In several games, such as Monkey Island 2, the story is being told by a narrator who has just experienced it. However, their account usually seems completely truthful. What if the person were ridiculously boastful, or lying in order to cover something up, or just plain stupid?
Here's an example: Suppose we have a story which takes place in a fantasy setting, with three main characters: a boastful knight, a lying thief, and a rich twit. When controlling the knight you would be invincible in combat, irresistible to women, and a natural leader. The thief would be endlessly charitable and self-sacrificing yet somehow manage to become wealthy while all of his enemies end up dead. The twit would do things which are completely nonsensical, with equally nonsensical results. By the end of their accounts their three stories would converge with them all taking part in the same pivotal event.
Nice idea. Such gimmick could definitely make a game more fun.
Andrew Plotkin did something similar in the IF Spider and Web. If you do it right, the mechanic can be very fun.
I think it could also be a good source of subtle comedy. Of course there's also the possibility for anvilicious interruptions by a listener to exclaim that it couldn't have possibly occurred in such a way.
(deleted)
I've thought about making games before, but I don't have a lot of free time at the moment. I was kinda thinking someone else might like the idea and incorporate it into a game. But maybe after I graduate in a couple years.
Having them tell the same story could work, but I wonder if it might limit the possibilities a bit. I think it may be better to have brief interactions so that they can all be in different locales experiencing different things. I guess that makes it sort of unRashoman-ly, but I have a feeling it would work out better. Also it means the comedy has to be more subtle and hopefully more clever. I don't usually find comedic takes on the Rashomon bit to be very funny, because writers tend to do very obvious things with it. But eh, it's all in the execution.
I've used a similar idea for the interactive flashback sequences in my game-in-progress, where some scenes overlap but differ subtly (sometimes less so) depending on the perception or deception of the character recounting the events. Mainly I just wanted to show the fallibility of memory and how personal bias affect our interpretation of events, and also to suggest that it's easier for people to rewrite their past than live with their mistakes.
So it's not a major gameplay feature, nor is there any "... but here's what really happened" explanation (damn, now I feel like watching Tim Curry in Clue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6fcw7oDoHo) again). But it's definitely a narrative device with a lot of potential, and at sometime in the future I want to explore it further, possibly even using different art styles for the same locations as they are perceived by different characters.
I'm still eagerly awaiting that game, GarageGothic.
I also find the basic device interesting, and I've been knocking around several ideas for games that incorporate versions of it (not really seriously, just in my head).
The game Rosemary had something a little bit similar, where you had to trigger specific memories to alter the environment in playable flashback scenes.
I'm a big fan of first person narration and multiple points of view. One of my current pseudo-back-burner, way too epic for its own good projects is planned to have utilize the multi-POV approach. I hadn't thought much about explicitly making my narrators misrepresent reality, though I certainly wanted to include bias. If it seems to fit, I might consider doing some overlapping scenes with obvious (or subtle) discrepancies, though my current thinking is it might not work too well with that particular story, and would make more work for me on an already overly ambitious project. Any rate, I will see how things play out. It's definitely an intriguing mechanic.
I don't think making them tell the same story would be too limiting at all, if you were doing a short game to begin with. An upper-medium to full length game would probably get tiring if you had to trundle through 3+ variants of every scene, though. I think in the end, the mechanic as a whole might be better suited to something short. Explore the mechanic to its full potential, and then let it go. On the other hand, there is this kind of conservative streak in game design (even amateur game design) that says that if you want to take risks, keep things short, but if you are going to make some sort of lengthy masterpiece, you'd better keep things fairly conventional. I understand the reasoning behind that thought process, but I'd still love to see it challenged.
Quote from: Lyaer on Mon 07/06/2010 11:52:58On the other hand, there is this kind of conservative streak in game design (even amateur game design) that says that if you want to take risks, keep things short, but if you are going to make some sort of lengthy masterpiece, you'd better keep things fairly conventional. I understand the reasoning behind that thought process, but I'd still love to see it challenged.
I've noticed the same tendency, especially with commercial games - though personally I blame it on the fans rather than the developers. Anybody who can use the words "good writing" and "Black Mirror" or "Runaway" in the same sentence while keeping a straight face, yet scream bloody murder at the mere mention of a *gasp* non-point-n-click interface, really deserve what they get.
In terms of amateur developers, I'm not so sure the lack of innovation in longer games has that much to do with "playing it safe". More likely it's a natural outcome of the (imho deeply flawed) story-first-then-add-puzzles design methodology. This is one of my major game design peeves at the moment but also quite off-topic so I'll avoid an extended rant, but I just so wish that developers would mine their story ideas for cool and unique gameplay elements instead of just dropping random obstacles along the player's path. If you come up with the basic idea for a story and can't immediately write a list of ten cool interactions that would be fun for the player and haven't already been done to death (or have been done before, but poorly implemented), then I'd ask you to strongly consider whether a video game is the ideal medium for telling that story.
Edit: Bah, got so wrapped up in my bitching that I forgot to mention that I've been playing Puzzle Bots lately and I think it's a wonderful example of how a short game can become the prototype/proof-of-concept for a full length game.
Quote from: GarageGothic on Mon 07/06/2010 14:25:49
Edit: Bah, got so wrapped up in my bitching that I forgot to mention that I've been playing Puzzle Bots lately and I think it's a wonderful example of how a short game can become the prototype/proof-of-concept for a full length game.
You mean
Nanobots, surely?
No, I did mean Puzzle Bots because that's what I played :) but obviously I was implicitly referring to Nanobots when discussing prototyping. I'm sure it could have been stated clearer, but you still got the point, no?
I think one thing which would make it easier to design a game around a given story is to allow the inventory to contain not just concrete items but also abstract ideas. I really liked the way this was done in the Shivah for instance. I think this is a more natural way of involving the player in the story. Item-based puzzles are all well and good, but if those are all you have then it's pretty likely there will be some fetch quests and random item hunts thrown in there. And also that a lock will be picked with a hairpin or some other unlikely device, and some object will be tied to the end of a rope.
I would go so far to say that the narrator(s) in QfG and SQ I-IV aren't liars, but they are definitely bastards.
Quote from: Sslaxx on Mon 07/06/2010 16:07:31
Quote from: GarageGothic on Mon 07/06/2010 14:25:49
Edit: Bah, got so wrapped up in my bitching that I forgot to mention that I've been playing Puzzle Bots lately and I think it's a wonderful example of how a short game can become the prototype/proof-of-concept for a full length game.
You mean Nanobots, surely?
Quote from: GarageGothic on Mon 07/06/2010 16:35:51
No, I did mean Puzzle Bots because that's what I played :) but obviously I was implicitly referring to Nanobots when discussing prototyping. I'm sure it could have been stated clearer, but you still got the point, no?
To clear this up, maybe you and Sslaxx should each explain the Puzzle Bots post from your own points of view?
akumi: I agree that the notebook was a step in the right direction compared to regular inventory puzzles, but it also places yet another interface between the player and the character. I totally understand its purpose, but I think it would be better if you could achieve the same result through less artificial means.
Dave discusses some of the negative feedback he got on the feature and why it was removed in Blackwell Convergence in this interview (http://hardydev.com/2010/02/24/bestower-of-blackwell-repossesser-of-emerald-city-interview-with-dave-gilbert/):
QuoteIn truth, it’s not a very intuitive way of getting through a puzzle. You had to force the character catch up to the conclusions that you made yourself..
The main function of any adventure interface, be it parser, verb lists, dialog choice or inventory use, is to show the game that you've figured out the solution to a problem. In terms of information processing, which is what the detective genre is all about, this usually means comparing or piecing together bits of knowledge and extrapolating new data from them. The notebook interface is a very convenient physical representation of these mental processes, but as Dave acknowledges, it's a repetition of what the player has already done in his mind.
So to skip the redundant notebook manipulation, we need to provide the player with a way to show that he has indeed come to the right conclusion, preferably in a way that can't be bypassed through trial and error (though in some cases this could be allowed if it reflects real-world logic). Personally I tend to use a lot of computer screens and keyboard input, because it's a mechanic that players are used to from real life, and Dave also ended up using web searches quite a bit in Convergence as well as the phone book in Unbound. The library card catalog in MI2 had a similar effect, and pretty much every combination lock puzzle performs the same function.
Obviously this has its limitations and shouldn't be overused, or the player will spend most of the game staring at a screen-within-a-screen, but the basic principle could be applied to many different interfaces. Anything that provides the user with too many options to easily guess his way through, even dialog trees that aren't meant to be exhausted, could be used.
Quote from: Ali on Mon 07/06/2010 17:52:35To clear this up, maybe you and Sslaxx should each explain the Puzzle Bots post from your own points of view?
I see what you did there ;)
I agree wholeheartedly with what Garage Gothic is saying. At the risk of sounding like I'm pimping my own game again, the STM system in Resonance is my answer to this problem.
Every interactable hotspot/object/character/inventory item that you come across in the game and even some story events (which get auto-added to your long-term memory inventory) can be used as dialog topics. If you see a couch in one part of the game and you work out in your head that talking to a certain character about that couch might be beneficial, you just grab that couch off the screen, drag it into your short-term memory inventory, then walk to the character and strike up a conversation with him about it. (Either by dragging the STM out of your inventory and dropping it on him or interacting with him to start a conversation and then choosing the STM item when the dialog choices come up)
I think this makes you feel less like making your character go through the same mental steps that you have gone through, and also eliminates brute force as a viable way to solve the puzzles since there are literally hundreds of possible dialog topics for each character. (Not that all of them have meaningful dialog as a result, of course. :P)
The one problem with this, which I recognize, is that you have to actually walk to the couch to add it to your STM, so if you don't know that you're going to need to talk about that couch until later, you might have to back-track to get it. Luckily, everywhere in Resonance can be reached quite quickly, so back tracking to just about anywhere requires crossing, at most, two or three screens.
I also do quite a bit of the computer screen and other screen-within-a-screen stuff as well as combo locks as well. But I try not to over-use them!
That is indeed a very neat way to do it. (although I must not think about writing a game which uses something that ;D)
A different approach is to let the player think he is in control. Well it is not very easy to pull it off, but there are a few games that do it really well. Now to get back to the unreliable narrator principle. Making a game that can played with different characters that all result in a different experience might be a bit to much, however there are ways to overcome this making use of trickery again. The only way the aspect of untruthful memories will become apparent to the player is when the player sees the differences. This can be either inconsistency among the characters, or an external source such as the player himself.
Let me elaborate on that:
Assume you are playing a game and a certain event might seem very far fetched to you, as it contrasts to the other events in the game and you might get the impression the playing character is in fact in a realm of his own imagination. Then at some point in the game you could switch to another character that plays the next part in the story, but the environment is slightly changed (a pub might be empty in the first part, but filled with good looking gals in the next, just to name an example). No need to write overlapping parts in that case, but the truthfulness of the characters is pointed out. :D
Is this a sort of a Don Quijote type of thing - for that given example, Quijote walks into a bar and looks like a handsome, buffed, young knight in shining armour and saves a lady from a rude customer, you have limited, all heroic actions you can take.
Then you play as Sancho and you see Quijote is limping into the bar with a pot on his head and he gets into a fight between a pimp and a prostitute and you have to try to fix everything you just did as Quijote (like calm down people, offer money to avoid a fight, beg for mercy, formulate a story so Quijote stays alive etc.)
...I'm not really contributing to the discussion. :P
It all depends how you implement it into the game, colud be very fun, could be annoying if you have to repeat something. Definetly would require a lot of thinking and organisation and make it idiotproof (to avoid possible dead ends and story continuity problems) - which would most likely lead to very linear exeprience, cause making dialog choices for 3 characters for a whole bunch of situations sounds like a lot of work.
On the other hand, if your characters don't meet till the end (or near the end), you're basically playing with 1 person at any time at any background, but if there's anything comedic in the whole idea, it wouldn't be obvious till that point in the game where they meet (and btw who'd player control at that point?).
I think the STM thing, Vince thought of, could be used in a lot of games, sort of a middle ground between immersion and puzzle solving.
Quote from: anian on Tue 08/06/2010 01:41:12
Is this a sort of a Don Quijote type of thing - for that given example, Quijote walks into a bar and looks like a handsome, buffed, young knight in shining armour and saves a lady from a rude customer, you have limited, all heroic actions you can take.
Then you play as Sancho and you see Quijote is limping into the bar with a pot on his head and he gets into a fight between a pimp and a prostitute and you have to try to fix everything you just did as Quijote (like calm down people, offer money to avoid a fight, beg for mercy, formulate a story so Quijote stays alive etc.)
...I'm not really contributing to the discussion. :P
But...you are contributing! This is exactly how I imagine these game mechanics to actually be fun, and it's not overly pretentious. It helps flesh out the characters (playing as Don Quijote necessarily gives you a much better idea of his surreal misconception of things, playing as Sancho makes it all too clear what kind of enemies our brave knight is fighting and what kind of heroic deeds he is really doing).
Although this is probably not a very "new" gameplay feature, but more of an extension of, let's say, Maniac Mansion, where you get to play multiple characters with different abilities (if in a very limited way) and then have to figure out how to make use of them. Any other way of implementing this, for example having the player go through the same scene twice from different points of view requires very good writing and timing, in my opinion.
I tried to play this Bureau 13, I think I bought it from a discount pile, back when I was tyke and all I knew was games from the local store (which were really expensive, I only had about a few, I think I still have the cd somewhere)
...anyway, I remeber it being a hard game, very timed and thus I never made it far, but the cool feature was, you get to take 2 agents which work with each other in an investigation - the catch/hook - some of them have paranormal powers (vampire that can turn into myst and ie go under doors, hacker, priest that can do an exorcism, a witch etc.) Games play differently each time, the concept is great for a trashy b-movie game.
I don't know if the game is abandonware yet. That's kind of a middle solution between Maniac Mansion and Rashomon mechanic. Wasn't there a game where you play twins in AGS, similar mehanics of cooperation (sorry, not played it myslef, don't get offended author that might be reading :-\ )
Honestly, I don't really like the idea of making it so blatant by having scenes witnessed multiple times just to show the player inconsistancies. In Rashomon this was only really done for a single pivotal scene which was pretty short, a swordfight. I like the idea of having that pivotal scene where all the major characters are involved, but also letting non-intersecting stories be told and largely leaving it up to the player to decide what is true and what isn't. This works well for both comedy and drama, I think.
Quote from: anian on Tue 08/06/2010 10:15:29
I don't know if the game is abandonware yet. That's kind of a middle solution between Maniac Mansion and Rashomon mechanic. Wasn't there a game where you play twins in AGS, similar mehanics of cooperation (sorry, not played it myslef, don't get offended author that might be reading :-\ )
Two of a Kind. I think it was a team project between...
Quote from: Game Database
BerserkerTails character/character animation/music
Dart Background art/character art
DaveGilbert design/dialog/coding
Scotch Background art
Yoke coding/character art/character animation
There are some other games like that as well, floating around. The POV switching mechanic is fairly common in games, to varying degrees. I first saw it really explored in The Lost Vikings (platformer). A lot of games will have segments that involve swapping characters for some sort of even, and it's fairly common in JRPG's to switch your main character at different points in the story, anywhere from having parallel plot-lines (all I can think right now is Treasure of the Redra's, which is kind of obscure) for the whole game, to putting in someone else while your main character is out of commission (Xenogears, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 7 and a few others from that series, +90% of the rest of the genre). Final Fantasy 6 had enough POV characters, that it was hard to identify the "true" protagonist.
In adventure games, King's Quest 7 had two characters that you played in alternating chapters, and Dreamfall also split the story between three characters, based on where you were in the plot. There was a game called Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit that involved multiple POVs, I believe, but I didn't actually play it, so I could be off the mark, and I don't know how they implemented it.
The vast majority of the time, this is used either as a pure gameplay mechanic for solving physical puzzles, or as a plot device to showcase events that the main character is not present for, or occasionally different sides of a conflict, etc.
It's rarely handled in a very nuanced way to show characters with vastly different perceptions, unless you count games where you get to play two sides of a war or something, and then at least you get to change who you think the "good guys" and "bad guys" are. Even when it does take full advantage of character outlook/bias, I have never seen it used with distinctly unreliable narrators, though. I mean, it probably has been, somewhere, but.
Akumi, I think you're right that repeating an entire story from different points of view is redundant (provided that the characters are mainly in the same place at the same time) and unless perfectly executed very likely to come off as just a gimmick. I would love to see more ensemble-games where you play multiple characters all taking part in the same story, though. Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy did a damn pretty good job at that until the plot went apeshit in the second half.
The recent thread on And Then There Were None where somebody mentioned how the game added a detective character to the story that wasn't in the novel, made me think about how a whodunit style game could still work without traditional investigative gameplay. Imagine it divided into a number of time blocks (per tradition), in each of which you took on the role of one of the suspects. You wouldn't have any knowledge of the character and their true role in the story beyond a number of tasks they needed to perform in that specific time block.
For instance, starting off the act with a bloodstained knife in their inventory and making it clear to the player, that they need to hide it. We won't know where the knife comes from, why it is bloody, or the character's motivation for hiding it (to protect someone else perhaps?). There's no way to tell if your character will end up dead mid-act, if they're actually the killer and just carrying out some more important mission this very moment, possibly preparing for a later murder or planting false evidence.
I didn't give that much consideration to how the resolution would play out, but it depends on the style of story, really - perhaps you finally get to play the detective pointing his finger at the culprit, or the killer performing his last murder, covering up his tracks and getting away scot-free, or add a twist and combine the two, even if it's been done before.
One of the main reasons I avoid commercial adventure games these days (apart from poor writing, slow pace and uninspired puzzles) is that a lot of them literally depress me. Not because they're bad, I take that more-or-less for granted, but because quite a few of them actually have interesting core ideas - usually story or gameplay features that are hyped in interviews and on the back of the box - but either botch them up horribly or seem to forget all about that premise after the first half hour of gameplay in favor of more conventional adventure tropes.
But some of them do get it *almost* right though, or at least close enough that you bear over with the tedium just to see it through to its resolution. One of those games, for me, was Overclocked: A History of Violence (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/overclocked-a-history-of-violence). It's about a psychiatrist who has to unlock the memories of a bunch of teenagers who witnessed the same, to him unknown, events that left them mentally scarred. As you trigger latent memories of the amnesic teens, you get to play through their experiences, gradually piecing together the puzzle of what actually happened.
It's a great idea and, at least in terms of games, pretty original (I recall that Dimitris Manos, editor of the e-zine The Inventory, was pitching a similar game concept where the central event was a high school shooting, but unfortunately that never saw production, ). The gameplay itself was totally standard though, and the writing not unforgettable, but still it kept me hooked until the (underwhelming) end. Another one for the "this could have been so much better" pile of games that I regularly draw inspiration from (the latest of the bunch being Alan Wake, the wasted opportunities of which - or rather my ruminations on them - clicked perfectly with another game idea I've had for a several years but didn't know exactly what to do with, turning it into something completely different but far cooler).
Quote from: GarageGothic on Tue 08/06/2010 21:24:43
The recent thread on And Then There Were None where somebody mentioned how the game added a detective character to the story that wasn't in the novel, made me think about how a whodunit style game could still work without traditional investigative gameplay. Imagine it divided into a number of time blocks (per tradition), in each of which you took on the role of one of the suspects. You wouldn't have any knowledge of the character and their true role in the story beyond a number of tasks they needed to perform in that specific time block.
For instance, starting off the act with a bloodstained knife in their inventory and making it clear to the player, that they need to hide it. We won't know where the knife comes from, why it is bloody, or the character's motivation for hiding it (to protect someone else perhaps?). There's no way to tell if your character will end up dead mid-act, if they're actually the killer and just carrying out some more important mission this very moment, possibly preparing for a later murder or planting false evidence.
I didn't give that much consideration to how the resolution would play out, but it depends on the style of story, really - perhaps you finally get to play the detective pointing his finger at the culprit, or the killer performing his last murder, covering up his tracks and getting away scot-free, or add a twist and combine the two, even if it's been done before.
Well isn't that kind of similar to Heavy rain, except an addition of "what you do will determine who the culprit in the end is" would be nice.
Personally, I don't like the amnesiac PC-s, always seem silly to some extent and kind of seems like lack of imagination (I know that isn't the case many times, but still).
Quote from: Lyaer on Tue 08/06/2010 18:03:26
Two of a Kind. I think it was a team project between...
Quote from: Game Database
BerserkerTails character/character animation/music
Dart Background art/character art
DaveGilbert design/dialog/coding
Scotch Background art
Yoke coding/character art/character animation
Uuuu, damn, better go and hide, lots people there who can kick my arse.
*sneaks of into the darkness*
The book of Unwritten tales has a cast of four protagonist with different abilities and different outlook on the world and it even has a scene that it visited twice from different perspectives with the same character.
Quote from: anian on Tue 08/06/2010 21:39:35Well isn't that kind of similar to Heavy rain, except an addition of "what you do will determine who the culprit in the end is" would be nice.
Personally, I don't like the amnesiac PC-s, always seem silly to some extent and kind of seems like lack of imagination (I know that isn't the case many times, but still).
Haven't played Heavy Rain, so I couldn't say (and please don't spoil it for me :)).
I think changing the culprit's identity through player actions would have to be handled very delicately to work well. Blade Runner did this reversal of cause and effect quite brilliantly, at least in terms of the triggers being transparent enough for the mechanics not to reveal themselves for several playthroughs. But I think crime stories are a different matter, either you need to write dozens of carefully crafted variations on the motives and logistics of the murder - and every one of them must be satisfying as a standalone story, otherwise you might as well be playing Cluedo. I must admit I'm having a hard time considering the concept of a random or semi-random killer without being reminded of Ripper, which shone a bright spotlight on just how much time is wasted on red herrings in mystery plots just to keep as many balls as possible in the air until the very end.
As for amnesia - it's an overused plot device for sure, and I think most gamers see it as a bit of a joke by now. But there's a difference between amnesiac characters and characters who simply withhold information from the player. It's a disconnect between the player and his character for sure, but nothing that gamers can learn to deal with much in the same way that we've accepted unreliable narrators in films.
Also, I agree with your points about the Shivah, but I still found the game fun, and I think there is lots of potential with this basic idea of giving the player symbolic representations of abstract things. I guess the main thing that I liked about it, though, was the total absence of artificial item-based puzzles. It seems like "adventure game" is a bi-word for "item-based puzzles" these days... but isn't the point to let the player experience an adventure? I'd like to see more games which have a very limited or non-existent inventory.
Another game I really liked was Trilby's Notes, but the puzzles in that game were not challenging or fun. The fun part was exploring the environment and experiencing the story. The puzzles, for the most part, seemed sort of like pushing a button to advance the story.
If done in a way like that movie with Audrey Tutu not the tom hanks one, or the Amelie, instead the one with the doctor, it'll be perfect.
Inventories themselves are not bad, but I agree, relying too heavily on inventory puzzles is a big no-no to me too - that way lies cat hair mustaches :)
Quote from: akumi on Wed 09/06/2010 00:04:32Also, I agree with your points about the Shivah, but I still found the game fun, and I think there is lots of potential with this basic idea of giving the player symbolic representations of abstract things.
I wasn't actually criticizing The Shivah at all, I loved that game, but rather commenting on the notepad interface concept in general. In the hands of someone like Dave it isn't a problem, just slightly unintuitive at times, but I could easily see it turning into a replacement for the current inventory-combo-insanity if appropriated by less talented designers. I remember the notebook puzzles being the ones that got me stuck most often in Discworld Noir.
Dual: Whoa, you had my head spinning there for a while (Amelie, Tom Hanks, doctor, WHAT?), then I realized what you were talking about, and yes, I totally agree :) (if anyone else gets confused - this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Loves_Me..._He_Loves_Me_Not_%28film%29), I believe was what Dual meant)
Yes, that's the one GG.
I hate game with large inventories. (looks at HHGTG). I do.(looks at HHGTG). Anyhow, it depends on the game. I never played Dungeon Siege 2 just to get extra loots. That's bloody boring.
I think I should clarify that I don't have anything against games which have lots of item-based puzzles and huge inventories; I just think they are way too pervasive.
Quote from: akumi on Wed 09/06/2010 05:27:12
I think I should clarify that I don't have anything against games which have lots of item-based puzzles and huge inventories; I just think they are way too pervasive.
I'm pretty sure Dual said he was drunk and it was past 2am when he posted, so you shouldn't worry about making him angry. ;D
In any case, akumi, the various POV-world-changing-narrator-lying-mechanic-idea you suggested at the beginning seems to be unversally considered as a good idea, thus on behalf of the AGS community, you're allowed to continue with game development. :P ;D