to make it. If the game is not for you, that's fine. The point is that by finishing puzzles you get more puzzles. If you don't like that, that's fine. But to say it's not worth 40$ is misleading because you wouldn't buy this game for 2$ if you don't enjoy it. For those who do, I can easily see them paying a lot more than 40$. For some it's their favorite video game. To people who don't "get it" I recommend playing with somebody else. It's a really fun experience and you can help each other by noticing different things which is super collaborative and rewarding and a great binding experience.
I loved this video, George. I've spent a lot of time reading the comments and it is unfortunate how quick people are to call you out for wanting your hand held when you spent almost forty(?) minutes gushing over Dark Souls. You, like me, just ain't into 2D puzzlers like this. Your gripes about the audio and visual design were totally valid. This game ain't for us, and it's not the most well-executed game for it's niche. I guess it seems okay... I guess... BUT THAT'S JUST LIKE MY OPINION MAN
Well, that's disappointing. I thought that the game was going to pull out some cool twist after the first hour or so of repetitive puzzles, kinda like Portal, but after hearing that it really is just a collection of increasingly challenging maze puzzles with no reason, strong narrative or original mechanics, I know this game really isn't for me.
What the heck is the solution to the last puzzle he showed @ 10:30 ? Unless you can rotate the block how could you ever contain the bottom right shape when it lies outside of all possible locations for it on the grid?
George has seemed like nothing but an extremely intelligent dude through every video he's produced. And if he makes these puzzles out to be as boring and obnoxious as they appear, I'm inclined to believe him. The graphical style is neat, but it seems like it deserves a better game. And no music? No sound design? That could have been its one saving grace!
+RevolverPhantom the game has no music because that would distract from and defeat the purpose of its themes which are isolation and self-reflection. And yes there is sound design. METICULOUSLY crafted sound design that , if you have a home theater system, is so detailed and accurate to each and one of your surroundings. The game itself is meticulusly crafted. Everything is made wit a clear intent and purpose. EVERYTHING. People are disregarding all of Blow's minimalism as laziness or pretension, but that's simply not true. He made a perfect game. A loose yet cohesive self-teaching game that is entirely configurable to one's playstyle and pace. And any amount of superfluous narrative is entirely up to the player to insert and interpret.
+Douglas Harris You're the kind of person to call a discarded tissue on the floor of an art exhibit a stunning and introspective look at the duality of man.
+RevolverPhantom It actually has amazing sound design. I don't know where he got that from, there's tons of ambience, and I never really missed the music. "George has seemed like nothing but an extremely intelligent dude." And I would agree, but with this and having played the game he does seem like an idiot to be honest.
The game was clearly trying to be more than just flat panel puzzles, but it's major shortcoming is that its majority of puzzles were just that. I still think the panel puzzles were challenging and engaging, but they're clearly not for everyone, and they're probably not the type of puzzles people expect from a puzzle video game. On the other hand, the mountain river epiphany moment, the reflection puzzles, the glare puzzles, and the environmental puzzles were brilliant and left a much greater impression on me. The type of puzzles that are about perpective, framing the problem in a different way, those are the ones that CAN'T be replicated on paper. I understand that the panels are a medium to convey such puzzles, but the actual panel puzzles themselves are at such a disconnect with the game's theme of perspective that I wonder if the perspective tricks could be pulled off in a way that didn't involve panels.
You said that the puzzles were too complicated and had too many conflicting rules, but actually one thing I really appreciate about the design of The Witness is that they kept the puzzles just simple enough. With the ruleset of the game, the puzzles could easily be made needlessly hard, but the game sticks at having the grids relatively small and doesn't combine all that many puzzle elements together at once until the later parts of the game. I think the game had just the right balance of being hard enough that you have to take a step back and think for a while every now and then but being easy enough to finish without a walkthrough.
+Duke Jaywalker *$40 smartphone game, do you hate indie devs so much you want them to starve to death? if jonathan blow didnt make $5mil in a week he would literally be homeless right now
+Real Wolf So? His personal financial status should make zero impact on your valuation of a product. I've not played this game yet but I wont be spending £30 on it. looks like a £10-15 game at most. If that would cripple him financially that's his fault for spending over 6 years developing this thing. He's not my friend I don't owe him anything.
I share some of your frustrations esp 3:38 You learn something like 10 seconds ago and it immediately adds another curveball instead of easing you in by completing a whole set based on one idea. It's cool but man is it annoying sometimes when you just want to feel like you can progress once it clicks but it robs you of that so quickly. And it does legit have homework vibes sometimes.
I cannot fathom why someone thought it was a good idea to make a beautiful world for a video game, and then have the gameplay just been walking between points and pushing your face up to a screen to solve a puzzle. Over and over and over again
Creating a beautiful world then having gameplay consisting of looking at small panels all the time is obviously a metaphor to how beautiful the outside world is yet all we do is play computer games on a screen, it's too deep for you Mann /s
+El Burrito There is more to the environment than you may first think. People don't talk about it, because for most of us, that moment of realization is amazing. But the puzzles do serve as switches and can manipulate the world around you, so there again is more to it than that.
+El Burrito I can see it being a good idea, I just don't see why they would charge much money for it, or expect a broad audience to like it, or to hype it up. I don't know if they tried to hype it up or what (I suspect that they did), but for whatever reason the game got way too much hype than it deserved from what I can see.
The apple puzzle at 4:10 makes a lot more sense now that I know George has red-green colorblindness.
Yeah, I see al lot of the parts in this game sucking with color blindness
Oh god. That tiny detail recontextualizes this entire video.
It all makes so much more sense now...
I was so confused how he didn't spot it. Now I see why he had so much trouble with this game.
The scales have fallen from my eyes! Thank you for this crucial piece of info.
I guess this game needs a colour blindness warning as it's actually a very common vision issue.
Joseph Anderson also pointed out that it can be hard to even look at the tree if the game doesn’t teach you beforehand that the environment matters. I’m not colorblind at all but those apple-tree puzzles were amongst my first and I brute-forced all of them. I did figure out environmental puzzles after that but by then there was no point in returning and realizing what I missed.
The video where George reveals that he's colorblind sheds a lot of light on this video.
Wait what?
@@jacksonw453 He struggled with a lot of these puzzles because he has a form of colorblindness that makes it difficult to tell some colors apart. So he wasn't able to see certain puzzle elements very well.
oh my god the apple it's the apple 4:12
i never played the game but I'm positive it's the apple
+skippyasqueeze Spoiler: It's the apple.
+bratsampson I knew it!
+skippyasqueeze But did you realize that before after he said "environmental puzzle"?
+skippyasqueeze Don't be so hard on him, he's got a learning disability ^^
TheFarSideNoob the apple is like...right there. It's the first thing I saw.
I can see why you didn't like it. This is the definition of a niche game. It's made for that audience and pretty much no one else. And If Blow wanted to make something for that specific group of people without dumbing it down for mass appeal then I can respect that.
+L Pendergast
Exactly. I happen to be part of the audience, so yay me.
Definitely not for everyone, however.
Being a "niche game" doesn't make it a better game tho. Anyway, The Witness it's the new shit in twitter, has been acclaimed by the majority of journalists and already sell more in one week than Braid in an entire year...talk about "Niche Game". Jon Blow surpasses the Ultra-Pretentious line with his $40 Open-World Sudoku Book Game.
+L Pendergast Waht's niche about 5 million dollars in sales... the first week
+Azlandir Absolutely nothing, if anything Blow did what most makers of puzzle games do...they give games more credit than most people when it comes to the kind of thing they feel will entertain them.
+L Pendergast Man, I hope he doesn't come back later and blame the limited appeal-driven sales on something stupid like piracy.
Oh wait.
"the clouds don't move"
Funny you should mention that...
Ha.
I remember Blow at some point characterizing The Witness as "a game about noticing things", and it sounds like he achieved that. I'll definitely be approaching it with that in mind.
Came back to the Witness after a long time. I love it for many of the reasons you don’t, but I completely agree with your point on the game’s accessibility.
People will argue all day about accessibility and games “not being for some people” - which is usually BS - but The Witness should at a bare minimum have options to help out colorblind players, or some kind of subtitle readout for the sound puzzles (which IS feasible, since the puzzles stem from sound pitch and how long the sound is held).
What about blind people?
What about people without arms or legs?
What about disembodied heads floating in a jar?
What about them?
@@____uncompetative I can't tell if this is serious, but adding a colorblind mode is a lot easier than simulating peoples' missing motor functions.
This would mess up the bunker area for multiple reasons. Plus, that area actually has 12 test puzzles for each kind of colour blindness. Same with the sound area for deaf people
The game is not accessible by its nature. That's why you don't need to do all the puzzles to finish the game. Some people just won't be able to do the tone based puzzles. Others just can't do the colour ones. Others may just find some of them too hard. That's fine - the game gives you some flexibility.
They tried to add accessibility, actually. Specifically for different kinds of colour blindness. They just couldn't figure out how to do it, likely because it was impossible based on the design. But they did try. So the reason there isn't accessibility is not for being cheap or ignorant. They just couldn't do it. Most people don't know that because, well, nobody advertises the game with "we tried but it wasn't possible". Accessibility is a nice bonus feature. It is not supposed to be mandated. A game lacking it is fine. A game having it is just a nice bonus.
I love your content man, but it was clear that this just wasn't for you. I'm not going to say your opinion is wrong because that's silly. But let me explain
Everything you complained about is what I loved about this game. I love that it didn't hold your hand. I love that there was always an air of mystery to both the game and the mechanics. I love the point where you walk up to something new and go. "How does this work. What makes this tick?" What makes The Witness so good is how it completely masters the 'Ah ha' moment. When you're looking a puzzle and it's just you and world. It forces you to put yourself in the shoes of the puzzle. What does it expect out of you? What logically could this mean.
Those tutorial panels you say are bad because you can 'get lucky' is just a slow burn attempt to build you up to the realization of what the mechanic means. And what's brilliant about a lot of mechanics is that they have a way of evolving as you progress in the area. What was working before, and you thought was the full explaination of a mechanic suddenly evolves and forces you on your toes. To some people, this constant questioning could be frustrating like it was to you. But to me it just added to the mystery and wonder of the game.
I love how much the game tests me. I love how it's not afraid of me 'getting stuck' or not understanding something on my first look. Playing this game with no outside help has been an experience that I've never had before. In a world where every Nintendo game that isn't Mario has 20 hours of constant hand holding, I really loved how this game didn't insult me.
Things you say are 'problems' aren't problems to me. It's the reason that I keep coming back instead of just getting bored.
Also there's no way the 'average' gamer beat this in less than 30-40 hours like you did. The website you use puts full faith in people being honest about it, and it's probably the result of a lot of people lying to make themselves look smart.
+ZygonCannar Or more likely they legit completed it, but looked up a solution every time something took them more than 20 mins to solve.
+ZygonCannar Or maybe smarty pantses are more likely to boast about their times when given a chance.
+ZygonCannar you don't need to complete EVERY puzzle, numbnuts. the game is completable in 15 hours. if you want to beat everything, it'll take 40. not that hard to add up. the rest of your comment is forfeit since you're too dumb to add.
Where did I say you had to complete EVERY PUZZLE, numbskull?
The rest of your comment is forfeit since you're too dumb to take a comment at face value without adding assumptions and then making judgments based off of that.
+bratsampson Agreed. There's no way that's the true average without assistance. Just because someone spent that much time on it doesn't mean they truly solved each of those. I'm sure many of those people _believe_ they beat it in that much time, but that's because they discount how long it could have taken them to reason the solution. Thekla's own numbers on average times were ~40 hours just to beat it, and much longer to clear all content. One tweet said it took ~5 hours to speed run just to get from start to finish. I refuse to believe that the *average* time is only 3x that of someone who already knew the solution to EVERYTHING. His time is based on strict input needs. There's no way they are solving the puzzles with only 3x as many seconds as it takes to input the solution. That is absolutely ABSURD.
"Its a sheet of math homework" - SBH
You're either going to delight in toiling away at obtuse problems and find the exercise a reward in itself or you're not. That is pretty much this game
Right. Playing this game reminded me of messing around with a math problem.
"Solve my maze" Lex Luthor...
Accurate
from what you said and what you've shown it seems like you missed a large chunk of environmental puzzles that make the travel between locations a lot more palatable. Personally I think the witness is brilliant for a lot of reasons that I plan to outline in a future review, but the big one is that it's ALL about the mazes. It's still as much an adventure game as Myst, but you only ever have to worry about one kind of interaction, and there's no muddling with inventory items to get between you and actually solving the puzzles.
And while I'm usually loath to say that a reviewer is flat-out wrong about a game, you're definitely wrong about how the witness teaches players by having them solve puzzles. The "tutorial" sections in each area are designed to engage your critical thinking faculties, increasing in complexity from things you basically can't fail (so that random guessing will get you to the right answer) to things you can't possibly solve without understanding how they work. And the previous puzzles aid in that understanding - leading you to question "okay, why did this work when this didn't?" The tree puzzle you were struggling with is a perfect example of this - the solultion is RIGHT THERE, on screen, directly to your left, and for some reason you can't be bothered to just look away and think for a second.The game shouldn't be faulted for your own unwillingness to step back and look at things around you - to take a breather and try to figure shit out for yourself. It's designed perfectly for its intended audience - people who like solving puzzles that are both immensely challenging and entirely possible to intuit without a guide.
The game doesn't just demand that you stare at puzzles trying to solve them in sequence - it demands that you take a step back and think for a bit - consider the space around you and how it relates to the puzzles. and the footage on this review makes it seem like you were unwilling to do even that. This is like someone coming down on super mario bros because they find reflex tests exhausting, and then saying that "the rest of the world around the pits and enemies is just window dressing on what are basically just elaborate QTEs. This could just as easily be a simon machine and nothing would be lost."
I apologize if this comes off as me just coming down on someone for not liking something I like a lot. I'm fine with someone not liking the witness - it's not a game for everyone, and frankly it would be pretty awful if it tried to be. my concern is that you're representing it inaccurately, and possibly scaring off players who would otherwise really enjoy it. The only salient point I found in this review was "it's not for me."
I think people who like puzzles think that they're easier than they actually are. The tree thing was a good point, but I also played this and straight up hated it. But then, I don't like mazes. especially 500 of them and that's the game. It was so insanely boring for me. Make your Witness episode, Geoff. I want you to tell me how the Witness is something more than a salt machine/sleep aid.
Adam Owens Have you watched Joseph Anderson's review? You should...
Mother's Basement I’ve just started the witness and I’ve unlocked six of the laser things so far. I have to say I loved the symmetry section but the keep section seemed almost impossible. I couldn’t find any logical way to answer three of the four mazes. I ended up just looking online for the answers to those three mazes. Another complaint I had was about the bird noise section. I thought that it was awfully unfair and pretty unclear at times. Please respond if you knew how to solve the last three mazes from the keep. I’m interested to know if there actually was a technique to solving them
Mark Randomlastnamethatisnttaken you have to avoid walking over the grass in the 2nd maze, 3rd your footsteps change sound when you go the wrong way, and in the 4th the maze and the panel have different layouts and you have to find the path that runs through both.
Nah the game is fucking shit without good lerning curve and with 500+ lame and not interesting puzzles.
Some of this footage was put on right? I haven't even played the game and I could see the solution for a lot of the puzzles.
+ThisAlbino The apple one is infuriating.
+Ricardo Rios I thought the apple area was the easiest area in the game, the area I hated was the swamp area.
+ThisAlbino how do you even know the rules and aims and symbols of the puzzles without having played the game lol
+Ricardo Rios The apple one I only got after watching the video with the context of ENVIROMENT. when I was doing it, I brute forced it in a complete slog of a marathon of resetting. it's a joke of a puzzle, and pretentious as hell.
+Exigentable it is a joke of a puzzle; because it's so goddam easy
You had the wrong | | shape @ 6:55, no wonder you're mad
I normally like Super BunnyHop, but when I first watched this, it seemed very apparent that his experience was marred by his admitted inability to solve these puzzles. The puzzles can get pretty tough and based on that review, I think his frustration blinded him from judging this game more objectively. Like, I'm watching it again and there are so many erroneous, or just silly statements. For example:
1. He says the game has barely any aesthetic wrapper, which is so absurdly far from the truth. He may not have enjoyed the aesthetic, but to deny it's existence seemed petty. I can't think of a single game that's put more attention, care and subtlety into the visual design of it's environment as much as the island in the Witness.
2. He later talks about how the puzzles rules are conveyed not through words, but by symbols. He says this like it's a bad thing. Like he expects the game to pander to him. Part of what makes this game so good is that it respects the players intelligence to unravel it's mysteries and Sir Hop is over here suggesting that the game "Tell me how do dis".
3. Then he talks about how some of the tutorial puzzles for a specific mechanic can be beaten with dumb luck, which is partially true, but you won't get more than 2-3 puzzles into a mechanic on luck before you need to know how the mechanic works. He says it "punishes you later", but all you need to do is go back and look at the puzzles you just solved minutes ago and discover the solution by applying your brain.
4. When he says solving puzzles made him go "How was I supposed to know that???" I tried my hardest to think to a point where that happened. At no point, upon solving a puzzle, did I ever think "How was I supposed to know that". The game had either taught me how I was supposed to know that, or I had figured it out by observing my surroundings. I literally never once had that thought. In fact, when I had been stuck on a puzzle for a very long time and finally solved it, I usually realized what preconceived perspective I was clinging to that was preventing me from seeing the solution.
The Witness has a consistent theme of learning and discovery through open mindedness and a willingness to shift your perspective. but it sounds like Sir Hop just wanted to beat his head against a wall until the game magically progressed. I'd probably hate the game too if I viewed things so narrowly. Again, I'm normally a fan of his, but this review was very off base.
100% agreed.
He didnt say the game didnt have any aesthetic wrapper, he said the puzzles didnt which from all the puzzles i see in the video seems pretty accurate as its just like lines.
I’ve always struggled with puzzles my whole life and felt stupid because of it. But for some reason The Witness came naturally to me. It’s my proudest platinum and I often debate deleting my save and doing it all over again. Something about this game boosted my confidence in my intelligence and self esteem, I’ll always love it for that
Goos job dude, really nice to read this comment after I played through the game myself a few months ago!
9:10 the problem is that what he thinks are "difficult" puzzles, are actually medium difficulty
well that's just like... your opinion man.
it is mine as well.. now shut the fuck up, you are out of your element!
+Folgemilch21 just take it easy man.
+Folgemilch21 shut up, donny
+JamLover247 most of other "reviews" praise the game without explaining why it's any good, then saying that it's worth 40$ (which is total bullshit) and giving it a 10/10.
+Leonid Chernyshov I just watched the IGN and GT reviews and they literally explained why they liked it. I mean sure, you can defend George's opinion and disregard the others because they're the big, bad reviewers.That's totally not double standards of opinions.
I understand this video is largely, "this game is not for me", but between this and your assessment of The Old Hunters, I couldn't be more disappointed. I was excited to hear your analysis (even though it's titled a review) of the implications Blow is making with what is video-gaming, what is experiencing, the evolution of scientific knowledge, and how Blow views the world. Alas, this game was made for me, and I thought it was the exact stroke of genius Blow thinks it is.
I don't understand comments that claim he spent the whole video shitting on the game, when what he said was "it's not for me, but I can see why other people would like it." That is completely NOT the same as "it sucked and it's bad."
+silver Harloe The fanboy cult of the game must defend their idol.
+SugaryCoyote I wonder when they'll start sacrificing some of their own to prove their devotion.
+Richard Blank Where did I say he should be immune to criticism? I just think "it was bad" and "I didn't like it" are different statements and should be treated as such. I'm sure we could find things to criticize without putting words in this mouth.
+silver Harloe he often times stated that the puzzles themselves were monotonous and boring, or not interesting and such. yes he also said that "it's not for me" but then said that sometimes the rules weren't clear or that it broke it own rules and such.. and those things are simply not true.
this game might break the rules you've build up in your head, but all that means is, that you had the wrong rules in your head to begin with.
+LE0NSKA because the game is not good at explaining those rules
This game took a piece of me, i've never been on a mental rollercoaster like it. That square shaped puzzle is burned into my retinas... Forever! Lol
The gameplay footage of him trying and failing at a puzzle that resembles a tree with an apple very obviously placed within view of the puzzle with him talking about "Frustrating, ambiguous puzzle design" isn't helping the argument. I haven't played this game before, but c'mon man... that tree and the puzzle were EXACTLY the same, and the tree had a bright red apple on one of the branches. Figure it out.
I think he might’ve been colorblind
This, happening in the background... just hurts me 4:02
I played it blind, no walkthroughs, no guides, no reviews, no footage... completed the game in 19 hours and I HAD A BLAST!
It is an awesome game, but you have to be driven by your own curiosity instead of a abstract carrot in a stick in order to tackle it, in order to have fun exploring and figuring stuff out :)
You're not supposed to smash your face against the puzzles until you beat them. I'm getting to the end of this game now and I would asspull that only 30% of the time I solve a puzzle the first time I encounter it. If you don't feel like you're going to solve it any time soon, you just need to walk away. The difficulty curve comes from leaving the puzzles you have the most trouble with for last. The structure comes from figuring out what the symbols mean and what the rules are. If you don't understand what a symbol represents, that means it's not time to solve that puzzle yet.
It will come to you, it just takes time. If there's a puzzle that's frustrating you just take a stroll and relax. Look around for totem puzzles. Maybe take a boat ride. I usually take long walks and end up revisiting old areas and discovering new things about them that I completely miss. By the time I'm done my little adventures I'm mentally equipped to solve the puzzle I was stuck on, and then I can complete about two more before being stuck solid again.
Basically just don't assume you're going to tear through this game in a weekend like you did with Portal. You need to find out how to enjoy being on the island and do puzzles because that's what you want to do. I hated this game too in the beginning, but as it started to unravel and I found out what really is I learned to love it.
You know what? I think this is a fair review. The Witness was absolutely phenomenal for me, but that's because I love puzzles. The game was just a pretty wrapper for some neat puzzling. If the puzzles are a barricade to what you want, and not the actual thing you want, then you won't like The Witness. If you want to be made to feel smart, instead of wanting to put your smarts to the test, you probably won't like The Witness. If you have a problem with admitting you might be wrong about how you think a certain puzzle element works, or if you can't handle walking away from a puzzle you don't feel equipped to solve and coming back later, you will not enjoy The Witness. It seems to be a very niche game, and it only makes sense that people who don't enjoy puzzles enough to pay forty bucks for a pretty puzzle book just won't like it.
If you like puzzles though, The Witness is fucking fantastic all the way through and definitely 100% worth your $40.
When I watched a friend of mine play this game and he got one of the pretentious meta-non-endings, it occurred to me that this is the game equivalent of the movie Boyhood. It's something meant for people who think they are artsy to feel superior and cultured, but really there is no substance to the game. At least not any that's worth $40 dollars.
+Dexter Riley story's not really pretentious, pretty straightforward imo
As much as I love your videos, and I really don't think this game is for me either. But when you used the example of some of the puzzles having environmental clues and it shows you trying constantly at a puzzle in a small forest of pink trees LOOK AT THE FUCKING GREEN TREE WITH THE APPLE ON IT. Jesus christ how did you not notice that first time? It's literally right in front of your screen and the puzzle is shaped like a fucking tree!
+whityouyahbam He was... That's why it was on his screen while he was trying to do the puzzle... But he had no idea what the tree was supposed to mean in the context of the game.
There's a tree, and there's a pencil drawing of a tree. Puzzle: Start. Go ahead and draw things.
What I meant was that it's pretty obvious to just follow the path of the branches to reach the apple, but he followed every single one except for the branch with the apple on the drawing.
I'm not sure if he was just doing that as an example or really couldn't figure it out. It's on the same level as a 'follow the line to reach the end of the maze' puzzle you find in kids books.
whityouyahbam This isn't comparable, kids books have instructions. This game doesn't.
He didn't get it. YOU getting it and him not getting doesn't somehow "invalidate" his opinion that the game was poorly designed, if not just boring as sin.
You're upset because he doesn't agree with your own feelings about the game. That's what this boils down to.
Jade Venator What? Literally my first sentence of my first comment was 'I really don't think this game is for me either'.
I don't like the look of the game at all, it looks like on of the least inventive puzzle games I've seen in recent years and I agree with him on most of his statements about the game. I mean, it literally is a cheap puzzle book with a fancy coat of paint in the form of an explorable world contained in it.
What my original comment was about was that that puzzle was ridiculously easy, I'm dumb as bricks and could figure it out within the twenty-second clip we got in the video, so I felt like his criticism and actions in the footage during that puzzle either weren't genuine (He was playing it up for the video) or he simply didn't even look a few inches to the left of the screen to see the solution to the puzzle right in front of him.
I think his main point with showing that section in the video was that at the time it wasn't obvious because never before that point was it shown that using resources outside of the puzzlebox was a solution. So when he got to that point he didn't even think to look at the tree in the background.
Try The Talos Principle, it's more like Portal and Antichamber
Yep, while I enjoyed the game immensely and fully intend to 100% it (second achievement), I have to admit, I agree with you on many points. It's cold-hearted and very strange beast of a game. Pretty looking but utterly lifeless. Not only hard, but alien and distant. Yet to me it is very intriguing and interesting, partly because of this, partly because of its' very thorough and deliberate design. In some ways it is anti-Undertale in nature. It certainly wasn't made to warm hearts and feel good about yourself, but rather melt brains and feel unworthy. Sorry, my English is bad, but I tried. ;-)
You did good job, reads well
Gotta disagree on the tutorial puzzles being poorly designed. In fact, they do the opposite of what George says. They very clearly explain the rules for all the different little symbols. They purposefully give you ones you can brute force, and then one you can't. You have to go back through the ones you unintentionally solved until you figure out the rule. Because you have to learn the rule, you teach it to yourself in a way that sticks in the memory. Calling that "bad design" is not accurate. Wanting more explanation is fine, but what is in the game is not bad design
No they dont
@@budlikycz2445 Yep they do. Git good
There is no such thing as a puzzle you can't brute force.
If you want a good puzzle game, play Infinifactory :-) As for this game, looks like something you could play in a web browser, no need for the fancy graphic world.
+xisumavoid Browser? This could easily be an app on the android store. And the philosophy quotes are the dumbest most up your own ass shit I've seen in a game for some time.
+xisumavoid Love both infinifactory and the witness, and there are a lot of puzzles that use perspective, reflections and positional lighting. Not really suitable for a flash game.
RedWurm They don't need it. Putting yourself in the right position in a 3D space to solve the 2D puzzle is neat but really unnecessary, it comes off as bad design and a really lazy way to pad out your game.
+DAudIcI if he made the game you're talking about, the majority of puzzles in The Witness would not exist
+xisumavoid If this game were just the 2D puzzles as a browser game or app, I would have little-to-no interest in it. But as the full game that it actually is, it's quickly becoming one of my favorite games. I assure you, there's a lot more to it than just walking from one puzzle panel to the next.
Infinifactory is a great game too! But honestly, it's way more "puzzles for the sake of puzzles" than The Witness. There's a huge part of the gameplay that is completely unmentioned in this review. The moment I accidentally discovered it, my mind was blown. It completely changes the way you look at everything on the island and it's incredibly satisfying to hunt down. It also would be completely impossible for a simple browser game or phone app.
I think SBH's description of accidentally solving a puzzle and moving on to the next illustrates the kind of mindset you need for this game. If I lucked into solving a puzzle without understanding the concept, then I would try to get wrong solutions so that I understood why my original solution worked. This game is about experimenting with the rules until you have a firm grasp on them, not mindlessly trying to brute force every puzzle.
I was expecting the puzzles to be environmental... not panels.
that's disappointing.
+Min Lungelow They are both. For me this game captured what I liked about the Myst series more than any other puzzle game if that is what you were looking for. Of course we all have our own likes and dislikes so maybe it wouldn't be as good to you, but I found exploring the island super exciting, mysterious, and fun.
I just really really love puzzles.
My only gripe is that, when I hear a bad review of this game, it almost always comes down the player not being "smart enough", and I would have to disagree. I think it's less a lack of intelligence and more a lack of patience, maybe with a side order of high expectations. Every puzzle in The Witness can be solved using very basic logic and I firmly believe that anyone could solve them (without resorting to random luck). The game is designed to engage your brain and enhance your ability to think analytically.
It really is just a puzzle book made into a video game, but to have it presented in beautifully stylized landscapes with overarching connections and plenty of hidden goodies is simply amazing. This game scratched an itch I never even knew I had, but after the mixed player reception I fear that it may stand alone... which sucks.
"In fact, all these screen are why I think this game is generations behind Portal, Antichamber, even Braid. Unlike those games a vast majority of the puzzles in the Witness aren't organically built into the level design. Whearas those other games make use of simulated space, time, and physics, most of The Witness' puzzles are so flat and archaic that they could work exactly the same on a piece of paper."
^ Hearing this tells me that you missed the most exciting revelations in this game and what makes the design of the island so awe inspiring. You do need paper to take notes (I think that's a better method that running to photoshop - that sounds rough!) but the way this game uses simulated space to solve puzzles is actually amazing.
I love your videos and enjoyed hearing why you didn't like the game. I hope after some time you're able to go back and maybe see what I think is so special about it.
I couldn't agree more. I just don't understand what the appeal is to solving flat mazes to unlock the beautiful lush environment. Surely there must be a way to use these environments to solve puzzles so the art isn't just another onlooker to a flat confusing game.
I absolutely loved The Witness, one of the best games I've ever played. It's absolutely magical to me, shame it didn't do much for you. And you had to use Photoshop!?
4:04 seriously? this one seems pretty obvious, no?
2:54 calling it "under designed" sounds blasphemous to me
"this isn't fun it's a sheet of maths homeworks!"
Yeah I guess the thing is I love maths.
I felt the same way. The puzzles felt so arbitrary and pointless it made me wonder why should I even bother finishing the game.
There's not even any context to these puzzles. Its just "here some panels, now solve them!" rinse and repeat for 16 hours. I was better off just doing exam paper questions from my university course :/
Some of your criticisms seem to stem from the game being simply too hard. Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with that.
But a lot of your other criticisms do highlight things that have made me apprehensive to buy this myself. It's good to hear that perspective some someone who has actually played the game, as it seems almost everyone else has showered it with nothing but praise, yet I've not seen anything about this game that makes it seem worthy of that. I mean, not that it's not well or cleverly designed, but rather it just doesn't look interesting or fun.
And that's a disappointment to me. I really wanted to love this game. I'm a huge fan of Braid, and have been anticipating this one ever since it was first announced, albeit cautiously. Seems my worries were not unfounded. Maybe I'll pick it up when it gets a lot cheaper, but not any time soon.
+Scrustle Its not even hard its just purposefully abstract and badly designed which makes people think its smart because you're only solving puzzles. Also it comes off as really pretentious with its ending and use of quotes. Jonathan Blow really wants us to know how deep he is.
+Scrustle I think you have to really know you will like this kind of game. I knew when I saw material of the game that I would enjoy it but this game is NOT for everyone. There has only been 3 panels out of 500 that I personally felt weren't designed well. If you are unsure if you would enjoy it you very likely might not. I knew I would like it and I was right. Loved every second of the game.
+Thanatos388 jfc, this game is not deep story-wise. it is very straightforward. I'm not sure why people are predisposed to thinking that every indie game is predisposed to attempting to be narratively deep when just some of them attempt to present a story in a nonstandard way. not deep, just not standard.
and then wat, badly designed? good god, man
happyguyxlii Did you watch the video where he talks about how nothing is explained and its easy as hell to clear the tutorial puzzles without learning anything? Or how you need to stand someplace specific in the 3D space to solve a 2D puzzle? Sounds cool but its superfluous and just pads the game.
+Thanatos388 If the perspective puzzles were not in the game, it would be a shorter game for sure. But, that does not make those puzzles any less valid, and in fact, they serve to justify the reason for the Island in the first place.
Completely agree. One of my biggest semantic gripe was the lack of variety in the, what was it, 500+ puzzles?
Then you missed a lot of the game.
Thank you for concisely summing up everything I hate about this game. This is why you're one of my favourite game critics on TH-cam.
You suppose to come back and check what NOT count as a solution if you accidently solved the puzzle without understanding the rule.
8:28No ambient background sound?That's just wrong, it's all ambient background sounds. No insects, true, but no wind? What?
you know what's interesting tho, b-hop didn't seem to experience the conversation-like process of tutorial panels. i say this because he wrote "didn't want to spoil all of them i guess..." aren't the ones you don't want to spoil at the beginning?
No mention of the Talos Principle?
Hm, I am not sure, but it sounded like you didnt know you were able to solve solved puzzles again. That would allow the player to test their hypotheses and figure out the rules. Every puzzle - even the harder ones - allows the player to refine their hypotheses and zone in on. Or rethink their hypotheses entirely, potentially having missed one. The player can build up their own person knowledge base and ideas of how everything works. Kind of like every one of us does in "real life/reality".
Personally, the game taught me a lot of why the scientific method works so well. As well as that not everything needs to make sense or needs to be understood in order to experience it.
Basically he just isn't good at line puzzles.
"Maybe the puzzles couldn't have been constrained to the screens" -- Evidently Super Bunnyhop was oblivious to the other 50% of the game, and hence people watching this review left wondering why a line-drawing game needs fancy 3D graphics.
Yo, seen your comments on a few Witness reviews.
Which was your favourite Witness Let’s play? Been looking for a decent one to watch but they all suffer from the same lack of attention span and direction.
Savnarae had the best one.
Philip Broughton-Mills thanks 😊
Philip Broughton-Mills ok, 2 mins into the first video and I feel like this is going to be good. Thanks 👍🏻
@@Fogmeister Might I suggest Keith Ballard's playthrough?
How many of the obelisks have you activated? Because your line about environmental puzzles being "too few and too late" or whatnot suggests to me that you missed a solid 20%+ of the game, minimum. I was finding environmental puzzles just two or three hours into what has so far been 25+ hours of play, and I find multiple more every couple hours. Technically, you can find a puzzle in the environment about five seconds after starting the game, and two more minutes later.
That suggests you haven't actually found any, and are referencing something else entirely when you discuss 'environmental' puzzles.
This is a good game. But there are like 10 million small irritations, that keeps me from actually enjoying the game.
From this footage, it seems to me that you didn't engage with the game at all but tried to brute force your way through every puzzle by guessing instead of trying to understand the rules and language. And if you didn't understand the rules, then you don't see the thematic synergy between them, the audio/visual records, and the island itself.
Most of the fun I find in the witness is precisely figuring out the obscure rules. Also I have yet to experience any inconsistency in the mechanics.
There is no inconsistency. If you find inconsistency in “the rules” it is because you haven’t worked out what the rules are and you need to re-evaluate the rules.
This reviewer seemed to miss like 90% of the content of the game. 😂
Considering that George sat down with pen and paper to take notes and solve through 100% of the content of FEZ, his feelings on the gameplay are sort of surprising to me. I found much of the FEZ secrets far more opaque than The Witness. There were many I stumbled upon through absolute dumb luck. Whereas as least with The Witness, it was(in all but one accidental case) because I understood something.
There are very valid criticisms and shortcomings. I definitely agree that some difficulty changes were odd, as well as the lack of any animals making the island feel strangely static. Also agree it was weird how some puzzles were set in sequences, but didn't open anything or offer any reward when all completed. It's strangely inconsistent. There are odd details and issues with its design that are surprisingly sub-optimal considering how much time was spent on it. I definitely had to get hints for one of the simpler puzzles because I got distracted and didn't notice something that changed in the environment. I think there's sort of a general issue with telegraphing when/where something is about to happen, or which puzzles will have consequences. I heard the sound, but I looked in completely the wrong direction(no surround sound).
I think how he relates it to the other examples basically says everything, though. George likes the ones that are dynamic and involve space/movement. Those are more intuitive and pleasurable to the human brain. The Witness is definitely more interested in extreme abstractions. It's a harder thing to like, and it requires you to focus, but also be calm and careful. Some people just have the right kind of thinking cap for this, and others don't.
This game isn't really for the masses, but was bought by the masses purely because of the developer's recognition and this isn't the first I've heard of someone not enjoying themselves. There was way too much attention and anticipation for something that doesn't appear to have been made for broad users in mind. It's definitely unrelenting and unapologetic in its own way.
Hey, thanks for putting this out there. I've seen nothing but glowing praise for the game in the early reviews, and I was holding off on a purchase until someone actually addressed the concerns I had about the game. You went into depth on all of them! Like you said, I can see where this game is appealing to a certain kind of gamer but I am not that kind of gamer. You gave me the information I needed to know whether I should buy this game - thanks!
P.S. I've been watching your videos for a long time and really like them. I wish you had a Patreon so I could support you directly!
4:16
I haven't played or even heard of this game prior to that video but c'mon the tree in the background is such an obvious giveaway.
I'm at the beginning of your video and I loved The Witness, but I appreciate that you have the wisdom to recognize it is not for you. I've read several reviews which try to pass their personal experience as a general truth and it's annoying. The game is definitely not for everyone and people genuinely disliking is not surprising.
saying the environmental puzzles came "too few, too late", just tells me you missed a lot...
Maybe him missing a lot of them over the span of 40 hours is a sign that it's unintuitive to find them in the first place, and that finding them isn't exactly easy for some people, even if they try. 🤔
So if that's the case, what are your thoughts on Professor Layton?
Could it be excused on the basis that most of Professor Layton's puzzles are comparatively more self contained and diverse?
And that the story and surrounding narrative is vaguely-self aware of it's own absurdity?
I feel like even though you stated that this game isn’t for you, you were asking for the game to be something it isn’t. The game is flat screen line puzzles that sometime use the environment. Not environmental line puzzles. If you were looking for that there are the other games you mentioned, but it felt like your argument was contrived because you found line puzzles boring.
It's so weird hearing someone who didn't like this game talk about it. There is just a complete breakdown of communication or something. Complete lack of understanding of what is cool/new/good about it. I don't expect everyone to like it, but almost every single point was like someone just told me 2+2=5 and the sky is green. It's like an alternative reality or something.
The funny thing is, a lot of the stuff this review says is completely true. There are no rewards. The puzzles are hard and the symbols unintuitive. The "tutorials" don't teach you the mechanics. All of that is completely true.
However, none of those are negative points against the game. All of it is completely intentional (I mean the game WAS in development for 7 years!!). And I completely agree with all of those decisions.
Firstly, the lack of rewards is not only refreshing, it's smart. Extrinsic rewards devalue the activity itself. There are multiple studies that have found extrinsic rewards in the long term have a negative impact on people's engagement with an activity. Not only do people enjoy the activity itself less, but if it requires any sort of creative thought, they perform worse. In other words, according to current scientific understanding of how we respond to reward systems, puzzle games should definitively avoid them.
As for teaching the mechanics, the point isn't that you are shown how to solve puzzles. The whole game is basically a tribute to the scientific method. You solve the very basic panels (by guessing generally. very reasonable if there are only 2 or 3 possibilities), form a hypothesis, test it, adjust it to fit new data etc.
You go on about how it isn't "fun". Perhaps you have a different definition of fun, but it's not really meant to be "fun". I personally got a lot of enjoyment out of it and found it very rewarding (despite the fact the game offered no rewards). But I wouldn't really say it was "fun". That's a very limiting word. Plenty of things that are worthwhile are not what I'd call "fun".
One final point, and it's kind of an important one: you say a lot of the puzzles could work in a puzzle book. That's simply not true. Once you fully understand the rules, yes. But the every single series of puzzles fundamentally rely on the interactive medium for one simple reason: it needs to tell you if you're right or not. A puzzle book has answers in the back, but you can only check them once because then you know the answer. in The Witness you can check your answer as many times as you like. Which is important because until you have narrowed down the rules completely there are multiple solutions which seem like they should be valid.
I think it's an acquired taste, when I started playing it I was *this* close to refunding because it seemed like a game with a bunch of fluff around some obscure, but mechanically simple puzzles, but something about it really grabs me. I personally felt extremely gratified from some of the solutions as I was forced to think outside of the box and figure things out for myself. It's usually not my jam, and I'm generally pretty dumb, but I just love everything about it so far. It feels refreshing to play a game with almost no pretense, something that just throws you into the world and expects YOU, the player, to understand it, rather than channel your perspective through a preset story. Even if it boils the mechanics down to such a basic level it feels unique in that sense, it sacrifices that "organic" quality of design that games like Braid or Portal have but makes up for it in sheer cleverness and surprise.
Rewards are only for those who seek momentary pleasures, but the true reward is when you witness how the game make you behold yourself
Thank you for listing antichamber in your short list of great puzzle games. Antichamber is awesome and definitely the most fun I've had in a puzzle game, and I don't hear about it enough.
The thing that separates the witness from Myst, is that Myst is a better game in my opinion. Myst does a better job conveying the solution to you, and it's a lot shorter. The only thing that compares the two games is that they are both set on an abandoned island. If johns objective was to bore the shit out of me then mission accomplished.
the talos principal worked well because of a strong narrative story and balanced challenge
+Goatsee too bad the game itself in no way supported the story or vice versa
+Goatsee
If you want a puzzle game where the gameplay and narrative really add to each other play "the Swapper".
My biggest problem with the Talos Principle was that the game really lacks something that really binds everything in the game together.
+Hattori Hanzo +Le Green Bean It absolutely did though. Didn't you finish the game? The whole game is an AI test, so puzzle solving is the very core of the concept. The story is build around that. You are one AI among many to be tested in your logical thinking as well as your "human" qualities. Your logical thinking is tested by the puzzles, your humanity by the interactions with the terminals and your obedience to Elohim. Even the level design factors in, introducing these new AI's to humanities culture and past.
UGOTNUKED
Sure, but the puzzles themselves could've been anything still.
UGOTNUKED thats what the game tells you, but to me it always felt like "ok, now in order to get the next batch of terminal dialogue and messages, complete 5 more puzzles and you are set to progress".
Talos Principle isnt something like Portal.
Great Puzzles, Great Writting, but they definitely werent built around each other.
I am so glad to find someone else who just isn't enjoying The Witness. Let me first say that I think The Witness is a fantastically crafted game, the environments are beautiful and exploring them was a joy. And yet for as objectively as I can call it a good game, I can also say that I didn't enjoy it in the slightest. Now, when it came to many of the first few areas that use the environment surrounding the puzzle to give you the solution, I was enthralled. Those were the moments where I was most enjoying the witness, the parts that felt doable and satisfying.
However, come the later areas of the game this idea seems to be dropped, and as SBH said many of the puzzles seem completely confined to their puzzle-boards. To me it became very tedious to go through the process of elimination in expending all possible solutions to come to the one that is arbitrarily correct. Puzzle after puzzle began to take me longer and longer to solve, with their numbers seemingly inflating in the process. There are over 50 puzzles in the Treehouse area and it just felt like way too much. The joy of figuring out the rules is quickly lost after having to apply the rules you've already figured out time and time again on puzzles that grow in size and complexity.
Maybe I'm just impatient, but I could not find myself able to finish all 11 areas of the game, and the ending for getting any less was extremely lack-luster. There may be a better ending beyond what I've found, but I'm not hopeful and not in a rush to find it.
Why didn't you mentioned anything about BBC video clips???
It's completely possible he never found a single one. Judging by his frustration and complaints he's done the minimum required to unlock the first ending which is pretty barebones.
This is like if Professor Layton used the same puzzle for the whole game, and completely lacked a narrative. How this was so well received is beyond me, and I like puzzle games.
Gotta say, I appreciate how frequently you upload, especially considering how high your standards of quality are.
i am two weeks away from dying horribly i was a real og subscriber you're just a poser
Para Soul just keep telling yourself that, you damn TROLL. Why dont you go twirl your markiplier meme mustache while XD'ing to epic fnaf scare cam compilations.
i am two weeks away from dying horribly bully
Para Soul go cry about it, you big baby
i am two weeks away from dying horribly maybe i will
I'm so glad for the quality of this channel's presentation. I remember watching Reviews on the Run as a kid, sitting on the couch wondering when I should turn the TV off and actually PLAY video games. This channel actually makes me want to watch, even if it's a game I wouldn't normally care about.
*One of the best Portal 2 tracks begins when you start to complain.*
OH YES DADDY
This video is a great example of why reviewers are so useful. Your distaste of this game had you deliver information in a way that gave me insights about the game that I feel other content I've consumed was missing. I'm actually more interested in this game then I was before. Thanks. Great video.
Thanks for making this video. This is almost exactly the experience I had playing The Witness, and even more frustrating than the game itself was that it seemed *everyone* else was on board with the game. I understand the strengths of the game, but it just does nothing for me.
Sure, the average player beats it in 16 and a half hours, but they'll use guides, help, and the community. Beating this game without guides, though? Jeez, that seems like a nightmare.
I still have one big problem with this review. At 9:30 George makes a big assumption about the demographic of New York Times crosswords.
I've been doing them since I was 10, and my love of puzzles has only grown in the 8 years since then. Again, I'm 18 and I _completed_ a sudoku book for fun this summer (not to mention putting 30 hours into Picross 3D).
Aside from that I respect everything George said about The Witness. Disliking puzzles is fine. In all honesty, I have as much trouble getting into fast-paced games as George does getting into slow ones.
I just wanted to point at that specific moment and say "No! The idea of packing those puzzles into a video game with an allegorical message is _extra_ appealing to someone young who also appreciates New York Times crosswords".
Anyway, The Witness gets 2nd place in the Game of the Year competition for 2016, right after Picross 3D Round 2.
So the only puzzle I was able to see the solution to was the one where there's an apple in the tree behind the puzzle. Everything else made absolutely no sense whatsoever. And if the island is pretty much pointless, just some boring scenery to walk through between puzzles, why does it even exist? Why not just have a game where you play one puzzle, and then it loads the next one, and then you solve that and it loads the next one, and you can replay them all via a simple menu? Why the island?
Think I'm going to give this a pass.
+mjc0961 Why not just play the game?
+Julien Iafrancesco I don't know if he'll answer, but I will. I think it'd be neat, but that still doesn't answer the question of the relevance of the island.
Does the island convey a story that's not told in words, but in actions?
Does the island have any puzzles that aren't "draw a line" (over-simplication for conciseness)?
Does the island enrich my experience of solving the puzzles or is it mostly cut off from the puzzles?
These are questions that can be answered without spoiling anything in the game but do place value on the island overworld beyond a pretty set piece. If a pretty set piece is enough justification for you and many other people who seem to enjoy the game, then great. However, that might not be (and sometimes isn't) enough justification for others. Asking people to put up with something they don't see any value in (especially asking them $40 for the experience) is akin to asking them to listen to poetry in another language. They may enjoy it and think its pretty, but they aren't getting any deeper value or sensations from the experience.
Okay, but the one with the apple in the tree seemed really obvious
As a fan of colorful puzzle games I actually feel mostly the same as you do.
The biggest problem I have with the game is exactly that the core puzzle - maze panel - simply isn't fun for me and takes me out of the game by forcing me to focus on a 2D flat screen 90% of the time.
The environments look dead and creepy due to lack of texture, I do like the colors though. And some of the messages in the game are interesting.
So it's for the most part a phone puzzle game with an unnecessary but pretty framing device.
wonder why you didn't also use the talos principle as an example like portal or antichamber. that game certainly offers narrative reward.
Dude, dude, dude...just git gud.
Seriously though it looks like a really niche game being lauded as a must-play experience.
If you don’t wanna drop 40 on this game, go get a book of mazes or a sodoku book and it will scratch the same itch. This game is random disjointed puzzles; there’s no overarching narrative or point to anything you do; it’s puzzle here and puzzle there, and it’s all pointless
Most of the really cool stuff in the game cannot be experienced in any other way than it being in a video-game. It's true you can put most of the panel puzzles in a phone/tablet app but the environment and perspective play a massive role in a lot of it, including those same panel puzzles.
Potential spoiler:
There are over 100 environmental puzzles where there is no panel. You need to look around and find them and they are built into the world itself or, in at least one specific case I've seen, the lack of world (negative space). You can't buy a book of sudoku and call it the same. It's an insult to this game and completely disrespects how much incredible craftsmanship and polish was required to make it. If the game is not for you, that's fine. The point is that by finishing puzzles you get more puzzles. If you don't like that, that's fine. But to say it's not worth 40$ is misleading because you wouldn't buy this game for 2$ if you don't enjoy it. For those who do, I can easily see them paying a lot more than 40$. For some it's their favorite video game.
To people who don't "get it" I recommend playing with somebody else. It's a really fun experience and you can help each other by noticing different things which is super collaborative and rewarding and a great binding experience.
I loved this video, George. I've spent a lot of time reading the comments and it is unfortunate how quick people are to call you out for wanting your hand held when you spent almost forty(?) minutes gushing over Dark Souls. You, like me, just ain't into 2D puzzlers like this. Your gripes about the audio and visual design were totally valid. This game ain't for us, and it's not the most well-executed game for it's niche. I guess it seems okay... I guess...
BUT THAT'S JUST LIKE MY OPINION MAN
Well, that's disappointing. I thought that the game was going to pull out some cool twist after the first hour or so of repetitive puzzles, kinda like Portal, but after hearing that it really is just a collection of increasingly challenging maze puzzles with no reason, strong narrative or original mechanics, I know this game really isn't for me.
Man, I got that apple one instantly. And I never even played the game.
What the heck is the solution to the last puzzle he showed @ 10:30 ? Unless you can rotate the block how could you ever contain the bottom right shape when it lies outside of all possible locations for it on the grid?
+sordsmen3456 Spoiler: the blocks can be "moved around" depending on how you draw the line.
George has seemed like nothing but an extremely intelligent dude through every video he's produced. And if he makes these puzzles out to be as boring and obnoxious as they appear, I'm inclined to believe him. The graphical style is neat, but it seems like it deserves a better game. And no music? No sound design? That could have been its one saving grace!
+RevolverPhantom the game has no music because that would distract from and defeat the purpose of its themes which are isolation and self-reflection. And yes there is sound design. METICULOUSLY crafted sound design that , if you have a home theater system, is so detailed and accurate to each and one of your surroundings. The game itself is meticulusly crafted. Everything is made wit a clear intent and purpose. EVERYTHING. People are disregarding all of Blow's minimalism as laziness or pretension, but that's simply not true. He made a perfect game. A loose yet cohesive self-teaching game that is entirely configurable to one's playstyle and pace. And any amount of superfluous narrative is entirely up to the player to insert and interpret.
+Douglas Harris You're the kind of person to call a discarded tissue on the floor of an art exhibit a stunning and introspective look at the duality of man.
+Le Green Bean Have you played through the game?
+RevolverPhantom what do you mean no sound design? There's no music precisely so that you can hear properly.
+RevolverPhantom
It actually has amazing sound design. I don't know where he got that from, there's tons of ambience, and I never really missed the music.
"George has seemed like nothing but an extremely intelligent dude."
And I would agree, but with this and having played the game he does seem like an idiot to be honest.
The game was clearly trying to be more than just flat panel puzzles, but it's major shortcoming is that its majority of puzzles were just that. I still think the panel puzzles were challenging and engaging, but they're clearly not for everyone, and they're probably not the type of puzzles people expect from a puzzle video game. On the other hand, the mountain river epiphany moment, the reflection puzzles, the glare puzzles, and the environmental puzzles were brilliant and left a much greater impression on me. The type of puzzles that are about perpective, framing the problem in a different way, those are the ones that CAN'T be replicated on paper. I understand that the panels are a medium to convey such puzzles, but the actual panel puzzles themselves are at such a disconnect with the game's theme of perspective that I wonder if the perspective tricks could be pulled off in a way that didn't involve panels.
Dear god, you missed *so much* about The Witness.
You said that the puzzles were too complicated and had too many conflicting rules, but actually one thing I really appreciate about the design of The Witness is that they kept the puzzles just simple enough. With the ruleset of the game, the puzzles could easily be made needlessly hard, but the game sticks at having the grids relatively small and doesn't combine all that many puzzle elements together at once until the later parts of the game. I think the game had just the right balance of being hard enough that you have to take a step back and think for a while every now and then but being easy enough to finish without a walkthrough.
Thank god you said it.
+Ben Rose : Take out the 3D environment, and you're left with a $2 smart phone game.
+Duke Jaywalker *$40 smartphone game, do you hate indie devs so much you want them to starve to death? if jonathan blow didnt make $5mil in a week he would literally be homeless right now
+Real Wolf So? His personal financial status should make zero impact on your valuation of a product. I've not played this game yet but I wont be spending £30 on it. looks like a £10-15 game at most. If that would cripple him financially that's his fault for spending over 6 years developing this thing. He's not my friend I don't owe him anything.
+Peach Papaya sarcasm does not translate well when written. i was about to rage at him as well with that comment. i have my biases i know.
Real Wolf wow this guy is for real.
This would have been totally acceptable... if it came out in 1996. I'm sure pen and paper puzzles would still be cheaper, though.
Are you reacting to this? SEE YOU IN COURT M8.
@Super Bunnyhop what'd you think of Talos Principle?
Aw, I thought you would mention some of the more pretentious moments of the game too.
I share some of your frustrations esp 3:38
You learn something like 10 seconds ago and it immediately adds another curveball instead of easing you in by completing a whole set based on one idea.
It's cool but man is it annoying sometimes when you just want to feel like you can progress once it clicks but it robs you of that so quickly. And it does legit have homework vibes sometimes.
I cannot fathom why someone thought it was a good idea to make a beautiful world for a video game, and then have the gameplay just been walking between points and pushing your face up to a screen to solve a puzzle. Over and over and over again
+El Burrito because it works, and it works for a lot of people. sbh wasn't one of those people, I guess
Creating a beautiful world then having gameplay consisting of looking at small panels all the time is obviously a metaphor to how beautiful the outside world is yet all we do is play computer games on a screen, it's too deep for you Mann /s
Jokes aside, I did think that briefly, but then maybe it could be a metaphor for the developer too.
+El Burrito There is more to the environment than you may first think. People don't talk about it, because for most of us, that moment of realization is amazing. But the puzzles do serve as switches and can manipulate the world around you, so there again is more to it than that.
+El Burrito
I can see it being a good idea, I just don't see why they would charge much money for it, or expect a broad audience to like it, or to hype it up. I don't know if they tried to hype it up or what (I suspect that they did), but for whatever reason the game got way too much hype than it deserved from what I can see.