Logic or Execution?
This could range from just using momentum in a previously untaught way (e.g. bouncing a laser cube with portals to hit two laser catchers) to being borderline glitch exploitations (e.g. standing half in a portal on a low ceiling and shooting) Maps that rely on parkour like this and ones that require quick reflexes especially garner unconditional love from some people and burning fiery hate from others.
On the flipside of this coin we have logic challenges, where more emphasis is put on thought than action, and it's the dynamics of test elements that solve a puzzle. These range from the ultra-straightforward (VALVe's entire SP campaign) to the incredibly complex (see my Laser Circuits for a good example). These ones too can frustrate some and astound others, but here because all the tools for the solution are made clear, it's fitting those tools together that makes a puzzle.
I've noticed that there is a distinct divide between people who like either of these solution methods. I am in the latter category, but that's just my opinion, apparently. I created this thread and poll to truly gauge which is the more popular problem-solution to this problem-solution problem.
My reasoning is much like VALVe's. It is incredibly painful to KNOW what to do and just not be able to pull it off. That is the type of thing in a map that instantly turns me off. I'm not saying some things shouldn't have some hard execution, maybe changing a portal around a few times for the perfect fling, or something similar, but my rule of thumb is if you can't do it yourself 4/5 times, as the actual maker, then there is a problem 
.
Tmast98 wrote:
My reasoning is much like VALVe's. It is incredibly painful to KNOW what to do and just not be able to pull it off.
This. I tend to like to make puzzles easy, but fun to solve. If it isn't fun, then it isn't a good puzzle. That said, I'm not a good designer of "hard" tests, but I try. I like to show the player a basic type of puzzle earlier on, and then later in the map expand on that same mechanic.
josepezdj wrote:
@Antivector: be fair and add a 3rd option: BOTH
That would've defeated the purpose of the poll, though. I wanted to know which method the Portal 2 community wanted to emphasize on. I know the methods aren't mutually exclusive, but people do prefer one style over the other, and I suppose the consensus is a preference to logic. That's what I wanted to find out.
The things I try to aim for regarding timed operations in my own maps are:
- the player can work out exactly what they need to do before starting the timed part of the test,
- the time limit is not unreasonably short and
- the cost of repeated failure is low. (IE no death and no laborious reset procedure.)
For example:
example / spoiler
The last room of Sendificate has a timed element at the end. You need to beam the box to the ceiling, then quickly switch portals. It's pretty easy to do, especially if you line up your view with the platform before pressing the button. And if you mess up, all you have to do is walk a short distance to get a new box.
) makes the best map.
The concept I have for 'logic' is more based in the processes involved in problem-solving, in logical reasoning, to be able to DEDUCT a series of maneuvers or a sequence of steps behind a puzzle... And to be honest, I don't really care if some of those steps are execution ones, ONLY IF there's a logic or deduction process behind Of course I DON'T talk about "ninja maps", I'm not a fan of those either. But there are many funny execution moves in Portal: flinging and momentum is in the game since the very beginning, and to be honest I just LOVED to discover it!
I love puzzles, and I love logic games, therefore if I would need to choose forcedly between voting for logic or execution, I'd vote logic. If not, if I can combine both, I'd vote: both.
My concept of logic is perfectly spreaded into Mevious maps, or HMW, or Gig's, or Azorae's... but hey, also into Greykarel's maps, Chander's or Markiu's >.< ...Can't anyone else see this too?
Please revise:
NONE of those require ninja moves, I'm not a ninja and I can solve them with LOGIC
I certainly agree that it doesn't have to be a straight out pen and paper logic puzzle, and I must say, although it was a well worked map, by the end of "L-Circuits" I wasn't really impressed with the concept.
AntiVector wrote:
I created this thread and poll to truly gauge which is the more popular problem-solution to this problem-solution problem.
The only thing you can "truly gauge" with a poll based on a false dichotomy is how much divisiveness there is in the community. It looks like the answer is: not much.
Maps that require some difficult execution are made, by and large, by mappers who are themselves highly skilled and agile players. They can't unlearn these capabilities, and so their maps are naturally going to reflect this high level of skill. Asking them to dumb down their maps so that you can complete them without anxiety is tantamount to asking them to cripple themselves. And if they should accede to your wishes, I don't think you would get a very good map.
I would have thought that the best response to a map you find too difficult to execute would be to move on to another map. Not to make a poll about it.
The things I try to aim for regarding timed operations in my own maps are:
- the player can work out exactly what they need to do before starting the timed part of the test,
- the time limit is not unreasonably short and
- the cost of repeated failure is low. (I.E. no death and no laborious reset procedure.)
Spot on, especially with the last point. I do believe logic should always be the primary focus, but a clearly deducible and not overly difficult bit of quickfire portalage is always satisfying, provided the penalty for failure is kept to a minimum.
If I had to put it numerically, I'd say an 80:20 Logic:Execution ratio is the sweet spot - most of my favourite maps (and, indeed, most of my own) are balanced something like this.