(Q - ??: among the advice you can give, do you think that consistency between the puzzles is something essential?)
MB : what do you call consistency?
(Q - ??: earlier we had Flo who explained that the puzzles must be linked to each other, to what extent in fact, they must be very strong sequences or are there sometimes jumps from one puzzle to another?)
MB : it's difficult for me... I said it so I can say it again, in my opinion, whatever the elements to deduce or find in the resolution of a riddle, the principle is that the The sequence of puzzles leads to a place, so along the way we define places which allow us to orient ourselves, arrive at a place, define the area, etc. So overall, once the puzzles are in order, it is obvious that they follow one another since they help the player to create his route, in that sense yes they follow one another...afterwards I don't know not really what I can say about it, it's a difficult concept.
(Q - ??: it was more in the idea, would you give advice to work precisely, to work on this phenomenon of coherence between enigmas or rather to try to use imagination as you spoke about previously?)
MB : imagination can intervene but coherence, in any case, it exists between enigmas, it is a coherent series of enigmas, obviously, otherwise you cannot build a course with enigmas which would not be coherent c 'is impossible. Indeed they have to be put in a certain order and one after the other they are perfectly logical, they follow each other perfectly.
No, but there you go, everything is coherent, when you think of Max, he was a guy who was organized so he set up his hunt with a lot of consistency. Well he obviously did it backwards but he also did it with a lot of consistency,
(Q - ??: because for us, the real difficulty is indeed to judge the results that we find, the results we find, it is clear, and that is the main difficulty for the researcher it's how to evaluate this result, is it fair or not, so in fact I was asking myself this question, is the coherence or the sequence compared to what we found previously, could this be a criterion to distinguish the wheat from the chaff?)
MB : the only criterion that we can give is that from the moment when passing from one enigma to another, in a certain way we have a sort of follow-up, everything goes well, if one enigma you end up with something that you can't at all connect to the next one, is that there is probably a problem, this logic exists, but I can't say more or say it differently.
MB : what do you call consistency?
(Q - ??: earlier we had Flo who explained that the puzzles must be linked to each other, to what extent in fact, they must be very strong sequences or are there sometimes jumps from one puzzle to another?)
MB : it's difficult for me... I said it so I can say it again, in my opinion, whatever the elements to deduce or find in the resolution of a riddle, the principle is that the The sequence of puzzles leads to a place, so along the way we define places which allow us to orient ourselves, arrive at a place, define the area, etc. So overall, once the puzzles are in order, it is obvious that they follow one another since they help the player to create his route, in that sense yes they follow one another...afterwards I don't know not really what I can say about it, it's a difficult concept.
(Q - ??: it was more in the idea, would you give advice to work precisely, to work on this phenomenon of coherence between enigmas or rather to try to use imagination as you spoke about previously?)
MB : imagination can intervene but coherence, in any case, it exists between enigmas, it is a coherent series of enigmas, obviously, otherwise you cannot build a course with enigmas which would not be coherent c 'is impossible. Indeed they have to be put in a certain order and one after the other they are perfectly logical, they follow each other perfectly.
No, but there you go, everything is coherent, when you think of Max, he was a guy who was organized so he set up his hunt with a lot of consistency. Well he obviously did it backwards but he also did it with a lot of consistency,
(Q - ??: because for us, the real difficulty is indeed to judge the results that we find, the results we find, it is clear, and that is the main difficulty for the researcher it's how to evaluate this result, is it fair or not, so in fact I was asking myself this question, is the coherence or the sequence compared to what we found previously, could this be a criterion to distinguish the wheat from the chaff?)
MB : the only criterion that we can give is that from the moment when passing from one enigma to another, in a certain way we have a sort of follow-up, everything goes well, if one enigma you end up with something that you can't at all connect to the next one, is that there is probably a problem, this logic exists, but I can't say more or say it differently.