Support NeoGAF

[roknin]

I don't know when that started being a thing but I don't like it.

Don't get me wrong, if the player is able to get stuck because of something really obtuse that you pretty much have to guess at how to proceed, then yeah, that I could see. Think Simon's Quest tornado at the wall - though I can't recall if there's a strong in-game hint there that might've been lost due to translation.

Other than that? If its just a matter of "you just don't see the answer yet"? That's half the fun of gaming, IMHO. And there's few feelings as satisfying as when you figure out what got you stuck or where you got lost.

 

[Dice]

Play point & click adventure games and you will come to understand what being stuck is. "Figuring out" does not always have some correlation to logic or skills.

 

[NBtoaster]

It should always be clear that there is an option for progress available to you. That doesn't mean that option can't be challenging.

 

[CecilRousso]

The problem is that people think that all games should be tailormade for just them, otherwise they're bad games.

A lot of us like challenging games, and if you're one of them complaining about how you don't have time for challenging and time consuming games - just don't buy those games. But let us who like them have them.

If Diviinity: OS is to complex and timeconsuming for you, don't buy it.
If you think open world RPG's are too big and you get lost, buy Biowares games instead.
If you don't like puzzles in adventure games - buy the ones from Telltale.

I still want games like Monkey Island 1 and 2, where I had to spend quite some time to figure stuff out, so it was great to find Gray Matter that was a perfect modern example of that game design.

 

[bomma_man]

LoZ Wind Waker had you locate Trifotce shards, I was able to find most of them on my own but if it weren't for the internet I think I'd have stopped.

Maybe I didn't pick up on the clues but I felt like the game poorly gave you hints for the locations.

Wait I'm 99% sure that there was a map for them.


The problem with obtuse game design, or lack of direction, is that it's time intensive. That's fine when you're eight and have all the time in the world, but the market for games is skewing older. Playing games is generally a pretty low priority for me these days, so I can't really be arsed with that kind of thing.

 

[devonodev]

Depends on the game for me. One thing I know I don't like is being in a maze of rooms, or a city, in which everything looks pretty much the same.

 

[flipswitch]

What's worse than getting stuck/lost in a game? Getting stuck in a water level.

 

[eXistor]

The problem with obtuse game design, or lack of direction, is that it's time intensive. That's fine when you're eight and have all the time in the world, but the market for games is skewing older. Playing games is generally a pretty low priority for me these days, so I can't really be arsed with that kind of thing.

But that's a personal problem, not the game's fault. If you want want easier to digest games play something else. There's always a place for deep, time-consuming games as proven recently by games such as the Souls series and Divinity: Original Sin.

 

[xenist]

Getting stuck at games became really bad only after I found stuff to do with my day beyond school and playing games.

 

[Mman235]

I definitely think the modern industry's paralysing fear of getting the player stuck for more than a minute has been one of the most detrimental forces on level design. It's especially annoying because modern games have invented all the ways a complex game could remain that way while still allowing for less-skilled players (stuff like detailed maps, optional hints or outright solutions and map markers/"bread crumbs"), but then make themselves braindead simple anyway, defeating the whole point of introducing those things in the first place.

 

[nkarafo]

The problem with obtuse game design, or lack of direction, is that it's time intensive. That's fine when you're eight and have all the time in the world, but the market for games is skewing older. Playing games is generally a pretty low priority for me these days, so I can't really be arsed with that kind of thing.

Ok but why do you play games in the first place?

The thing i like in a game (and the reason i play games) is when it puts me in a world to explore and solve using my own wit. This is what i find enjoyable about games. If i don't have time to play a game i just... do something else. I'm not going o play a game that i don't find enjoyable only because i can finish it fast. Even that short amount of time is wasted time.

 

[bomma_man]

Ok but why do you play games in the first place?

The thing i like in a game (and the reason i play games) is when it puts me in a world to explore and solve using my own wit. This is what i find enjoyable about games. If i don't have time to play a game i just... do something else. I'm not going o play a game that i don't find enjoyable only because i can finish it fast. Even that short amount of time is wasted time.

Well aside Zelda I primarily play more linear mechanics based stuff... Mario, racers, shooters, etc. Anything I can pick up after an extended break or play in short bursts is fine. Nothing wrong with games that take life into account.

 

[Currygan]

Wait I'm 99% sure that there was a map for them.


The problem with obtuse game design, or lack of direction, is that it's time intensive. That's fine when you're eight and have all the time in the world, but the market for games is skewing older. Playing games is generally a pretty low priority for me these days, so I can't really be arsed with that kind of thing.

I find myself in the same situation. When we played these old point and clicks we would be stuck for weeks, months even on a single riddle, and we didnt care about it because had so much free time to waste. It's bloody horrible to see the majority of game companies streamlining their games as much as possible nowadays, but it's understandable from a marketing perspective, since there are so many more things a teen can do today besides playing games compared to twenty years ago

 

[jesu]

There was an Eye Of The Beholder Amiga game I got stuck in, like proper stuck and couldn't go any further.
Just thinking about it now is pissing me off.
I should see if there is any youtube walkthroughs.

 

[CecilRousso]

Do we have any examples of these games where people feel they get stuck too much now?

 

[Lijik]

Play point & click adventure games and you will come to understand what being stuck is. "Figuring out" does not always have some correlation to logic or skills.

There was obtuse dream logic shit in some other genres back in the day as well. A few of the Rayman 1 cages strike me as impossible to find without a guide, and you need those to beat the game. I much prefer being challenged in an immediate way (a tough boss, challenging platforming courses, puzzles etc.) instead of being forced to suss out an illogical answer.

Some games handle exploration a lot better than others too. Being lost is part of the fun in an old zelda or metroid. Trying to find the location of the three near-end bosses in JSRF in random, unmarked areas of the world with no indication that this what youre supposed to do is bullshit and not satisfying.

 

[Cave Johnson]

What pisses me off about being stuck in the game is by looking through walkthoughs and still have no bearing on your progress (like an item you're supposed to have way back).

Bioforge is one such example. An excellent aesthetic marred by horrendous game/level design.

Emergent design is much appreciated but if your levels require you to restart from scratche because of one faulty plan than it should go outside the window.

 

[Nemmy]

There are two kinds of getting stuck, there is "oh damn I'm such an idiot for not having noticed this obvious clue earlier / I'm such a scrub for having struggled with this for so long" and there's "how in the blue hell were I ever supposed to know this?!"

The first kind is/was great, IMO, as it usually results simply from the game being demanding from the player. And yeah, I wish more modern games had any of that these days.

The second is a waste of the player's time and usually ends with me checking a walkthrough online.

There was an Eye Of The Beholder Amiga game I got stuck in, like proper stuck and couldn't go any further.
Just thinking about it now is pissing me off.
I should see if there is any youtube walkthroughs.

Maaan, that's one of my childhood's most beloved games! But yeah, it had a part where if you didn't find one key and got past a certain point without it, you got trapped forever and had to start over *cringe*

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

I like to have constant progress when I play video games. I don't like bashing my head against a single wall for a long time. I hate point and click adventure games, for example.

If I ever go back to play MGS. I might goof around with the bosses and weird puzzles, but really I don't want to have to do trial and error for hours on end. My time is too precious for such unfairly obtuse bullshit.

Note: I don't mind sitting and thinking things through. Some great Zelda dungeons where it took me an hour of thinking to get it right.

EDIT:

Ok but why do you play games in the first place?

The thing i like in a game (and the reason i play games) is when it puts me in a world to explore and solve using my own wit. This is what i find enjoyable about games. If i don't have time to play a game i just... do something else. I'm not going o play a game that i don't find enjoyable only because i can finish it fast. Even that short amount of time is wasted time.

Because games are fun?

I know what genres waste my time and I don't play those.

 

[SmokedMeat]

The best games allow you to get lost in them. It creates a literal 'epic feeling' world.

R.I.P Hand drawn maps.

Actually that game came with a map

Also I think getting stuck is far more of a pain in the ass when your gaming time is much less. We're not all kids anymore.

 

[CHC]

Not really in agreeance with the whole undertone of superiority here... I like hard games but for me and most other people getting truly lost sucks and is just an actual waste of real time. It's 2014.... I don't need an arrow always telling where to go, but if a game is totally obtuse and gives me nothing to go on then that's the games problem, not mine as a player.

I'm from the early WoW / Morrowind camp when it comes to directions, stuff like "east of town, past the burnt tree" is good for me.

 

[BHK3]

I played a ton of point and click adventures back in the day(all my comp could run) and I beat only a few by sheer brute force. I didn't learn until recently that what I was doing for most was 'pixel-hunting' where I just have to click on the right place on the screen in order to continue cause most gave no indications of what to do.

Also this thread needs a lot more examples so we can at least argue whats YOUR fault and whats the games fault.

 

[conman]

I would argue that the only reason that getting stuck is now considered "bad design" is because the internet now exists. These days, if you as a game designer send a player to the internet for a solution, then, yes, you messed up. But prior to the internet, getting stuck was not a bad thing. It meant a game stayed with you and your friends for a long time. A good game was a game that occupied your brain and kept you going despite and even because of the fact that you were stuck.

It's really amazing to me to look back at games that all of us figured out on our own. Especially some of the more esoteric puzzles in old adventure games (like the original Hero's Quest), or some of the more insanely challenging platform/action games (Ninja Gaiden or Ghosts n' Goblins). Young me wasn't a genius. He just had to try a lot harder and more persistently than the me of today. Also, $60 in 1988 was a lot more dear than $60 today, so I didn't get many games. If a game didn't keep me busy for six months, then it was a total waste of money. Before online gaming and ridiculously huge RPGs, "getting stuck" in a single-player game meant playing the same game for a long time. Back then, this wasn't boring or frustrating. It was all part of being really into a game.

 

[Skilletor]

I'm playing Metroid Prime. Haven't felt like this in a long time. Have to pay attention to my environment, look for stuff. Constantly getting lost. I love it.

But yeah, people saying they don't want to get stuck/have to figure things out was constant in the TR2013 threads. People don't want to get stuck in puzzles. That's not why they play games. They don't want to think, etc.

 

[jesu]

Maaan, that's one of my childhood's most beloved games! But yeah, it had a part where if you didn't find one key and got past a certain point without it, you got trapped forever and had to start over *cringe*

Well I suppose it's reassuring to know it wasn't just me then

I played it over and over(up until the stuck point)

 

[Neff]

Experimenting and paying attention to abstract but logic-encouraging clues beats out waypoints and linear corridors any fucking day.

I love and miss getting lost/stuck in games.

 

[mcz117chief]

Divinity: The Original Sin is the prime example of this. I was stuck there countless times and after dozens of minutes fumbling around I decide to look on the web and there it always told me "You need to do a different quest before you can do this one". Worst design I have seen in a long time

 

[Kelegacy]

By going mainstream gaming has attracted a lot of people who didn't like games for what they originally represented. Now sadly these people have to be catered for, turning a lot of games into inoffensive generic messes where challenge and having your intellect respected are now seen as bad design (by people who don't know what they're talking about).

I didn't think about it enough before to put it into proper words, but this summarizes perfectly how I feel about gaming today.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Not giving a player a clue as to where/what they need to go/do next is now considered "deep" and "complex"?
No, it's not a positive. Much like my experience of playing Witcher 2, where nothing is explained to you. Here's a big convoluted menu for crafting, quests, etc, but we're not telling you how anything works.
Yeah, fuck that. That's poor design. You shouldn't have to hold a players hand but you should be guiding them.
I've heard Divinity OS likes to give the player no clue as to what they need to do or where to go next. No thanks, my gaming time is too limited to walk around average videogame rpg world #6,324.

 

[Spieler Eins]

A few days ago I've encountered a specific example, even though it's very niche.
I loved Rune Factory on the Wii. You were pretty much thrown into the game with a hoe and a bunch of seeds and were on your own. You had to explore and experiment on your own to unlock dungeons, stores and even basic tools, restore the library and eventually find out stuff there, etc., while lots of the progression feels natural.
People said Rune Factory 3 is amazing, so I've played it this week and during the first hours I was mighty pissed and flabbergasted. Shit begins with tons of tutorials, all your tools, stores and dungeons are already available right from the beginning, plus easily laid out for you, once huge dungeons of the Wii title are shrunk to minuscule size. In other words, it sucked giant donkey dick, yet I haven't come across even any review mentioning this...

 

[DaciaJC]

Games that have no failure state, where you can't do wrong even trying, that don't let you the freedom screw things up, which aren't complex and non-linear enough to allow you to get lost... Those are the real failure in a lot of modern game design, as far as I'm concerned.

Hear, hear.

 

[Asbear]

Ocarina of Time is my favorite game of all time, but I had to start the game over a million times as a kid because I didn't know where or how to progress at a certain point, plus it got too scary for me. When I retried it and beat it for the first time when I was 12, It felt like a huge achievement for me.´

It's kinda weird because I actually beat TP before OoT, and I had played OoT since I was 6.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

By going mainstream gaming has attracted a lot of people who didn't like games for what they originally represented. Now sadly these people have to be catered for, turning a lot of games into inoffensive generic messes where challenge and having your intellect respected are now seen as bad design (by people who don't know what they're talking about).

Fuck this attitude.

The problem with gaming "back in the day" is that it catered to one type of gamer exclusively - the one that liked challenge and would forgive obtuse or unexplained puzzle design. Nowadays, games cater to a larger variety of tastes.

Preferring a different type of game design isn't a sign of ignorance. It's a sign of a broadening medium. Making statements about how games are "inoffensive generic messes" is the reductive and foolish way of seeing the market - it's an emotional and illogical and bitter slander thrown by elitists when the whole industry doesn't cater to their whims.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I never had a ton of patience for it, and that pretty much eroded when I got older and busier. With limited gaming time I don't want to waste a bunch wandering around with no idea where I'm supposed to go.

So in something like Skyrim I make heavy use of the compass and clairvoyance spell, and have no qualms looking things up. Now I mostly play fairly linear games these days though.

 

[andymcc]

Yeah, fuck that. That's poor design. You shouldn't have to hold a players hand but you should be guiding them.

I guess it's a matter of how to balance between the two. For example, a lot of people are saying the original Legend of Zelda is good design in this respect and I would have to agree. In the old series, it tended to give you little clues as to where to go without having a guide constantly shout at you to remind where you're heading.

On the other hand, you have a game like Simon's Quest which, due to the esoteric nature of villager's dialogue, you are never really even given a good hint as to where to go. Similar styles of games that are barely separated but you can see how the balance between guiding and hiding enhance or hinder them.

Fuck this attitude.

The problem with gaming "back in the day" is that it catered to one type of gamer exclusively - the one that liked challenge and would forgive obtuse or unexplained puzzle design. Nowadays, games cater to a larger variety of tastes.

Preferring a different type of game design isn't a sign of ignorance. It's a sign of a broadening medium. Making statements about how games are "inoffensive generic messes" is the reductive and foolish way of seeing the market - it's an emotional and illogical and bitter slander thrown by elitists when the whole industry doesn't cater to their whims.

to be fair, the sort of homogenized state of the popular action game has greatly impacted the retail niche video game. it sucks for people like me that really don't like a lot of the bigger action games.

 

[patapuf]

Not giving a player a clue as to where/what they need to go/do next is now considered "deep" and "complex"?
No, it's not a positive. Much like my experience of playing Witcher 2, where nothing is explained to you. Here's a big convoluted menu for crafting, quests, etc, but we're not telling you how anything works.
Yeah, fuck that. That's poor design. You shouldn't have to hold a players hand but you should be guiding them.
I've heard Divinity OS likes to give the player no clue as to what they need to do or where to go next. No thanks, my gaming time is too limited to walk around average videogame rpg world #6,324.

Actually all mechanics are explained in the witcher 2 and crafting is completely optional (and while simple, is pretty cumbersome). Most quests have a way point and those that don't have a detailed explanation in the quest log.

Same deal with divinity. While you are expected to actually explore in divinity you are given hints throughout the game on where to go and what to do. There's multiple ways to solve a quest and there's no bad consequence for skipping something besides having to come back later if necessary (and the game has good fast travel).

Of course if talking to people, reading and exploring is boring to you, RPG's might be the wrong genre to play.

 

[JediLink]

This is really something you have to judge on a case-by-case basis. Fez is well designed. Simon's Quest is not.

 

[CecilRousso]

Preferring a different type of game design isn't a sign of ignorance.

It's not, but people do have a tendency for calling something bad as soon as they hit a challenge in a game, and that's pretty ignorant. As is calling puzzles obtuse and/or illogical as soon as the solution isn't found within minutes.

I can understand those who want to play easier games, but I can't really understand those that demand that all of them should be. Luckily, with indies, crowdfunding and similiar methods we get more and more games again that doesn't have to cater to everyone and everything. That's good news for us who feel a value of beating challenges to progress in games instead of just only finding it by progressing.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

to be fair, the sort of homogenized state of the popular action game has greatly impacted the retail niche video game. it sucks for people like me that really don't like a lot of the bigger action games.

If people wanted to discuss it with fairness, they wouldn't have a temper tantrum, accusing people with differing tastes of ignorance rather than (hold on, shocker incoming) differing tastes.

There's arguments to be made about the narrow path of the industry's AAA publishers. But that's not begin made in this thread.

It's not, but people do have a tendency for calling something bad as soon as they hit a challenge in a game, and that's pretty ignorant. As is calling puzzles obtuse and/or illogical as soon as the solution isn't found within minutes.

I smell a strawman. But he gets battered so easily though, and it feels so good to punch him!

I can understand those who want to play easier games, but I can't really understand those that demand that all of them should be. Luckily, with indies, crowdfunding and similiar methods we get more and more games again that doesn't have to cater to everyone and everything. That's good news for us who feel a value of beating challenges to progress in games instead of just only finding it by progressing.

I don't demand every game has to be easy. I just want some games that cater to my tastes. Thankfully you won't find me insulting people who think differently than me.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

I don't see anything fun in getting stuck and having no clue what to do. Sure, you can try random things in random places at random, but that's not challenge or skill. It's about as fun as trying to guess the code for a combination lock. It's pure perseverance and/or blind luck. The only skill it tests is your patience.

 

[CecilRousso]

I don't see anything fun in getting stuck and having no clue what to do.

How often does that happen for you in games?

 

[patapuf]

I don't see anything fun in getting stuck and having no clue what to do. Sure, you can try random things in random places at random, but that's not challenge or skill. It's about as fun as trying to guess the code for a combination lock. It's pure perseverance and/or blind luck. The only skill it tests is your patience.

How about getting stuck on something just because you overlooked the solution and need time (patience) to figure out what it was?

There's pletny of badly designed puzzles/challenges in games but people also get stuck on entirely solvable ones. The solution surely can't be to make sure every single person immediately figures out the solution to all a games challenges/puzzles. Unless it's deliberately "easy" difficulty or something.

 

[pinkurocket]

I hate games where you can push a button and it shows you a line you have to follow. Dead Space is the worst offender, wtf. An atmospheric space survival horror? More like: follow this line and beware of the jumpscares around each corner thxbye.

 

[Valjean Lafitte]

I was actually thinking of making a topic along these lines last night.

Fuck this attitude.

The problem with gaming "back in the day" is that it catered to one type of gamer exclusively - the one that liked challenge and would forgive obtuse or unexplained puzzle design. Nowadays, games cater to a larger variety of tastes.

Preferring a different type of game design isn't a sign of ignorance. It's a sign of a broadening medium. Making statements about how games are "inoffensive generic messes" is the reductive and foolish way of seeing the market - it's an emotional and illogical and bitter slander thrown by elitists when the whole industry doesn't cater to their whims.

This is a joke post right? You do realize that when gaming was in it's infancy that it couldn't have catered to "one type of gamer" when gaming was not segmented between the so-called hardcore and so-called casuals that it is today. Ergo, you had 50 year olds writing to Nintendo Power to sing the praises of Metroid and Legend of Zelda as well as 6 year olds. Gamers were just gamers.

And as noted by another poster, we had no choice but to "forgive" (as you put it) the game for being too hard because there was no internet then. You just kept trying, which added all the more value to the experience when you finally succeeded.

Nostalgia colors it up a little bit but yeah, being stuck sucked always.

In my experience nostalgia colors jack. I loved getting lost in Metroid when I was 10, and I love getting lost in Metroid at 30.

 

[ElTopo]

Castlevania 2. If anyone say's "Yeah, that was easy, I figured that out after 5 minutes. Git gud." they can EAD. That is bad design.

Oddly enough, I never had that issue with Sonic 3 and holding down in the casino stage. I'm surprised to see so many people struggle with that one part.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

I don't see anything fun in getting stuck and having no clue what to do. Sure, you can try random things in random places at random, but that's not challenge or skill. It's about as fun as trying to guess the code for a combination lock. It's pure perseverance and/or blind luck. The only skill it tests is your patience.

Exactly. I've been making my way through Kingdom Hearts 1 and every once in a while the game will expect the player to know they have to go talk to someone three times, ring a bell, talk to someone else twice, and then go into some esoteric place on the other side of the city. Maybe somebody else likes that sort of thing. I don't - it's a progression scheme that uses an entirely different tool box than the rest of the game, and that tool box isn't explained or illuminated in any way.

I hate games where you can push a button and it shows you a line you have to follow. Dead Space is the worst offender, wtf. An atmospheric space survival horror? More like: follow this line and beware of the jumpscares around each corner thxbye.

I agree with this as well.

Honestly the issue I usually have is when the game gives no indication of what to do next. Puzzles aren't so bad assuming I know I need to get from A to B. If I wander around a room for a half an hour and I still haven't figured out what B is, I'm going suspect that the level design is poor.

The issue with Dead Space's "follow the arrow" design is that it's a no-win display. Either the player feels like they're being treated like an idiot, or the developers are just trying to compensate for their poor level design.

 

[SoldierIce64]

It really depends on what game the gamer is playing. If the player is playing a linear style game yet can't find their way out of an area, then that could be due to bad level design and/or the lack of experience from the gamer themselves. An example of fantastic level design is Half-Life 2. The game constantly gives you visual clues to help you not get lost (such as an open door or a light that shines only on the exit, etc.) but at the same time opens the level for you to explore (City 17, Ravenholm, Highway 17 and more). But even with great level design I've seen people get lost in Half-Life 2, but that may be due to a lack of experience on their part. There's no way for the game to correct that problem unless it either becomes 2D with only one direction to go (Super Mario Bros.) or has a guide arrow to show the player where to go, like BioShock and many other games. In my opinion a guide arrow in a linear game shows to me that you (the developer) either have poor level design or don't have confidence in the player's ability to find out where to go next.

While great linear levels will show you visual clues, it's a bit harder to guide the player when you have a giant open world. But why would you want to guide the player if you gave them a huge playground to explore? That would be like taking a kid to the park and having them only go on the slide. There's no reason to try to apply linear level techniques in an open-world unless its during the introduction part of the game when they teach the player on how to play the game. I understand that some gamers just want to experience the story and that's why a lot of developers resort to using guide arrows to tell the player where to go (Arkham City, Assassin's Creed, GTA, etc). That's great for those types of gamers and I'm glad those guides are almost-always optional, but what about the ones that just want to explore? I know there were some parts of the PS2-era GTA games that would block off the rest of the game if you didn't progress far enough into the story, which I think defeats the purpose of an open-world game. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good story, but I also enjoy exploring the world at the same time, which is why I appreciate the Elder Scrolls games because they embrace the player's freedom while not holding anything back from them.

I apologize if I got a little off-topic but level design has always been an interest to me.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

This is a joke post right? You do realize that when gaming was in it's infancy that it couldn't have catered to "one type of gamer" when gaming was not segmented between the so-called hardcore and so-called casuals that it is today. Ergo, you had 50 year olds writing to Nintendo Power to sing the praises of Metroid and Legend of Zelda as well as 6 year olds. Gamers were just gamers.

And as noted by another poster, we had no choice but to "forgive" (as you put it) the game for being too hard because there was no internet then. You just kept trying, which added all the more value to the experience when you finally succeeded.

Absolutely not a joke post! Age has nothing to do with it - both the 6 and 50 year old gamers in your example was one very specific type of gamer, one who would still play the game despite getting lost or stuck, and then enjoy the experience enough to write into Nintendo Power. What about all the other people who tried video games at the time and found the experience displeasing or too difficult? Just because we don't segregate these types of gamers into "casual or hardcore" doesn't mean there aren't fundamental differences in how those gamers approach the medium.

But then, there's still a difference between different games. Zelda is a good game still because the game makes it clear what types of interaction the player has with its environment. The game is tricky but not impossible. The world isn't so huge that the player can't experiment without being punished. Metroid, on the other hand, has a lot of samey level design and is often so large that it's not testing your mind, it's testing your patience.

 

[SpongeBob NoPants]

...and there's "what do I do? the game never told me" stuck.

You mean the thing which is literally covered with up and down pointers that you press up & down to operate? If only the sadistic bastards had given us some sort of clue.

 

[maxcriden]

The problem is that the game may be giving you subtle indications of what to do/where to go, and you might have overlooked those hints.

(I love getting stuck in games.)