I played Tengami, an origami puzzle game created by Nyamyam. Players ages 4+ can play the game on macOS or Steam. The game’s relaxing audio, origami environment, and slow pacing makes the game suitable for players who are looking for an immersive and calm game space over an action-based one.
Tengami is a puzzle game that relies heavily on the environmental design of the game space. In the architecture of the game, the creators utilize elements that are natural to the origami environment and amplify the origami theme in order to push forward the aesthetics of discovery, sensation, and submission. On the other hand, Tengami lacks the puzzle mechanics of allowing alternate solutions and does not steer the player well – many of its hints and narrative pieces are in 3-6 word sentences or riddles.
The strengths of Tengami are centered on its use of art and its use of elements that are natural to the themed game. The game mechanics include actions like turning pages, pop-up origami scenery, dragging paper pieces, and pushing paper pieces. These mechanics mirror interactive origami in real life and fits Kim’s description of a toy where players engage in manipulating the world (Kim). These mechanics rely on the assumed common knowledge about origami which drive the player’s discovery and exploration of the space.
They further amplify the origami theme by avoiding distracting details – guiding the player towards interactions that would help them progress in the game rather than explore deadends. The game’s environmental puzzles rely on a mix of mechanics from multiple types of puzzles. For example, Tengami uses the “building” puzzle mechanics in order to create different paths in the world.
The player flips and pulls different sections of the world in order to construct a path that builds bridges or stairs. Although the player has full freedom in combining different flip options, there is only one right answer. Players use observation and deductive reasoning as a game dynamic while immersed in the discovery aesthetic (Hunicke). The environment encourages trial and error while also upholding the element of a good puzzle – having a right answer (Kim). Finding this right answer is satisfying for the player as it flips open even newer parts of the world – further feeding reward and encouraging discovery.
The world was designed to be a moderator in the player’s exploration. The puzzles relied on finding the missing piece – focusing on less challenging puzzles that directed more exploration of the narrative rather than logic. The second chapter opened with a zoomed out world, but the missing piece on the door communicated a clear objective for the player. Additionally, the glowing portals transported the player to different parts of the origami world – acting as embedded hints. Not only was this a novel feature that extended the true abilities of origami, it also made the puzzle more enjoyable. The architecture decision became a boundary for the player’s discovery routes and made it clear to the player which pieces were worth exploring.
One aspect of the puzzle game that disrupted the submission aesthetic was its strict reliance on the mechanics of sequence puzzles and “hunt the pixel” elements (Bates). For example, I had already found this ring in my previous exploration. However, when I tried to click on it, I was unable to pick it up because at that point in time, I had not yet found the clue that introduced this riddle. Because I wasn’t able to pick it up and it seemed very small compared to its surroundings, I disregarded it and spent 8 minutes exploring without direction. This caused friction in the submission aesthetic. The dependence on the mechanics of a sequence puzzle was more distracting than it was necessary. The 8 minutes of exploration became more about looking for things that stood out rather than enjoying and immersing in the world. Perhaps an inventory mechanic would be a potential solution.
This is only one example of the linearity of the game. The game also depends heavily on the player’s knowledge of origami. Though there are arrows and simple instructions like “drag” or “turn the page,” players who have not interacted with these paper constructions or have the Japanese cultural context, would not be able to enjoy the discovery aspect of the game. Furthermore, the creators assume that players are familiar with emergent types of gameplay and narration – more specifically, game spaces that rely on nonverbal and minimal text environments. Without a map or inventory, the creators also assume that players can hold the cognitive load of memorizing where they saw each puzzle, which items to look for, and the sequence of page flips required to get to different locations. This is strongly represented in their limitation on hints – only when the player is at the riddle site are they able to request for a hint. Though discovery and immersion in the environment is the strength of this game, its reliance on this cognitive strength also takes away from the submission type of fun.
Citations:
Bates, Bob. Designing the Puzzle. Legend Entertainment, 1997.
Hunicke, Robin, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. Northwestern University, 2004. https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf. Accessed 8 May. 2025.
Kim, Scott. “What Is a Puzzle?” Scott Kim: Puzzle Designer
