Done, just in case. Seems like pretty common knowledge though, and I wasn't being specific.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Witness |OT|
- Thread starter Afro
- Start date
It was definitely in the top three, if not the top "whoa" moment for me upon first discovering them.
I would have hated to have known about them ahead of time.
I would have hated to have known about them ahead of time.
I am all for making games about more than violence and gratuitous titillation (i.e. status quo) ... but this game is too pretentious for its own good. It's you vs Jonathan Blow's intellect. Art does not read like a sentence but games do require a certain amount of hand holding to make coherent sense.
Who wants to play a game where you feel like an idiot because you're supposed to project yourself in the mind of an "clever" individual in order to solve incredibly abstract puzzles?? This game is masochistic.
Who wants to play a game where you feel like an idiot because you're supposed to project yourself in the mind of an "clever" individual in order to solve incredibly abstract puzzles?? This game is masochistic.
^ I actually find this game to be less pretentious than Braid. I thought it'd make me feel like a moron too, but it has actually taught me some things about my puzzle-solving abilities that were very surprising.
Thanks.
That's true, although when I saw them mentioned, it was this feeling of extreme excitement, like "WHAT?! I need to check that out NOW," vs. "Dude, you just ruined the game for me." LOL Anyway, guess I just need to err on the side of caution from now on.
Thanks.John Rabbit
Banned
Simple question, really two questions I suppose:
1. Is there actually an "ending" to this game? Do you reach a definitive end (not like a cutscene or credits, just...no more puzzles and some kind of 'thing' happens)?
2.Just entered the top of the mountain and did some puzzles in
How far am I from 'the end'? Is this the last section? I'm just getting kind of burnt out on the line puzzle thing but I want to see the whole game.
Also
1. Is there actually an "ending" to this game? Do you reach a definitive end (not like a cutscene or credits, just...no more puzzles and some kind of 'thing' happens)?
2.Just entered the top of the mountain and did some puzzles in
the big white room where you have to draw the pink bridge to solve both sides. It appears this room extends down several floors with more puzzles.
Also
I know about the "other" puzzles that you find in the game's environment, I've been solving those as I find them but I'm not remotely close to getting them all.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
I'm not sure I follow. Everything The Witness does is cleanly spelled out for players - I can't say the same for, say, Myst, where some incredible leaps of logic have to be taken in order to reach a conclusion. There is a vast difference between truly abstract 'moonlogic' puzzles of an adventure game from the 90s and what The Witness does, which uses repetition of its main gameplay function as a means to induce a viral objective.
I could agree about the audio logs, but I don't see how the puzzles are pretentious... Honestly, the best thing about the game is having to figure out the rules for yourself. If there were text prompts that said: "Black dots and white dots have to be separated by a line" and such, I think the game would be far less interesting.
cereal_killerxx
Junior Member
I can't wait to try this game. It sounds insanely hard. I just hope the story isn't so abstract I can't figure out what's going on.
Remembrance
Member
My question is, how can The Witness possibly subvert the process of its own creation? And how would doing so help anyone else?
Does Blow spending 7-8 years making this game (which is not a mainstream practice by any means) really take away from the value of games made in less time? If Blow had made the game in six months, would that somehow increase the value of all other games that were made in six months?
If you think EVERYTHING The Witness does is cleanly spelled out for players, I'm afraid you are delusional and probably have an attachment to the game in one way or another.
The barrier for entry is so high with 0.0% tutorialization, how can Mr. Blow expect anyone who doesn't have diehard patience to get further than 2 hours into the game?
I realize fun is subjective and some might enjoy the "challenge" of taking time to figure out something abstract. I'm not knocking that.
For me, personally, I find it off-putting because the game assumes too much and it becomes frustrating to a point that I give up. That's not fun to me. More often than not, I imagine an "aha" Jonathan Blow laughing at me when I'm trying to solve various puzzles to no avail - and the joke is not funny.
Keep in mind, this is coming from a game developer's perspective as well as a gamer.
IT sounds like you don't think there's adequate cluing as to the nature of the puzzles, that you're having to use trial and error to get answers to things with abstract rules.
I answered how I felt about this issue earlier in the thread:
Edit:
No, I think very few things are cleanly spelled out for players. But I think that there are always clues and implications around as to cause and effect. The question boils down to whether it's the responsibility of the game to make those clues sufficiently in-your-face? What is 'sufficient'? What The Witness did was sufficient for me, for the most part, and I appreciate that.
I would say that there are ample tutorials in place. The challenge is in recognising them.
Can you give me an example of a puzzle that you felt was unfair, and then - if I recall it - I'll try to present my thought processes that led to the solution.
As it happens, so are my comments!
Edit2: I think, for me, I can sum up my passion for the game very simply: For my tastes, this is my Demon's Souls. And it worked.
everything you say sounds like your super insecure.
its always a pretty small and interesting step from puzzle to puzzle and the achievement completion rates are similar to other games so clearly people aren't finding it that hard.
do you have some sort of internalised shame about failure? because every time i got stuck then unstuck i felt proud of my self then thought cool nice puzzle look at how they flow. my mental image is more of a slightly more serious willy wonka who wants you to succeed. every interview he does he clearly wants to give people a feeling of satisfaction if you go in trusting that then you will enjoy getting stuck sometimes. projecting a bully is on you.
the game is working out how the puzzles work you just need to think about them in a different way test theories on the easy puzzles to make sure you have the right idea then move back to ones your stuck on. if he gave you the answer for each mechanic then your not doing anything apart from going through the motions.
LegendofLex
Member
I don't think he does.
But this game definitely also ripe with tutorials and has pretty consistent logic.
The problem most players have is they make miscalculations about the rules and are then frustrated when those miscalculations fail. It's the same reason why most people aren't researchers, investigators, scientists, and philosophers but are instead content to receive their information about the world through a combination of their preferred news organization, social media, and religious preaching. This isn't a knock on those people; just an acknowledgement that not everyone is used to/comfortable with thinking and testing assumptions in the way the game demands you to.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
I'd say you need to step away from the game if you're going to result to personally insulting me for pointing out what the game is doing. That's not particularly healthy and I don't think I deserve such a crude and inaccurate psychoanalysis. For the record, I had passive interest in the game up until its release. I'm not a fan of puzzle games in the slightest. I enjoy Mr. Blow's talks, even if I don't agree with his approaches to certain concepts, and found Braid good enough to throw down for The Witness without needing to be told about everything that it would toss at me.
It's obvious that you're upset at the game, but the problem here seems to be that you're not willing to listen to the game's lessons. You claim there is 0.0% tutorialization, which is not true in the slightest. Every area introduces you to a new concept and does so without popping up gaudy tooltips which spoil the sense of discovery. Each audio log, though often a bit groan-worthy, contains a message that is there to spell out something for the player to absorb. Every area is designed specifically to reinforce the ideas each unique puzzle element bring to the table. The game won't always point these out with blinking neon arrows, but they become just as obvious once you've finally heard the message being whispered to you.
My main hangup is that several puzzles do not take into account certain disabilities, which was highlighted by a group who requested better accessibility for the colorblind. I also find some puzzles are incompatible with my way of thinking, which has caused some areas to stand in my way longer than others. Luckily, Blow has made it so that users can get by with a good chunk of the puzzles rather than every single one, while offering additional challenges for those who were able to push through everything thrown at them. The Witness is overall very accommodating to players. It just asks that you listen for a while.
I don't think I need to list my qualifications to prove why my opinions would matter or not. But I am looking at it from many different perspectives and lenses, and I'm not seeing the same problems you are.
I'm all for not entirely targeting the lowest common denominator, but rule #1 in game design is to have an approachable learning curve. The tutorial puzzles that were in place during the beginning of the game were barely adequate for a seasoned gamer of 20+ years.
I would of designed it to where there is hand holding at the beginning and then taper off explicit communication over time. Then the gamer feels progression in their ability and can warm up to the thought process required, rather than immediately expecting them to conform to an unorthodox/abrasive design.
Furthermore, "Scientific Method - The Game" is not what I expected nor what I desired, which is why I have such an allergic reaction to the game's design. I expected an adventure game with puzzle elements, not a sparse "exploration" game where I'm solving snake-like puzzles on panels, all the while wondering why I'm even investing time into solving puzzles that just open doors to other puzzles on panels.
While I appreciate your willingness to give your side of a specific puzzle, that misses the point. The point is that the game expects too much of the average player too soon, which is off-putting.
This is simply not true. The game even starts with a tutorial about the controls. Just because the tutorial doesn't have a tutorial as a title and a skip tutorial button and "now move your cursor left" prompt, doesn't make it any less tutorial.
Also, those puzzles that flash red which begins from extremely simple setups that almost force you to do the right thing at the first go, and then change to slightly more intricate versions, are damn fine tutorials.
This is not how I felt about the game at all. The game lets you figure out the rules, and that's the joy of the game, and it's supposed to be the game that gives you these a-ha moments over and over again, and it does just that.
You could make a game like that, but it would be a very different game. I'm glad Blow didn't approach the game with that classic approach to tutorials in games.
...
oreomunsta
Banned
Completely agree. For those who have made it to the end of the game, there is a subtle but very powerful difference in the way puzzles interact with your solutions.
Specifically, puzzles that come up late in the game or post-game will not
light up to highlight your errors
one of the main goals of the game was to non-verbally communicate things to the player
i personally think he nailed it
you'd have to be actively ignoring all the tutorials and clues in the game to come away from it with the opinion that it didnt explain any of the rules clearly enough to the player
i personally think he nailed it
you'd have to be actively ignoring all the tutorials and clues in the game to come away from it with the opinion that it didnt explain any of the rules clearly enough to the player
I only said you were delusional because you were speaking with so much hyperbole (see "Everything The Witness does is cleanly spelled out for players.") I didn't mean to offend you. You appreciate this game. I clearly, do not.
Of course I'm upset at the game - I spent $40 on something that I didn't enjoy. I'm offering an average gamer's perspective, in my opinion.
Well, not to be overly blunt, but I'm glad Blow threw away whatever rulebook you are using.
LegendofLex
Member
I think you've isolated why you're having trouble with this game.
Everything else you're saying the game simply does not do actually is done - there are tutorials in the beginning that give you unfailable puzzles that demonstrate the basic rules of the game, and the difficulty of the puzzles does ramp up steadily over time; each type of puzzle also has its own tutorial area that starts with very simple puzzles and ramps up steadily - but to complete the game and fully apply the lessons of the tutorials you are required to use skillsets that you've just admitted you're incompatible with and not interested in.
Does anyone know the name of the song that plays in the release date trailer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ytwNUMdbcE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ytwNUMdbcE
That's great he made a game for you.
It is, actually. I appreciate it.
By "barely adequate" do you mean "too easy so you don't glean useful information from them" or "too hard so you struggle to complete them"?
And, that's another point I'd disagree on: The game opens with a straight tutorial of a "this is your basic interface" nature - which is the only time it feels a need to actually throw in onscreen prompts. The complexity increases, but it's still very simple, going from lines into straight mazes; I'm sure you wouldn't have had any difficulty with the mazes!
And then after that, I suppose, is where the content really gets serious, when you're beyond the simplest of interactions and have to start deducing things about symbols. If you're exploring a bit you might stumble on a puzzle you clearly don't have information to solve at this point, but straight after that - or straight away if you miss that door - you'll get to two tutorial areas which teach you the two elements associated with that locked door, at which point you can go back to solve it when armed with the new information.
Now, I'm assuming the tutorial you're saying is inadequate is one of those two, since it's an early one - and I'll go one stage further because the 'dots' tutorial is so trivial I'd find it hard to believe that you're finding that difficult, so I'm assuming the coloured squares tutorial is the first one that you feel doesn't convey the necessary information.
If i'm in the right tutorial, can you say what was the first puzzle in it that you thought was unfairly demanding on the player?
I would say that the fact that the first couple of puzzles in each tutorial area have very few possible paths so having the option to trivially test the entire solution space is the 'hand holding'. That's not generally necessary,
Can I ask why you didn't have a similar adverse reaction to, say, Riven? I'd argue that one of the biggest central puzzles in that game - the fire marbles - requires more of a mental leap than anything in The Witness does.
I dunno, I'm pretty damn average in most respects!
oreomunsta
Banned
It's ironic that we have this criticism against the game where people don't feel guided to solutions, and that that apparently goes against good Gabe design.
I don't ever remember the original Legend of Zelda or Super Mario Brothers teaching me how to play the game, and those games are regarded as classics.
I don't ever remember the original Legend of Zelda or Super Mario Brothers teaching me how to play the game, and those games are regarded as classics.
As I mentioned upthread: this is my Demon's Souls. It's a game that appreciates my intelligence and tests it in ways that many games have failed to in recent years; it's challenging, but when you get on top of what it's demanding from you, is never unfair, even if it might look like it at first.
It's a horrible cliche to say "The Dark Souls of [genre] games", but really, this is it.
Thank you!
Zeenbor:
I think one of the problems lies with players trying to solve more complex puzzles with rules/mechanics that they have not been properly introduced to yet, which is an almost unavoidable side-effect of this game being open world.
That happened to me numerous times, and I fought it. Hard. I tried to solve them, and was almost always unsuccessful, unless a brute-force method somehow yielded success. It wasn't until I found panel sequences elsewhere that eased me into a new ruleset. Coming back to the more complex/layered ones then took on a new clarity that really surprised me in that I had actually understood it better from a 'language' perspective.
In that sense, I think The Witness is pretty brilliant, and would have been far less effective as a gated, linear experience with an equally linear learning curve.
Full disclosure: I'm pretty terrible at puzzle games. In The Talos Principle, I had to use a guide through much of hub C, and I'd say a good 75% of the stars were completely lost on me in terms of how to get them. I suppose that's why I'm so delighted to understand The Witness as well as I do.
I think one of the problems lies with players trying to solve more complex puzzles with rules/mechanics that they have not been properly introduced to yet, which is an almost unavoidable side-effect of this game being open world.
That happened to me numerous times, and I fought it. Hard. I tried to solve them, and was almost always unsuccessful, unless a brute-force method somehow yielded success. It wasn't until I found panel sequences elsewhere that eased me into a new ruleset. Coming back to the more complex/layered ones then took on a new clarity that really surprised me in that I had actually understood it better from a 'language' perspective.
In that sense, I think The Witness is pretty brilliant, and would have been far less effective as a gated, linear experience with an equally linear learning curve.
Full disclosure: I'm pretty terrible at puzzle games. In The Talos Principle, I had to use a guide through much of hub C, and I'd say a good 75% of the stars were completely lost on me in terms of how to get them. I suppose that's why I'm so delighted to understand The Witness as well as I do.
Really? Both of those are pretty weak examples.
SMB had a very linear progression with super easy mechanics. You know as long a you moved forward and completed the simplistic, reactionary obstacles, you'd get to the end of the level and progress.
As for Zelda, you could arguably have fun exploring the world using the base mechanics and figure out what to do. Same with Metroid.
LegendofLex
Member
1) SMB 1-1 is one of the finest tutorials ever crafted. It presents numerous things to the player without ever explaining most of them (the sole exception is the 1up mushroom) with a single letter of text, instead relying on players trying out the controls and testing interactions with objects in the world to do various things:
- You can jump over enemies (1st Goomba).
- You can jump on enemies to squish them (1st Goomba).
- You can interact with blocks by hitting them from below with a jump (1st set of blocks).
- ? blocks hide items.
- Mushrooms make you bigger.
- When you're bigger, you can take damage twice (you'll revert back to Small Mario if you take damage).
- When you're bigger, you can break brick blocks when you hit them from below.
- You can press down on some pipes (but not all pipes) to enter them from above and access a different underground bonus area.
- Sometimes there are hidden invisible blocks that give you power-ups and other items.
- Green mushrooms give you an extra life.
- If you hit a block that yields a mushroom while you're already bigger, you get a flower instead that lets you shoot fireballs.
- Some blocks yield stars that make you invincible for a short time.
- Not all enemies die immediately after being jumped on; some of them leave behind shells that can be kicked to destroy enemies and blocks.
- Hitting a higher point on the flagpole at the end of the level yields more points.
- Hitting the flagpole with a certain counter remaining on the clock causes fireworks to show up that yield even more points.
2) What you've said about Zelda and Metroid is precisely what makes a comparison to The Witness valid. You can keep exploring until you find something that you figure out you can do with your current items (in The Witness's case, your current knowledge of puzzle rules).
Blackthorn
"hello?" "this is vagina"
Finding the map on the boat makes it far easier to know where to find the tutorial panels for each type of puzzle. Sped through stuff pretty quick after that.
Not saying this to brag at all, but at no point during the panel puzzles did I feel stuck. Complaints about difficulty are weird considering how generous the game is for giving you the time, space and atmosphere to let you focus and think. There's no pressure, there's just you and the puzzle, which are all fair once you understand the principles.
I've moved on to the other puzzle types which are nuts, but in terms of the core game that gets you to the first "ending", there's not really any obscure abstraction required.
Edit: Love the comparison to Metroid! It really is similarly structured, but instead of unlocking equipment you unlock knowledge. Pretty cool.
I can appreciate your perspective and it almost makes me want to give the game another chance.
But brute force is not a fun mechanic, especially when the method for interacting and solving puzzles is so uninteresting, both aesthetically and from a contextual perspective.
I feel like this game doesn't value my time even if it expects my so-called intelligence and patience.
Honestly, I don't think this game is for me. I primarily play games for entertainment and moments of difficulty. Not the opposite.
Fun little anecdote about me with SMB:
I managed to completely miss the fact that collecting a super mushroom made you grow big. I'm always amused by the anecdotes of how the start of the game was designed to organically teach you key concepts, because it was based around the notion that the player was expected to fail at something to learn some information.
Which leads back to The Witness, somewhat - SMB failed - for me - in that regard because I had felt that the penalty for failure was a problem. I avoided the scary moving mushroom because it was a scary moving mushroom, and mushrooms are poisonous, therefore it was probably a threat. So I avoided it, and went on about my merry business - it was a oneshot threat, it was easy enough to avoid, and then I moved on. I didn't even have the opportunity to experiment with it. In TW, though, there is little penalty for failure - none whatsoever in many cases - with the only places where there is a penalty there's the expectation that you should have learned the rules by now.
LegendofLex
Member
That's a great observation! I had an uncle to provide an example, but I too noticed that the enemies were also mushroom-shaped as a kid, even if that didn't color the way I played the game.
That's one reason, I think, why SMB never actually requires you to ever pick up a mushroom at any point during the game. It's purely an aid to players who discover their purpose - likely accidentally.
If you don't find the style of puzzles entertaining or satisfyingly difficult, I agree. This game isn't for you.
Also, I think you're misreading what ghibli99 was saying about brute forcing: you never actually need to do it. You'll only ever have to do it if you encounter a puzzle you haven't found the primer for and attempt to solve it without correctly understanding its rules. It's not something the game intends for you to do.
opticalmace
Member
I need some advice, friends.
I did everything in the game except for
The Witness is one of my favourite games of the last 5 years, and I'm not sure if that last bit is just going to frustrate me and maybe slightly tarnish my view of the game. Or if it'll be worth it when I
I haven't played it in a couple weeks, kind of debating it.
What say you?
I did everything in the game except for
the challenge. I haven't even properly tried it yet.
The Witness is one of my favourite games of the last 5 years, and I'm not sure if that last bit is just going to frustrate me and maybe slightly tarnish my view of the game. Or if it'll be worth it when I
get the platinum?
What say you?
LegendofLex
Member
The sort of diceroll nature of the challenge might end up leaving you kind of disappointed if you end up completing it only because you got handed a particularly easy sequence of puzzles. But as a way of forcing you to think quickly and intuit your way through puzzles rather than taking lots of time to contemplate them, I thought it was really fun and satisfying. You'll probably get sick of the counter tracks real quick, though.
Yeah, through my many edits of that post, I was going to qualify my statement about brute-force being the worst possible way to solve them (even worse than looking at clues/guides, IMO).
I did it simply because I got frustrated and thought that was really my only option. Keep in mind that this was relatively early on, and that I hadn't gotten in-tune with the game's approach, rhythms, connections, etc.
However, I do think that everything is there for anyone to be successful at The Witness. But you can't just go into an area and expect to solve every puzzle in that particular area. Someone mentioned earlier that it was their Demon's Souls, and I can certainly see it that way... until you learn and get better, certain things will seem insurmountable or even impossible to overcome.
And then it clicks.
Anyway, not trying to force anything on anyone. If it's not for you, it's not for you, but this is coming from someone who went into this game totally lukewarm about it (and honestly, maybe a little negative), and it's now easily GOTY material for me. It's been humbling, wondrous, and mind-blowing all at the same time.
While the meta view of the game design might be similar, the actuality of what you do to interact with the world is apples and oranges when comparing those games to The Witness. There is an immediacy to the cause and effect of Zelda/Metroid game mechanics because the toolset facilitates that. The toolset in The Witness means you get stuck way more often.
If you played it for the puzzles, then
the challenge
If you're in for the "story", then you'll get a reward after it as well.
Either way, I think you should give it a try!
Just to add to this:
I think there comes a point where you'll have an instinct for these puzzles, where you can start the line straight away and solve it as you go, without needing to rethink too much on-the-fly.
The Challenge is for testing how close you are to that moment!
The Challenge is for testing how close you are to that moment!
SmiteOfHand
Member
This is the puzzle equivalent of salty ragequit. Fascinating. The Witness needs to have a flip panel verb.
Frustration does not mean the designer immediately failed. Appealing to all sorts of design laws that apparently exist and flipping between proclaiming I Am A Designer, and cowering to just a gamer's opinion, is doing no favors.
Frustration does not mean the designer immediately failed. Appealing to all sorts of design laws that apparently exist and flipping between proclaiming I Am A Designer, and cowering to just a gamer's opinion, is doing no favors.
You connect a line from its origin to a clear goal, and you get immediate visual/aural feedback if it's wrong, and immediate feedback if it's right -- including lines on the floor connecting to the next panel or opening a door.
I don't see how it can possibly have a stronger immediacy.
Once again, it does feel quite strongly that you're not registering the feedback the game is giving you.
I think this is where I'm having difficulty: when I played through the game, I can only think of two instances where I thought the game went a little too hard for me. One of those is a puzzle where I fully acknowledge that my skillset was inadequate, and the other is one that is acknowledged as very hard and out of the way... and also requires that skillset on top of that.
Everything else? I felt like I was taught adequately. The signs were there if I noticed them, and when I did, I got understanding. Hence why I'm latching onto the feedback issue: If you're not getting understanding, is it that you're not seeing the signs? Or is there a different issue?
While mechanically different, The Witness was designed with 'getting stuck' as an outcome. One of the first lessons the game provides is the importance of continued exploration when confronted with something you cannot solve. Right outside the opening castle is a panel you can't possibly know how to solve. You then move past it to find the tutorial panels, which explain clearly how to operate the seemingly complex door you just passed. This is the game introducing the non-linear nature of the learning, encouraging you to keep exploring if you hit a wall.
It's one of the most important lessons about how the game works, and it's presented wordlessly, but clearly.
Whether or not it's what the game intends for you to do, it happened to me on so many occasions I stopped having fun.
Even the game saying "You don't have sufficient knowledge to figure this out yet" in the first few puzzles would of been enough of a clue to for me to start exploring to figure out the primer.
This is the type of stuff that helps.
LegendofLex
Member
I don't think it's really that different, in the end.
For some people, the controls of a game like SMB, Zelda, or Metroid may never click with them. In that case, they might get stuck on things that experienced gamers like you and me have no problem with. A good example is Legend of Zelda series creator Eiji Aonuma, who says that (at least the last time he commented on the subject) he's never finished the original NES game because he's not good at reflex-based games and couldn't even get past the Octoroks in the beginning of the game.
In that sense, Mr. Aonuma trying to beat The Legend of Zelda is an exercise in bashing his head against a wall. The thing the game is demanding from him (slaying/getting past multiple Octoroks without getting hit too many times) isn't something he's intuitively able to grasp or pull off, even with an otherwise adequate toolset at his disposal (the game's controls). He is "stuck" and unable to progress because he can't do what the game is demanding, even with the game's tools.
I think you're experiencing the same thing with The Witness. The difference is, I think the wall you're hitting is that the toolset the game is offering you (panels that let you test and check the puzzles' rules) isn't one you're able to use to grasp or pull off the demands of the game (solving ever more complicated configurations of the puzzles' rules).
The games demand very different things, sure, but I think the interplay between the games' demands and the toolsets the games offer the player (that is, the way these elements are negotiated by the player) is ultimately at the center of both, and depend on the skillset (mastery of the game's controls) and mindset (mastery of the game's rules) of the player themselves.
If you're stuck on a puzzle and have no frame of reference for its rules, isn't that a pretty clear indication that you don't have sufficient knowledge to figure it out, even in the absence of words literally appearing on screen to tell you so?
Because any puzzle you can currently attempt to solve technically has no prerequisites, the game has no way of determining whether you're failing to solve the puzzle simply because you haven't completed the puzzles that would give you the information you need, or because you are simply inputting the wrong solution even after having completed those previous puzzles - i.e. simply making a mistake.
Do you expect the games you're successful at to give you pop-up instructions every time you fail a challenging portion?