Post by catherwood on Apr 12, 2019 12:57:39 GMT -5
Q8 is what intimidates me. What if we overlook a detail because we don't recognize it as a reference from art or history or literature? Also, the movies mentioned in their response demonstrate a linear trail of clues, interdependent and connected, which cannot be solved in isolation. We can't skip ahead or focus on one detail. Like an Escape Room, you can't open the final lock without solving the earlier steps, and the first puzzle isn't telling you where the final lock even is.
[later addendum] I didn't mean to sound discouraged. I rather prefer a hunt with multiple steps, and I might be overthinking the movie references in this regard. Hunts are supposed to be an adventure, and the movies inspire us to have fun with them. I still hope that no single clue reveals the location of the treasure, just as I hope the solution does not hang upon a single bottleneck clue -- I do hope there is enough reinforcement across clues to allow for a few elements to go unsolved. Perhaps the references (art, history, literature) can be thought of as flavor text, maybe even Easter eggs? Or maybe additional knowledge will give a clue some extra significance, but can also be used at face value. I certainly wouldn't want to steer anyone in the wrong direction. It's all speculation, so keep going!
Last Edit: Apr 13, 2019 13:13:33 GMT -5 by catherwood