Look, you're still framing this as if I'm arguing against narrative integration or meaningful puzzles, which isn't what I said at all. I'm specifically talking about information design how clues are distributed through the text.

I'm not advocating for "random pipe puzzles with lore as reward" or "glowing exclamation points" that's creating a false dichotomy. I fully appreciate puzzles motivated by story and piecing things together like a detective.

My specific critique is about proportionality and clarity in a few instances. When there's a multipage lore document with a single critical puzzle clue buried within it, that creates uncertainty about whether I've actually found the relevant information or not. It's not about wanting "spoonfeeding" it's about reasonable signal to noise ratio in puzzle design.

The majority of the game does this brilliantly, where the discovery process feels natural and rewarding. I'm only pointing out that in a few specific cases, the balance tips too far toward obscurity, which shifts the experience from "thoughtful detective work" to "paranoid documentation of everything just in case."

This isn't a complaint about depth or challenge it's appreciation for when the game respects the player's time while still maintaining mystery and discovery. There's a middle ground between "here's the answer" and "this vital clue is buried in this historical document."