This is an interesting comedy of errors. The original poster did not realize that a maze quest instance comes with a list of riddles (inventory item). Solve the riddle at each fork and make it through safely. If you answer wrong, that path leads to an insta-kill trap, with an invisible wall beyond it in case you avoided the trap. To the player not noticing the riddle list, this looked like Trial and Error Gameplay: random, unavoidable death as an intentional design element.
A few pages into the thread, someone mentions the riddle list, but here is what interests me: until then (and after, for those who did not read the thread), at least half the posts were about how much a whiner the original poster was, how this is a good thing because the game has too much easy mode, etc. If you do not suffer, you suck: the litany of the hardcore. But these are people who really think, and will publicly avow, that trial-by-error gameplay is a good thing, especially when “error” is punished by insta-death. (One can only imagine that it would be better with perma-death.) This is odd to me. By what concept is “guess, die, guess, die, pass by process of elimination” fun gameplay?
Note: I am not criticizing the quest in question, which seems to do it right: give the player the needed information to get through without experimental suicide. I am wondering at the population that thinks clearing a minefield by random walks is a good time. On the other hand, recognizing that population, I wonder a lot less about how games end up like that so often (see the link above). There is apparently demand for it. We deserve the games we get, it seems.
: Zubon
Remind me someday to track down the various flash adventure and puzzle games that effectively say, “Welcome to the next-to-last level! Here is a new tool or mechanic: learn to master it in the next ten seconds with no instructions. If you fail, don’t worry! We will put a save or continue mechanic in our next version.”
