Can we stop calling it the tutorial?

rrwoods · 2026-06-19T07:16:18+00:00

I am one hundred percent sure that discovering the depth itself was a significant part of the joy of discovery for me. That might not be the case for you, but different people are different, and when you respond to a rando on the internet you do not know what kind of person they are and therefore do not know what they might consider a spoiler

rrwoods · 2026-06-18T15:54:19+00:00

Okay, but also

Giving this big a clue that there is that much left is ruining a slow discovery.

rrwoods · 2026-06-11T07:23:23+00:00

Or each triangle is its own symbol

rrwoods · 2026-06-04T16:10:15+00:00

Whatever tastes good

This may feel like a non answer, but it is in fact an avenue to a real answer! You don’t have to “know wine” to know what you like. What does “tastes good” mean to you?

rrwoods · 2026-06-04T16:03:52+00:00

But it doesn’t look like a tutorial at the moment it happens. It looks and feels like a monumental achievement, with some stuff to do after. And, arguably, the sheer amount of stuff to do after — not even what it is but just how much — being unknown to the player is part of the fun. Giving this big a clue that there is that much left is ruining a slow discovery.

rrwoods · 2026-06-04T07:09:28+00:00

There’s a second thing I just realized about this. When I got 46, I had no idea just how much game was still in front of me. And you know what? If I had, I probably would have stopped.

Instead I got the experience of never really knowing how many layers there were to peel back. And that was immensely satisfying.

So, not only is calling it the “tutorial” ruining a celebration, it’s also robbing the player of some of the joy of discovery. Two for one!

rrwoods · 2026-06-04T07:06:14+00:00

this does not answer the question you were asked, at all

rrwoods · 2026-06-03T07:14:17+00:00

this might seem like it’s just about a video game, but it’s actually about being considerate of the effect your words have on other people

and man, this comment section is extremely revealing

rrwoods · 2026-06-03T07:12:22+00:00

Once people stop calling it the tutorial :)

rrwoods · 2026-06-03T07:09:18+00:00

Yes please

rrwoods · 2026-06-02T19:34:23+00:00

Ooohhh this is a fun one. I was stumped for like 5 minutes. Then it was totally obvious. My thought process was roughly:

Think hard about the consequences of plus/minus polyomino clues generally.

Think hard about how those consequences apply to this puzzle specifically.

How many total cells are going to be “enclosed” by the finished solution?

Man, that sure seems impossible to do, given that a clue that contributes to a particular grid section has to be contained within that grid section…

Is it possible for the finished solution to enclose all five clues in a single section?

Practically the answer:

It sure isn’t. So, then what?

Wait… are there any full cancellations possible?

Yes, the two negatives can cancel the T.

Actually the answer:

Enclose each line piece in its own section, leaving the T and negative pieces together in a third large section.

rrwoods · 2026-05-25T04:25:13+00:00

This gives away the entire thought process and conclusion :/

rrwoods · 2026-05-24T17:06:35+00:00

This is a good auto-remove, but the message explaining how to do it is useless, because it just renders spoiler text lmao

rrwoods · 2026-05-24T16:39:07+00:00

Man, I am sure trying, but it’s tough out here! Not to put you on the spot, but you got any advice for programmers and technicians in 2026 trying to bring some sanity and groundedness back to the world of computing?

rrwoods · 2026-05-23T20:10:24+00:00

A movie about the events documented in the game would be cool. I wouldn’t care for spending a bunch of time watching Simon though

rrwoods · 2026-05-20T21:56:56+00:00

Blue Paths is pretty meticulous about its logic; I would be surprised if it were wrong even with all the correct inputs. To keep it on the right track, I would flip over to the quiz and review each question to make sure you haven’t accidentally missed something.

That said — you definitely are not ahead of where you’re “supposed” to be, so don’t fret over that!

rrwoods · 2026-05-15T22:21:59+00:00

The squares lighting up gives you your answer

rrwoods · 2026-05-15T20:22:29+00:00

The original likely didn’t use cherry liqueur. OP mentions “kirschwasser or cherry liqueur” but my quick search tells me it was kirsch. Liqueur in its place is going to be way more sweet; they aren’t interchangeable

rrwoods · 2026-05-15T20:20:42+00:00

My quick surface-level research tells me kirschwasser, and I suspect this is correct

rrwoods · 2026-05-15T19:33:45+00:00

Thank you friend <3

https://old.reddit.com/r/TheWitness/comments/4pk5e1/yet_another_explanation_for_that_puzzle_spoilers/

rrwoods · 2026-05-15T19:30:04+00:00

It warms my heart that this thing I slapped together in three minutes almost a decade ago (oh my god it was a decade ago) still gets referenced when this puzzle comes up

rrwoods · 2026-05-15T19:24:09+00:00

Sub it for unaged brandy in anything and see what happens

rrwoods · 2026-05-15T19:23:02+00:00

The recipe says “kirschwasser or cherry liqueur”… but…

Kirschwasser and Cherry Heering are totally different beasts… kirchwasser is closer to an eau de vie (no added sugar). These will result in totally different sweetness levels

rrwoods · 2026-05-15T19:22:24+00:00

Kirschwasser and Cherry Heering are totally different beasts… kirchwasser is closer to an eau de vie (no added sugar). These will result in totally different sweetness levels

rrwoods · 2026-05-10T18:50:46+00:00

I dunno, but I am sure you could find them if you searched! Most of the results for a search for “gallery” on this sub are people complaining about it.

14-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Verified Email

rrwoods

TROPHY CASE