I also disliked the old point’n’click “puzzles” where you had to eg. use some completely random object on another completely random object to get ahead, and there was really no way to logically deduce what the hell you were supposed to do so it was just a question of using everything on everything until something happened. I’ve always been partial to how Cyan (makers of eg. the Myst series) does puzzles; nowadays it seems like puzzle games are really dumbed down and barely qualify as puzzles with the amount of hand-holding they do, but if I play eg. Myst or Obduction I pretty much have to use a notebook to keep all my clues straight.

So, I guess for me a good puzzle is one that’s actually challenging but logical, and I especially enjoy ones that tie together multiple different things from different areas of the game and aren’t self-contained, ie. you have to combine knowledge you picked up along the way to solve it.

So my preferences are maybe a bit more on the “hardcore puzzle” side, I guess. I just love a challenge.

The Myst games probably qualify as my most satisfying puzzle experiences, although I can’t really name any one specific puzzle.

I like how totk brought back actual puzzle dungeons like the classic Zelda games. I also liked the puzzles in the old tomb raider games.

Oh, in Detective Grimoire’s Tangle Tower, I loved their hint system. I’ve heard some people did not like the hint system as it held their hands through out the game, but as I only used it when I felt really lost, the hint system helped me steer towards places I needed to go without advancing / progressing the story plot ahead of me.

A good puzzle, at its essence, is a puzzle that makes you feel like you had just the right tools to solve it. It brings a feeling of accomplishment once overcome. There is a third parameter that is brought up by your post; if there is a high frequency of puzzles, they need to be varied in their solutions. Together, these parameters make for great puzzles when designers follow them. I find myself bored and unwilling when a game uses its same gimmick for every puzzle. But I also understand it can be challenging, as a GM I make a lot of puzzles for my players. The hardest part is always making sure they aren’t similar to previous ones AND ensuring my target solver (which can be the entire party and is a lot) feels like the puzzle cannot be solved by anyone but them. This is easier to achieve in TTRPGs than video games. In videogames, when I design a puzzle, I try to design an open solution. (i.e. get x to location y) This way, the players are not limited on how they solve it. Freedom on how to solve instead of many solutions is a great way to implement puzzles in a game thag allows the player the freedom to think like themselves.

GMTK has done some videos on this, and does great observations on the gameplay designs of some games.

• How Nintendo solved Zelda’s open world problem
• Designing Difficulty in his magnet themed puzzle game

For me, a good puzzle is when the concept is introduced to me bit by bit, then extended from there. Unfortunately this can be a bit of a fine balance as some game will literally dedicate too many levels for each new concept, and so the puzzles bore out easily.

In other news, I’ve really been enjoying Paquerette Down the Bunburrows. Don’t mind the “( ≧∀≦) I luv bunnies <3 <3” theme, the puzzles are neat and gets progressively harder, and has nice collectibles and secrets that greatly extends the gameplay.