Edit: I'm reminded of this game from the New York Times from October: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quick...
While I sort of agree, I must say that part of the fun of the game (and much of the challenge) is learning the 'language' of each puzzle. In the case of the little orange suns, it was like learning from scratch, one letter at a time.
First panel: "Okay, I can't go between them."
Second panel: "Oh, I can, but have to end up on one side... which amounts to having them in the same section. How is that different?"
Third panel: "There were 4, and the only path that worked divided them? What the hell?"
Fourth panel: "Oh with six I have to make them into groups of two - so maybe I have to divide them equally?"
Fifth panel: "Aha, no, it's groups of two!"
And now that's part of your vocabulary; you discovered it organically, not by bringing in some outside knowledge like symbols from off the island. Notice there aren't any numbers or letters? Like, anywhere? That's part of it...
And to that point, maybe one reason I've found so many recent major game titles boring recently is that there is no puzzle to them. They're just activities. Go here. Shoot that. Collect that. It's nice to actually be stumped. And not just frustrated by my lack of hand-eye coordination.
Q: I have three oranges and one grapefruit. I have to get all of them through a door that's been glued shut. There is no way to open the door. How do I get the fruit through?
A: Blend them and use the tube lying next to the door and pour them through the keyhole.
That's a non-intuitive puzzle. You can't intuit that there's a keyhole, a tube and a blender accessible. With creativity it's solvable, but then again, with creativity you also could argue you could use the hole saw nearby and cut a hole in the door and deposit the fruit on the other side. At this point you're just making things up.