After re-reading all of my old reviews (d'oh!!! should have done that earlier before writing the chapter), I think that all of the games were flawed. Yet they do enough things right to make these flaws all the more tragic; you keep thinking, damn, with a little more playtesting...

I have to respect though, the difficulty that must go into making a good adventure game like this. You have to challenge the player with a clever puzzle, but it must be extremely difficult to make sure he has enough information without giving away the secret. It's also critical to make sure he has a good enough reason to solve the puzzle; the harder the puzzle, the greater the pay off. Generally, though, where the Myst games fail is feedback. The real stinky puzzles never give you enough feedback, and some are so hard, with so many possibilities, that even a brute-force trial and error approach will fail. Still, I think what makes these flaws stand out SO much is that the rest of the game is so wonderful. It's like going to an art museum and seeing those ancient statues with pieces broken off; it's painful to see that and you keep thinking how amazing it must have looked whole. That's how I view the Myst games; they are superb, yet somehow incomplete. With a bit more polish and better feedback (maybe excising a puzzle or two), they could be perfect.

Wow, great comments. Looks like AA is making a comeback!

I like the idea that Myst is a good game for non-gamers, though I think it might be put this way: it's a game for people who want an alternative to the typical game. I bought Riven back when it came out, but mostly just to see what my new computer was capable of graphically. I tried to play it, but it was so hard that I didn't get far, and I didn't like the idea of using a cluebook to solve it. I remember how arduous it was to get past that elevator/tower puzzle thing at the very start of the game. Even later, when I finally got through with the help of clues; looking back I just don't know how they expected anyone to get through it. One of the worst was a little hot spot just above a fish head on a bridge. I talked to several other people who remembered that as well; it was ridiculous to think that you'd just casually point the mouse there and click in the normal course of adventuring.

Mostly, though, the puzzles were challenging but not impossible; just a few real stinkers. Myst III is the only one I was able to complete without going outside for hints, and it has some really marvelous puzzles. I only got stumped once in Myst IV, and that was again a really DUMB puzzle. You were supposed to wiggle the mouse in a certain pattern over a snake; since I'd never had to do a "mouse trail" like puzzle before, I was completely ignorant. It just seemed out of place and totally inconsistent with the rest of the interface. There's also a great monkey puzzle that is really fun, though it's also quite difficult.

Myst V is a great game as well, though I'd probably say IV is my favorite with III just after. Riven is my least favorite after URU, which frankly, nobody should ever be forced to play.

In general, I think the problem with Myst or any other adventure game is that it's too easy to get stumped by bad design. I don't mind having to work to figure out what to do, but there ought to be enough information IN-GAME to get on with it. Leaving out vital information to make it "hard" is stupid; make the puzzles as hard as you want, but at least make it easy to get to the puzzles and learn the parameters of what's expected of you.

* update - lol, I guess I did have to use a hint site for III as well. Only once, though. :)

Perhaps we are the wrong people to contemplate the classic status of MYST. We, like Bill said, are experienced gamers who generally don't gravitate to games such as MYST, finding it lacking in many respects, yet obviously a great number of people played the game and its sequels. Who are these people? What did they get out of the game? Could that be a clue as to whether it deserves "classic" status or not?

MYST baffles me because it breaks most of the conventions of what is apparently a game for "non-gamers." Is it easy to learn? Not really. Is it immediately approachable? I couldn't make heads or tails out of RIVEN, so I guess not. Is the interface simple? Not in my opinion. Does it have an immediately understandable premise? Heck, I don't even remember if there was a premise!

Yeah, I don't get it. Yet it appealed to many "unconventional" gamers. It did have great graphics, though. Perhaps people just wanted to leisurely roam around in a fantasy world where they didn't have to worry about character stats, action/strategy battles, or pound the fire button fifty times per second.

qoj hpmoj o+ 6uo73q 3Jv 3svq jnoh 77V

Myst is more like an interactive novel with an intriguing story than that it is a game in my opinion. Elise and I played through all the games.
There's even a Myst out on the Nintendo DS!

Editor / Pixelator - Armchair Arcade, Inc.
www.markvergeer.nl

Perhaps "timing" equals "great game!" After all, was PAC-MAN really that great of a game, or was it the timing of its release that made it a classic? Was it really that much more fun than "Ladybug" or "Crazy Climber" to warrant its cult status? It's not as if it was THAT groundbreaking of a game, actually.

Any game that is so popular that it spawns a PARODY game of its own ("PYST") must be a great game. Whatever its flaws, it spawned several successful sequels (and a parody), meaning that players had enough fun with the first game to be thirsting for more! And isn't that the point of a game: to have fun?

I've never played MYST, actually (I was still an Amiga computer user at MYST's release), but I noticed that several female computer gamer friends of mine were hooked on MYST. In fact, all of the MYST players I knew were females, not males. It actually allowed me to, for the first time I can remember, talk about computer games with females! Perhaps that in and of itself is a major "greatness" point: the gender boundaries were somehow eliminated in this game (why that is, I don't know, I didn't play it... perhaps you could speculate).

As a computer graphics enthusiast, I can say that MYST was perhaps the most beautiful game of it's time, far surpassing what mere polygons were capable of accomplishing. Even by today's standards, MYST's graphics were grand and surreal, while still being immersive. Based on what I've seen, playing MYST would be akin to walking around in a piece of high art. It really raised the bar on what computer game graphics were all about. And like it or not, "eye candy" is always a selling point for video games. How else can you explain "Dragon's Lair," a game with minimal input from the player's point? MYST seemed to offer more interaction than "Dragon's Lair."

As for FMV, the MYST series wasn't about FMV (as far as I can tell), it was about immersing the players in a surreal environment. FMV was a gimmick in large parts, and that is why the games based on FMV failed, IMHO. I want to play a game, not watch a movie! MYST seemed to get that part right, and let players PLAY, not just watch.

Unfortunately, I purchased a MYST compilation CD in a bargain bin one day. MYST didn't play that well on my PC, but RIVEN (MYST III) did. Alas, it seemed too surreal and puzzly for my tastes (I'm generally too stupid for puzzle games), so I didn't spend much time with it. I will say, though, that "Riven" was absolutely beautiful from a computer graphic perspective.

qoj hpmoj o+ 6uo73q 3Jv 3svq jnoh 77V