That is one of the aspects that makes it hard for me personally to judge the game. I’ve really grown averse to such design mechanics.
I understand why some developers find the idea appealing, turning their game into a social event. Of getting players to come together to talk about a game, to pass on information, and to solve puzzles. It hearkens back to the early and pre-internet days when friends would pass on findings and rumors, when secrets might not be uncovered for months. It also hearkens back to once praised out-of-game elements, everything from making your own map, to solving a puzzle by recognizing Morse Code, to only being able to find a certain CODEC address by noticing a screenshot on the back of the game’s case.
While I used to think that they were neat, I’ve increasingly come to view such designs as poor game design.
The problem is that is it no longer the 1980s or 90s. The internet exists and is everywhere, with near instant worldwide communication and answers. People are also more likely to come into a game months or even years later. Social elements only work near release. People that come later will just look up an answer online, not even necessarily sure that it was supposed to be a puzzle in the first place.
Group effort puzzles are even worse, as those by nature are meant to not be solvable by an individual. But that kind of group is only present in the early days, when the puzzle has yet to be solved for the first time. Months later, you won’t be getting together a large enough group to legitimately re-solve a puzzle that already has the solution available online. Arguably as bad are “puzzles” that involve looking up data that may no longer be available or accurate. (Or where, after everyone did their initial searches, you are now more likely to find the solution itself than the clues you were originally meant to find.)