Brunsworks
Tampa
Gimmicky. The format and the interface don't support this kind of space usage well at all, and puzzles like this are just dissatisfying.
This was my kind of puzzle. It challenged, but it also gave me some laughs.
The answer for "Great service provider" is a little odd. I know them as a low-tier computer maker that occasionally has a reliable model, and their customer service has been spotty at best. The only other use of the word I've seen is for a genus of tree. Maybe that would be a better clue for this word.
I didn't love this one, not least because the clue for 13D feels grammatically incorrect to me, and that took me out of the grid for a bit. I strongly feel the clue should be "Lack of trouble." That would yield a noun, instead of the adjective suggested by the existing clue. That said, I didn't mind the four Qs in a diagonal row. That was fun. But the rest of this grid was just...okay to me.
This felt like a great idea for a properly implemented Rebus feature. It doesn't appear that there's any interest at NYT Games in building one that doesn't make this puzzle feel incredibly clumsy and dissatisfying for me. I'm sure others like it better, but to me, it's clever, but no fun at all. Also, as I should have been saying in the months since I first saw it...there's a yawning chasm of difference between honing and sharpening. Please use a different clue.
@Sam I get where you're coming from, but I look at that sort of clue as a vocabulary learning experience (and a great way of avoiding yet another VOILA).
I don't normally go in for gimmicks, I absolutely loved this one! Not using the rebus function made this a much more solidly crafted puzzle experience for me. I'd love to see similar overlap formatting in other crosswords, especially in place of rebuses, because rebuses, when they aren't gimmicky, still require a higher level of inference than I feel is appropriate for all but the most difficult Sunday puzzles.
That was a lot of fun, especially since the final bit worked on two levels. The constructor could have done more, but that would have risked being a hat on a hat.
@SP I thought of "conservadox" as an argument where the arguer must believe in two contradictory concepts.
I liked the theme, but I particularly enjoyed some of the wordplay in some of the regular clues. I could stand to see more "this and this, but not this," though, and less DRS and OWOW. Those always feel like placeholders to me.
@Chet I mean, the words barely overlap at that point, much less "cross." (Occupythesamespacewords?)
@Edward Honestly, that was my favorite part of this one. I learned that IUPAC has a different name for a chemical with which, as a person constantly trying to eat more fruit to get back in shape, I am intimately familiar. I like learning stuff by accident. I don't like learning stuff because the constructor wants to remind everyone how clever they are.
@Alex I'm going by the literal definition of "hone" for a blade, which is different from sharpening. I accept that metaphorical honing has come to mean sharpening, and has thus migrated to the literal definition in casual current use and yield the point. I should have checked the dictionaries. When maintaining cutlery, though, sharpening removes metal, and is considered a basic fix for a dull knife, while honing keeps a sharp blade sharp, and is more of a maintenance task. <a href="https://www.seriouseats.com/honing-vs-sharpening-7096318" target="_blank">https://www.seriouseats.com/honing-vs-sharpening-7096318</a> But Φ on this puzzle implementation.
All 15 comments loaded