to hear the author reading an audio version of this article. Let us know what you think of this style.
Click on the player down the bottom
The DS is a platform that is, and always has been, well-suited to games you can play for just a few minutes as you wait for a bus, a table at a restaurant, or a significant other trying on pants in a fitting room. Sometimes this comes in the form of short, easily-managed platforming levels, such as those you find in most Mario or Kirby games; sometimes it’s an addictive turn-based puzzle like Puzzle Quest (which, god help me, I’ll undoubtedly talk about at length in a future topic), and sometimes it’s something that requires a bit more brain activity.
The Professor Layton series falls into the latter category. It’s so far gone through five iterations in Japan, and four in the rest of the world; I’ve recently completed that fourth title, Professor Layton and the Last Specter, and it raised some interesting questions for me.
For those who might not be familiar with the series, it’s very simple to sum up: you follow the adventures of Herschel Layton, renowned archaeologist and puzzle-master, through a world where everyone and everything requires some sort of brain-teaser to be solved before progress can be made, information will be given, or, really, anything can be accomplished. It’s sort of a strange conceit, but once you take that for granted, it all starts to make a strange sort of sense.
It’s tough to describe, but even though the puzzles you find as you progress through Layton’s world are all different, they share something—some kind of common logic. I think the best way to explain it is to say that there’s almost always a trick involved. Very rarely are the puzzles straightforward; sure, some of the simpler, introductory ones are, but far more frequently, you need to employ an almost sideways-thinking style in order to make much progress.
This is where my big question comes in. The Layton games do make concessions to accessibility. Not all puzzles must be solved in order to progress through the story, and they do provide plenty of hints that can be “purchased” to assist if you’re having a particularly tough time. In the end, though, sometimes you just have to be able to SEE what the puzzle is driving at. You simply have to have that thought mode active in your brain.
Now, lest I start sounding like an elitist snob here, let me point out that I don’t believe this is directly related to intelligence at all. It’s not a matter of what you know, it’s a matter of how you think. So my question is: can that be taught?
You can improve reaction times in a shooter through practice, and you can even learn maps and required motions in platformers that will eventually be drilled deep into your muscle memory. But if the puzzles are always different—if what you need to learn to succeed in Layton isn’t a specific skill but an actual way of thinking—is that something that can be learned?
The short answer is: I don’t know. It’s like trying to teach someone common sense. You can show them how to react in specific situations, and you can give them general guidelines to follow, but in the end, it’s all up to how they synthesize and adapt that information. They really just have to learn by doing.
So…wait. If the best way to nurture a tricky skill like that is to give plenty of opportunity to practice in varied situations, then wouldn’t the Layton games be less of a test and more of a tool?
Yes.
Everyone’s pace will undoubtedly end up being different, but really, the only way to teach someone how to play a game like Professor Layton is just to let them do it. Does this mean it’s going to work out for everyone? Of course not. But that doesn’t mean it can’t.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
I frankly don’t see the point of writing AND recording it, when the two are identical except for the added music.
I like listening to podcasts, but I would much rather read an article like this in a few minutes instead of having to hear somebody read it to me. This is just my personal taste; you do a good narration
In the case of the audio articles with accompanying text you’re presented with a choice. We should probably make that clearer at the beginning but I, personally prefer hearing the author to reading blocks of text. Also consider the blind and the deaf, both of whom are catered for here.
What does everybody else think? Should we remove the choice and not print the text, or not bother taking the trouble to construct the audio and thus be just like every single other text-based site out there? OR is the notion of a choice appealing?
Alex
Alex raises a good point about accessibility. A lot of websites forget to cater to those with disabilities and for this reason alone I would say keep both formats.
Oh, and I prefer to listen to an article