Doors

Doors is a first-person puzzle game released in 2016, where players navigate through a series of enigmatic doors, each presenting unique challenges and logic-based puzzles. Set in a minimalist, abstract environment, the game tests the player’s problem-solving skills with reverse psychology and trickery, though its reception has been mixed due to its perceived lack of polish and depth.

Doors (2016): A Puzzle of Unfulfilled Potential

Introduction

Doors (2016) is a first-person logic puzzle game developed by Calvin Weibel, a one-man team inspired by the likes of Limbo, The Stanley Parable, and Portal. Marketed as a “hardcore logic puzzle” experience, the game tasks players with navigating a surreal, monochromatic world where every door presents a binary choice: progress toward the ultimate reward—bacon—or face certain death. On paper, Doors promises a cerebral, meta-narrative-driven adventure. In execution, however, it stumbles into the pitfalls of repetitive design, underdeveloped mechanics, and a lack of meaningful depth. This review dissects Doors in its entirety, examining its development, narrative ambitions, gameplay systems, and lasting legacy in the indie puzzle genre.

---

Development History & Context

The Solo Developer’s Vision

Calvin Weibel, the sole creator of Doors, set out to craft a game that blended logic puzzles with atmospheric storytelling. Drawing inspiration from The Stanley Parable’s meta-commentary and Limbo’s eerie minimalism, Weibel aimed to create a game that was both intellectually stimulating and thematically intriguing. The central premise—navigating a series of doors to reach bacon—was intended as a satirical jab at the arbitrary nature of video game rewards, a concept that resonates with The Stanley Parable’s critique of player agency.

Technological Constraints & Design Choices

Developed in Unity, Doors leveraged a stark black-and-white aesthetic, a deliberate stylistic choice to evoke Limbo’s haunting atmosphere. However, this decision also highlighted the game’s limitations. The environments are sparse, often consisting of linear corridors with little environmental detail. The puzzles themselves are text-based, relying on logical deductions from plaques above each door. While this approach aligns with the game’s minimalist philosophy, it also exposes the lack of mechanical variety.

The Indie Puzzle Landscape in 2016

2016 was a banner year for indie puzzle games. Titles like The Witness, Inside, and Obduction pushed the boundaries of environmental storytelling and puzzle design. Doors, by comparison, felt like a relic of an earlier era—more akin to flash games or mobile puzzlers than the polished, narrative-driven experiences dominating the space. Its release on Steam for $4.99 positioned it as a budget indie title, but even within that niche, it struggled to stand out.

---

Narrative & Thematic Deep Dive

The Illusion of a Story

Doors presents itself as a game with a deeper narrative, hinting at a “broken simulation” where the player is trapped in a cycle of choices. The post-credits stinger and cryptic messages (e.g., “exacltly” typo) suggest a meta-layer, but the game never commits to exploring these ideas. The “bacon” reward is framed as both a joke and a commentary on arbitrary video game incentives, yet the execution feels half-hearted.

Themes: Choice, Futility, and Satire

• The Illusion of Choice: The game’s final puzzles—a 30-door logic challenge followed by a binary “bacon or no bacon” decision—undermine player agency. Only one door is correct, reinforcing the idea that the player’s choices are meaningless.
• Futility and Absurdity: The surreal, monochrome world and the absurdity of chasing bacon as a “reward” mirror existential themes, but the game lacks the depth to explore them meaningfully.
• Satire of Gaming Tropes: The bacon motif is a clear parody of video game rewards (e.g., Portal’s cake), but unlike The Stanley Parable, Doors doesn’t develop this satire into a cohesive critique.

Missed Opportunities

The game’s biggest narrative failing is its refusal to embrace its own premise. A deeper dive into the “broken simulation” angle—perhaps with environmental storytelling or hidden lore—could have elevated Doors from a forgettable puzzle game to a thought-provoking experience. Instead, it remains a shallow, 30-minute diversion.

---

Gameplay Mechanics & Systems

Core Gameplay Loop

Doors is, at its core, a binary choice simulator. Each room presents multiple doors, each with a plaque containing a logical statement (e.g., “This door leads to bacon”). Players must deduce which statement is true based on the given conditions. The puzzles start simple but escalate in complexity, culminating in a 30-door challenge that tests the player’s ability to track multiple logical conditions.

Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths	Weaknesses
– Simple, accessible logic puzzles	– Repetitive and brute-forceable
– Minimalist aesthetic fits the tone	– Lack of mechanical variety
– Short playtime (30-60 minutes)	– No replayability
– Meta-narrative potential	– Underdeveloped themes

UI & Controls

The game’s UI is functional but unremarkable. The first-person perspective is serviceable, though the lack of interaction beyond door selection makes the experience feel static. The absence of a map or progress tracker exacerbates the game’s linear, corridor-like design.

Innovation vs. Flaws

Doors attempts to innovate by blending logic puzzles with meta-narrative, but its execution is flawed:
– Innovation: The final puzzle’s subjective “bacon” choice subverts expectations, hinting at a deeper layer.
– Flaws: The puzzles are too similar, and the lack of environmental interaction makes the game feel like a digital logic worksheet rather than an immersive experience.

---

World-Building, Art & Sound

Visual Design: Minimalism Gone Too Far

The black-and-white aesthetic, while evocative of Limbo, feels underutilized. The environments—forest, desert, cave—are devoid of detail, serving as little more than backdrops for the door puzzles. The lack of visual variety makes the game feel monotonous.

Sound Design: Atmospheric but Forgettable

The soundtrack is sparse, relying on ambient drones to create tension. The absence of voice acting or dynamic audio cues further emphasizes the game’s minimalist approach, but it also contributes to the overall lack of immersion.

Atmosphere: Eerie but Hollow

Doors succeeds in creating a surreal, unsettling atmosphere, but it fails to capitalize on it. The game’s world feels like a shell—an empty vessel for its puzzles rather than a living, breathing space.

---

Reception & Legacy

Critical Reception: A Mixed Bag

Doors received a Metascore of 40 (based on 4 reviews) and a user score of 6.8 on Metacritic. Critics were divided:
– GameSpew (60%): “A fun experience for logic puzzle fans, but lacks depth.”
– Brash Games (60%): “Worth the low price, but far from essential.”
– Hardcore Gamer (30%): “Unpolished and lacking consideration for its mechanics.”
– Slant Magazine (10%): “A shallow, 30-minute experience that feels like a refund bait.”

Player Reception: Niche Appeal

Steam reviews are mixed (62% positive), with players praising the game’s brevity and puzzle design while criticizing its lack of content. Many noted that Doors feels like an unfinished prototype rather than a complete game.

Legacy: A Footnote in Indie Puzzles

Doors has largely faded into obscurity, overshadowed by more ambitious indie puzzlers. Its legacy is that of a cautionary tale—a game with interesting ideas but poor execution. It serves as a reminder that even the most intriguing concepts require polish and depth to resonate with players.

---

Conclusion: A Door That Leads Nowhere

Doors (2016) is a game of unfulfilled potential. Its logic puzzles are competent but repetitive, its narrative hints at depth but never delivers, and its minimalist design, while atmospheric, feels hollow. Calvin Weibel’s ambition is admirable, but the final product is a shallow, forgettable experience that fails to justify its existence beyond a brief diversion.

Final Verdict: 5/10 – “A Curious Experiment, But Ultimately Empty”

• For: Logic puzzle enthusiasts who enjoy minimalist, meta-narrative experiments.
• Against: Players seeking depth, replayability, or meaningful storytelling.

Doors is not a bad game—it’s just not enough of one. It opens a door to interesting ideas but forgets to lead the player anywhere meaningful. In the vast landscape of indie puzzles, it remains a closed door—one that, upon opening, reveals little more than an empty room.