One flooded basement, some rubber tubing, a repurposed fountain pump, and some rubber bands and caulk later, I'm feeling in a much better mood!
Let me elaborate slightly on what I said before. First, I suspect that there is a bit of a telephone game going on between the media, the publisher, me, and you guys. Who knows exactly what the sites said in the first instance? But, in any event, it's not a particularly big deal to me -- frustrating though it is -- because when you work on a game as a team, you have to accept that your vision is not going to be realized exactly how you might originally have imagined it. Vic and I each compromised to make our ideas fit together just right, and then our ideas had to be filtered through the watchful eyes and practical know-how of Jim (the coder). At the end of the day, scenes Vic wanted to paint, puzzles I schemed up (including a great one involving a crane hook), etc. all were dumped for various reasons.
There problem was a time when this would have bothered me more, but -- and I realize I sound ridiculous saying this -- the more things I do in life, the more I realize that if you hold out for things to be exactly how you want them, nothing ever happens with anything. I would've liked this puzzle to be in the game, but it's not integral; if I hadn't mentioned it, I don't think anyone would've noticed its absence. It was just that the timing was so horribly ironic with this interview that I felt like sharing!
@ tuluse: I did, and it's not. For one thing, it's just this one puzzle. And, since the only part that's being removed is a red herring, it would be a little weird to reinsert it on a higher difficulty setting. Even if it were feasible, the reason why we're just cutting the puzzle, rather than trying to tweak it to make it less cruel, is that we're so close to release that it's the knife or nothing. Generally speaking, the way we've handled difficulty settings is to have easier and trickier ways to solve puzzles, with the trickier ways tending to yield better rewards.