Making good puzzles is equal parts restraint and care. The best ones are easy to understand, honest in their rules, and satisfying when the last piece clicks. After years of building puzzle games, here's what we've learned about the craft.
Three Quiet Pillars
In our games, we keep returning to three ideas:
-
Clear Rules: Players should understand what they're trying to achieve and what actions they can take. Ambiguity is the enemy of good puzzle design. If a player fails, it should be because they made a reasoning error, not because they misunderstood the rules.
-
Progressive Difficulty: The learning curve should be gentle but steady, allowing players to build confidence. Early levels teach mechanics. Middle levels build fluency. Late levels demand mastery. Skipping steps frustrates players; pacing them well keeps players engaged.
-
Satisfying Solutions: The "aha!" moment when solving a puzzle should feel rewarding and well-earned. This is the payoff for all the design work. A good puzzle makes the player feel clever, not lucky.
Balancing Complexity
We trim aggressively. If a mechanic doesn't teach or delight, it goes. Every rule should pull its weight.
This is harder than it sounds. Designers often fall in love with clever mechanics that don't actually improve the player experience. Playtesters keep us honest—they don't care about our intentions, only their experience.
The best puzzles often have the fewest rules. Constraints create creativity, both for the designer and the solver.
Visuals That Stay Out of the Way
Minimal UI, strong contrast, and clear feedback. If you're thinking about the interface, we failed.
Good puzzle visuals serve three purposes:
- Communicate state: What has the player done? What remains?
- Guide attention: Where should the player look next?
- Confirm actions: Did that input register? Was it valid?
Everything else is decoration. Decoration isn't bad, but it should never compete with clarity.
Listening (Carefully) to Players
We watch how people solve more than what they say. Struggle points and "aha!" moments tell us what to adjust.
Player feedback is invaluable, but it requires interpretation. When someone says "this puzzle is too hard," they might mean:
- The difficulty spike was too sudden
- The rules weren't clear
- They're tired and want an easier experience right now
- The puzzle is actually unfair
Observing behavior helps us distinguish between these. Where do players pause? Where do they backtrack? Where do they give up? These patterns reveal the truth better than surveys.
What's Next
We're experimenting with fresh mechanics and cleaner, faster web builds. If you like tight puzzles with no fluff, you'll feel at home here.
Try one:
