Making a Good Game: Clearly Designate Paths

[noeinan]

I was thinking this after playing some visual novels lately, but as a player it is really difficult for me to enjoy the game when I don't get tipped off that I made a mistake until the end. I'd like to just be able to play the game from start to finish, but the prevalence of aggravating "gatchas" makes it so that I very rarely play a game without a guide.

You get to a certain point, you pay attention to foreshadowing, and you make the logical choices that will get you the ending you want. (Say, with a romance character.) Then you get to the end and you completely fail-- but you have no idea at what point in the game you made a mistake. (Without checking guides, and that's assuming there *are* accurate guides for the game you're playing.)

I feel like, even if creators want to make "gatcha" endings, where there is some less obvious flag to get the "true" ending, it would make things a *lot* easier if there were small, even one line, checkpoints at various parts of the game that, in retrospect, let you know you're still on the right route. You can go back and see roughly where you fucked up so you don't have to restart the game. (Also useful when you have limited save slots and you might have already saved over earlier parts of the game-- if there were checkpoints of sorts you could avoid this.)

This whole debacle is less annoying when there is a skip feature, but personally I never enjoy a game as much the second time when I have to skip through things. The whole story is a build up of tension, emotion, and just jumping back into the middle after failing to get the right end means the end you *did* want isn't as fun as it otherwise would have been. I don't mind as much replaying with skip after getting the ending I wanted, because it allows me to feel satisfied at the end of the game, and when I go back I'm not looking for a "completion" of the emotional intensity, I'm just looking for extra information on all the characters that you don't get in the main route. (Helps complete the story.)

So, my questions to others are:

1. Does my explanation make sense? Does this impede other people's fun in a game, or am I just particular?

2. When you're making your own games, do you think about these kinds of situations and how to make the game fun for the player?

[papillon]

Some people like the choices to be clear and obvious. Some people like the choices to be so clear and obvious that they make/play games in which there are only good endings and the only choice you get to make is to click on an icon of the character whose route you want to get.

That's not necessarily a terrible way to design a game, because sometimes you DO just want to pick between pre-determined stories with happy endings, but for people who are interested in making meaningful decisions, it's a huge letdown.

It is more user-friendly to, if possible, give some indication when you hit a bad end about why things went wrong, so that the poor player at least has a clue of how to fix the mistake. Depending on how complicated the design of the game is, though, that may not always be easy to do. If it's a single key decision that determines whether you succeed or fail, then you can clue back to that key decision (or have making the wrong decision lead automatically to a bad end) but if it's a lot of little things that built up to you not getting enough points with your love interest, it's harder to give tips at the end.

Which is why many games give you clear feedback at the time (Morrigan Disapproves) - but some players find that immersion-breaking.

[firecat]

well in life you cant always be right, look at the americans history, did they ever do anything right? nope they stole land and fight. this is how life works you cant give people pointers in real life thats impossible.

[trooper6]

I talked about this a little bit in a different thread, but I'll see if I can explain it in more detail here.
Okay, first off, my primary relevant background in addition to video games is: 30+ years of playing and GM'ing table top RPGs, and a background in theatre and music.
There have been a couple different attempts to categorize RPG players. One of the most famous has been the GNS model.
The GNS model places gamers/games into one of three categories: Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist.
Gamists care about winning. And they will make game decisions based on what will help them win. Gamists also have a sense of there being a win or a lose.
Narrativists care about telling a particular story/theme. The things that happen in order to get to that story may not be realistic (simulationist) or the points might not add up (gamist) but telling the effective story is the priority.
Simulationists care about exploring a character/setting/situation "realistically" (within the bounds of that simulation--which can be fantastic, but it must be internally consistent).

In terms of RPG video games...I suppose I'd say a sand-box game like Morrowind/Skyrim tends to be simulationist, Very story heavy games like Mass Effect tend to be Narrativist and gamist? Hm, I suppose something that is really only about stats and points and tactics and resource management...like maybe Diablo? would be gamist.

So I am a simulationist at heart. I like Narrativism, but when Narrative and Simulation conflict, I side with simulation. To give you a classic example, Narrativists often don't think a hero in an RPG should be killed in a one-off combat with some thugs in act 1, hero death should be reserved for important dramatic moments at the climax of the narrative--if the hero dies at all. A Narrative GM would have no problem fudging the die rolls so the Hero doesn't die to the rando in the bar fight. As a Simulationist, I don't think those die rolls should ever be fudged, and if the hero dies to the rando in the bar fight...then that is what happens and that becomes the story. I like gamism too, in the sense that I like points and picking abilities and all that, and I can get caught up in trying to get achievments...and I like puzzles, too. But I like stats in order to make my simulation better and I want to feel like my *character* is doing the puzzles, not me. Also, I won't seek out an achievement that I think my character would never do. There are achievements out there that require you to do something out of character to get it. A gamist wouldn't have a problem with that, because it is a game! I would because it doesn't feel honest to the simulation. A gamist has a win and lose condition, and I don't believe in winning or losing...just...stuff happening--and sometimes that stuff is that my character dies--I don't think of that as a loss if it is honest.

Robin Laws has 7 Types, which I won't go into, but I will say that I'm a "Method Actor" in that model. So to put those together, my preferences is to have a character simulation. Who is this character and how do they realistically respond to the world around them?

So what does this mean for your question about game design?

On one basic level, what makes a "good game" will vary based on preferences. A really good Gamist game or Narrativist game will not be as good for me. And what I think of as a really good simulationist game will probably not be as good for the Gamist or Narrativist player.

So for example. I do not like at all, the concept of True endings or Good Endings or Bad endings. That goes against my simulationist leanings. I don't think it should be about winning or losing but about what would logically happen. This means, I find the playing "in order to get the end you want" to be way too gamist for my taste. And so I don't like choices that are clearly and obviously about catering to that gamist impulse. It pulls me out of the simulation and it makes me irritated. It makes it a bad game for me. Similarly, since I think of the game as a simulation, then whatever ending is the result of the choices my character made is their "True" ending. I don't want the game-maker invalidating my simulation by telling me that that was not the "True" ending, some other ending was. Or that my ending was "Bad"--if my character makes bad choices and the consequences of those bad choices results in being in an abusive relationship with a demon...that isn't a "Bad" ending...that is the ending that my character built, it is honest to that character.

For me, because I am a simulationist, I like my choices not to be about winning or manipulating to get a certain ending, but about making the world seem real or defining my character. I want to make choices that help me explore who the character is. And then I want to get an ending that is the consequence of those choices. I loved Magical Diary for that. I felt like I got to play my character, to immerse myself in that world, and I made choices based on what I thought that particular version of the protagonist would do. And my first play through I ended up having no serious relationship just bonding with my friends. It gave me lots to think about! I don't think I failed the dating sim. I think I got an ending that was honest for that iteration of the protagonist and I was quite satisfied. Then I crafted a new protagonist who had a different personality and her choices led her so some really different places. I replayed that game so many times! Not because I wanted to "get all the routes" but because I wanted to explore these different character life stories.

So obvious/clear/gamist choices generally pull me out of immersion and I don't favor those sorts of games. They are not good for me.
Unclear, less obvious choices. Choices that are incremental wherein each little choice doesn't mean much by itself, but overall they mean something. Choices that are about character definition rather than exclusively plot traveling. Those are the choices I like for my play style.

About the question of "gotcha" endings. "Gotcha" endings irritate me if they break the simulation. I think "Gotcha" endings come from GMs who are gamist and think of themselves as having an antagonistic relationship with the player or GMs who are Narrativist and want to punish you for not following the narrative they have in their mind. I don't like either of those things. Now course, I have no problem with the character *failing* as long as it is within the realism of the simulation. If you go through the whole game doing what you think it would take to romance Jessie, but you weren't actually paying attention to who Jessie actually is...and in the end Jessie says, "Um...yeah...no." I think of that not as a gotcha, but as awesome! Because that is more real to me.

So to your questions:
1) Your choices seem to fall in line with a Gamist perspective. So they totally make sense. I do not think you are particular either. I think there are a lot of gamist folks out there...the existence of collectables and achievements and True endings and all of that is evidence of the popularity of that sort of playing style. Since all of these gaming styles are valid, your gaming style is valid. So your feelings on this topic are valid. Incremental and less obvious choices don't hurt my fun, they enhance it. But they hurt yours and that is true for you.
2) I think about these things...but I think about them like so: I don't see as many Simulationist games out there. I see a lot of Gamist and Narrativist stuff. And when I do see Simulationist games they are often open world games--and irritatingly for me, don't include the character work I like as a character based simulationist. So I want to eventually make games that will be attractive for the play style that I like. Some other players won't like it. But that is okay because there are enough games out there already catering to them. I decided to add a "ending screen" which tracks your endings because I know gamists like that sort of thing, I have included some elements of Narrativist explorations of themes. So I have some elements that will appeal to these other types, but in the end, I don't think you can be all things to all people. I think you have to know your preferences, know your audience, and make the best game you can for that audience.

I mean, I like some really obscure art games that many people find annoying. But I love them. I'm glad they exist. That Halo player is probably never going to like The Path. But I'm glad Tale of Tales didn't try to make The Path accessible to the Halo player. Halo players have enough games.

TLDR: Some people like to play the Game. Some people like to play the Story. Some people like to play the Character. I like to play the Character. Obvious, clear choices read to me like playing the Game, and so I don't like them. "Gotcha" endings (which are different that the character failing or getting negative consequences for their actions) feel like punishment from the Game Maker for not following their Story (or for failing the Game), and so I don't like them either--but I do like any ending that is the consequence of my character's actions, even of those endings are dark and negative.

[E-night]

That was interesting Trooper6, I have always thought of myself as a narrativist at heart, but now I think that I am actually closer to a simulationist, but
because most simultation don't have stats for the personalities of the PC, I cannot form part of the character which is most important for me (ie their inner world). I basically don't care if they have 2 point in stenght and 5 in charisma. I care about who the character are.

I also think in hindsight that is why DA2 is my most beloved bioware game, because the personality system, basic as it was, still allowed me some input into the character's personality that the world could react to.

I think I will think this over for the more stat focussed of the two games I work on.

As for the questions:

1. It absolutely makes sense. If you are an completionist/gamist then not knowing how to achieve what you want is just frustating. For me personally it depends on how the ending is written. I loathe good/bad/true ending in all, but very specific genres (ie. mystery solving or survival), but many VN's have them and if the ending is written such that the 'bad' ending is a clear 'You Lose' and not fleshed out, because it is the ending the players are obviously not suppossed to get, then I want to make it clear how to avoid that.

2. I think over it a lot. What makes a game fun to play, for players, for me personally, how does it work mechanically. I think it is important to think about it, so that the story is written for a VN and so I can better myself to write for VN's.

[trooper6]

That was interesting Trooper6, I have always thought of myself as a narrativist at heart, but now I think that I am actually closer to a simulationist, but
because most simultation don't have stats for the personalities of the PC, I cannot form part of the character which is most important for me (ie their inner world). I basically don't care if they have 2 point in stenght and 5 in charisma. I care about who the character are.

I also think in hindsight that is why DA2 is my most beloved bioware game, because the personality system, basic as it was, still allowed me some input into the character's personality that the world could react to.

I think I will think this over for the more stat focussed of the two games I work on.

My favorite RPG system is GURPS, precisely because the character sheet includes stats for personality (usually in the form of Advantages/Disadvantages/Quirks/Perks). While some might think of it as gamist, for me it is simulationist. Because I need to know who my character is before I can do the simulation. And I also want who my character is to have an effect on the simulation...and that usually happens through mechanics in some way...stats or remembered choices.

I really want video games to take more from table top RPGs that are not Dungeons and Dragons, because there has been really great diversity in RPGs over the years and not all of that makes its way back into video games. A lot of Sim computer games focus on big systems but not on character inner world...which is my preferred simulation lens. But one day we'll get more games like that.

I wanted to add, that I think one of the reasons why DA2 is also my most beloved boiler game is because of the way if felt very simulationist to me. Most narrative heavy RPGs tend to go for that "big narrative plot"--you know the one. Where the world is threatened by some huge danger (often a portal to another world where demons or whatever are going to spill forth) and you are the only chosen one who can do anything about it. I hate that. Even interpersonal relationships make you more important and special and pre-ordained than anyone else. I hate that, too. The gamist games often have not as much story as I want. And when there are relationships, it it all very mercenary and gamed. Give this one this random thing and you get points.

DA2 simulated this setting and the people in the setting. As a player I wasn't the chosen one. I was a person among other people in Kirkwall. I rose to importance, but I was never the center of the Kirkwall universe all by myself. There were people who had plots that you couldn't stop. There were characters that were into you even if you weren't into them. There were characters who were not into you even if you were into them. The game had mechanics to allow me to explore my character's inner life and have that make some sort of a difference in the simulation. DA2 gets a lot of flack from *some* people. But to me? It was one of their best.

Side note: people often think of the Elder Scroll Series as being really simulationist. And they are...but the scope is not my preferred simulation level. What I mean is, they tend to simulate location and ignore the inner world of the character, and my scope tends to be focused on simulating a character's inner conflicts. I really enjoyed Elder Scrolls Morrowind for that actually. There were a lot of tough choices that led me to think about my character from the very beginning. The game starts with you as a prisoner (as all Elder Scrolls Games do), and you have been pardoned by the Emperor (you don't know why) and shipped off to the island of Morrowind, which is not your home (you don't know why that is happening either). Morrowind is a colonized place and they don't like the Empire. Here you show up and indications are that you might be the prophesied chosen one of the people of Morrowind. But are you? And is this some sort of plot of the Emperor to gain influence over the Island? In later Elder Scrolls games you can join all the factions and raise to the top in all of them (a gamist sort of thing). But in Morrowind you can't get to the top of all of them. For the Great Houses, you can only join one...because they are at odds with each other. With the religion there is a fundamental conflict between the Imperial religion and the native religion. Who are you going to align with? You can't be at the top of all of the guilds, because they are also at odds. Morrowind had a really great sense of political science and cultural politics and that always caused me to make interesting decisions in my character. What does my character think about slavery. Slavery is part of the culture of Morrowind. Anti-slavery is an imperial imposition and part of the colonial process that is oppressing Morrowind. How do I position myself there? Could the game have been better? Yes. But there was nothing like that in Oblivion (which I still haven't finished) and I found Fallout 3 similarly empty of politics that would help me explore my character's inner life in a meaningful way.

So really I want a simulationist game that includes the inner life of the character as part of the scope of the simulation.

[noeinan]

Some people like the choices to be clear and obvious...

Well, it's not just that I want each choice to be clear as day, I enjoy meaningful decisions in the game. My issue is when I'm totally unaware that I have deviated until the ending jumps me. I feel that I enjoy the game more when I know I made a mistake before the end-- or at least when there are queues that I can go back and look at later, kind of like "checkpoints" where I know "Okay, at this point I already made the mistake so I should go back further."

It's just super frustrating and not fun, for me at least, to not even be able to fix my mistake. I don't want to sit there loading and reloading playing through the exact same material until I get it right. I just want to play the game and see new content each time I play, and I prefer when the story is not broken up completely to the point where all tension is lost.

well in life you cant always be right, look at the americans history, did they ever do anything right? nope they stole land and fight. this is how life works you cant give people pointers in real life thats impossible.

1. It's not about being "always right", it's about things that enhance or detract from my enjoyment of a game.

2. It is a game, not real life, so the whole point should be that players have fun. Telling someone to "suck it up" because that's not how life works makes no sense in this context.

So to your questions:
1) Your choices seem to fall in line with a Gamist perspective. So they totally make sense. I do not think you are particular either. I think there are a lot of gamist folks out there...the existence of collectables and achievements and True endings and all of that is evidence of the popularity of that sort of playing style. Since all of these gaming styles are valid, your gaming style is valid. So your feelings on this topic are valid. Incremental and less obvious choices don't hurt my fun, they enhance it. But they hurt yours and that is true for you.
2) I think about these things...but I think about them like so: I don't see as many Simulationist games out there. I see a lot of Gamist and Narrativist stuff. And when I do see Simulationist games they are often open world games--and irritatingly for me, don't include the character work I like as a character based simulationist. So I want to eventually make games that will be attractive for the play style that I like. Some other players won't like it. But that is okay because there are enough games out there already catering to them. I decided to add a "ending screen" which tracks your endings because I know gamists like that sort of thing, I have included some elements of Narrativist explorations of themes. So I have some elements that will appeal to these other types, but in the end, I don't think you can be all things to all people. I think you have to know your preferences, know your audience, and make the best game you can for that audience.

I am a TRPG player as well, and actually I'm more of a Narrativist/Simulationist (because I do things "in character" and like you do not go for "goals" that require me to act out of character) rather than a Gamist. I'm not upset because I didn't "win"-- my problem is when I get an ending that makes a shit story. And I think that's my real complaint-- even if I get a "bad ending" where my character dies, I want to feel satisfied that it is a real ending to my character's story. Instead, I feel like many creators are making games with shit endings, with the expectation that you will play again to get the "true ending". The ending I got (which made me very frustrated) completely decimated the whole build up of the story until that point. I wanted an ending that felt conclusive, one that felt like it made sense for the choices I made.

Instead, when inconsequential choices lead me to an ending that is sub-par, I feel that my choices as the main character don't matter-- it breaks immersion and I can't help but think "Oh, so I probably got here off of some small, stupid technicality which had nothing to do with my actual choices."

It comes off as lazy. If you only want to write one ending for your story, make it a kinetic novel. Don't add in a bunch of half baked endings that just cut the story short prematurely. I want to enjoy the game no matter which ending I get, but the reason I'm angry is I feel there *was* a well thought out ending and instead I got one that was just thrown in.

And to make matters worse, when I try to go back and actually finish the *real story* I can't even tell which stupid choice it was that led me to that, meaning I have to continually grind with reloading, or start the whole thing over and hope I don't make the same mistake. I can't even *get* to the real story because the path to it has been hidden behind something that doesn't matter.

I want to feel like my choices are just that-- they are choices and they actually affect things. I want my choices to matter, and I want them to flow with the story. I don't want my choices to be randomly assigned to endings that make no sense-- then even though I, as a player, am changing the ending with my choices, the actual *character* I'm playing doesn't get any real choice, has no agency, and their will doesn't affect the outcome at all. And that makes for a shitty story, in my opinion.

[trooper6]

daikiraikimi, I see your position. It is very understandable. I agree with it!
But maybe your problem is not in hidden/obscured choices, but in bad writing and game makers who punish you from veering off of their railroaded preferred plot? Game makers for whom your choices don't matter, because really they just want to be telling a kinetic story (perhaps they don't realize that is what they really want to do...but it sure seems like it when you look at how the game is made!)

I mean I love hidden/obscured choices that don't have big flags on them. It helps me with immersion. And also bit obvious choices feel cheap and artificial in the replay to me. But even though I like my choices subtle/obscure/unknown, I do want my choices to matter. Now, I'm actually completely fine with a mix of choices that include non-plot defining things, for example personality defining things that affect interaction rather than plot. I'm also fine with small choices as well as big choices. I'm also fine with choices that are a bit unexpected in their consequences that point toward this being a living world that is not all about the PC. For example, let's say the GM (Game Master or Game Maker) knows that an NPC needs to get across a bridge in order to deliver some medicine to orphans (or whatever). And lets say the PC has an option of blowing up the bridge an hour or so earlier in order to stop some bad guys. Now let's also say the player has no idea that the NPC needs to cross that bridge...probably because they didn't talk to the NPC or whatever. So they blow the bridge and the NPC can't deliver the medicine and the orphans die. Because the player never chose to interact with the Nurse NPC, the death of the orphans might seem random and unfair. But the event was grounded in the world and it is something the player could have found out about if they'd chosen to talk to the Nurse as some point. Talking to the Nurse could have been really interesting because then the player would have to struggle with the choice or try to get around the problem. But, maybe the player didn't feel like talking to anyone, just would rather lone wolf shoot-up/blow-up/murder bad guys. If you didn't do your investigation, if might have seemed random...but it wasn't. That situation I'd totally be okay with. I'm even okay with *some* randomness if it fits in the simulation.

I'm not okay with lazy, not-thought-out, writing that is not obscure for a purpose, but obscure because the author isn't good and hasn't thought through their story. I'm not okay with GMs who railroad...whether that is in a table top game or in my VN. And I certainly don't like it when the author has a pre-existing idea of what they want the player to do, pretend like they don't, and then punish the player for not being a mind reader. But I think that is different that making the consequences of choices clear or unclear, you know?

For example: Clear choices in dating sims often end up being something like:
You do you give the flower to? (whoever you give the flower to ends up being the person you date).
That I don't like so much.
I'd prefer something like:
You are in class and the teacher is talking. Do you sit in the back and crack jokes during the lecture? Do you sit in the front and answer lots of questions. Do you sit in the middle and try not to be noticed?
Then what you pick will define your personality a bit and have a couple different consequences. Some of them would be that the biker girl might find you more interesting if you sit in the back and crack jokes--though your grades might suffer. That is more obvious, but you could throw in some less obvious consequences. For example, the smart boy? He may *not* like you if you sit in the front and answer lots of questions, because he might think of you as a rival! Whereas maybe the Jock really likes smart people. And ideally! Dating any of them would lead to an interesting story. Or not dating anyone!

[noeinan]

daikiraikimi, I see your position. It is very understandable. I agree with it!
But maybe your problem is not in hidden/obscured choices, but in bad writing and game makers who punish you from veering off of their railroaded preferred plot?

Yes, as I said I don't think it would have been as much of a problem if I felt satisfied that the ending I got was an actual ending instead of a "heh, you died because you didn't follow these obscure steps to the real story." The dying itself doesn't necessarily bother me-- Long Live the Queen was *full* of dying, and dying because of the world not revolving around the MC. Her choices clearly could have saved her, but she didn't always know beforehand that X thing was going to happen to prepare for it. I also never minded going back and replaying parts of LLTQ-- I saved often enough, and I was generally able to locate what it was that got me killed and then fix that. (Ex. if I failed an athletics check and was killed by a snake, all I needed to do was go back and increase my athletics.)

But I do think the actual game mechanics were flawed in the game I played, and that it's a very poor strategy if there is literally no clue as to why you got the shit ending. The shit ending really doesn't have anything to do with your choices (or if they did, it wasn't portrayed.) Like, I don't mind if my lack of skill in one area gets me killed, but I want it to get me killed because I *needed* that skill to escape a situation and not due to some arbitrary decision the game maker made. (You need to have all these skills at X level to survive, even though you don't actually use any of them to get out alive. It's just because.)

And I feel like, if players do want to go back and get different endings, it would be nice if there were indicators so that you know where the "Point of No Return" is. Otherwise it's just a lot of frustrating guesswork. (You don't need to know where the PONR is during the first playthrough, but I feel you should be able to tell after finishing the game.) Not having that just takes a bad situation (the ending was poorly written) and makes it *much* worse. I can deal with getting the occasional poorly written ending, but then making it insanely difficult for me to figure out where to load from (especially with limited save slots where I've saved over all the very early points) just rubs it in my face after I'm already frustrated.

[trooper6]

LLTQ was great, because it let you know right up front what it was all about. And I appreciated that. Plus is was well written. It wasn't *immersive* for me because of how gamist it was. But I went in knowing that and adjusted my perception accordingly. I saw the game as a big puzzle rather than as a role-play experience.

I also agree that I am opposed to arbitrary decision points: You die because you don't have the needlepoint skill...even though needlepoint is never used. No good.

There is one thing about your desire for a flagging of the PONR though. Not all games work that way, where there is 1 decision that is the point of no return. A number of games work through the accretion of decisions.

I mean if in a game, let's say making an enemy of Kreia will result in X happing, making a friend of her will result in Y happening, and her being neutral will result in Z happening. But in my idea game there isn't just one choice that decides that. It is a series of on going choices and trade offs. And as a game maker I can't say when the point of no return is for your play through. You may do all the friendly things from the beginning so that there is no way you are going to be able to get the enemy ending or the neutral ending. You may hover between friendly and neutral and who knows when you'll tip over into one side or the other? There is no point of no return, just the living of your character's life and a continuing set of choices.

I tend to find "here is your one choice PONR" sort of set-ups often don't feel very realistic in a game world for me. Sure sometimes you know this is going to be a big moment. Like when the NPC asks you to marry them...accepting or turning them down is clearly going to be a big deal. But I prefer for lots of smaller choices spread out through the game in a realistic way than just one point of no return. It makes for replay that involves actually replaying rather than just jumping to the three choices that matter in a disconnected way. I also prefer my big choices to be related to all those little choices. So if I can only save one NPC: Muffy or Buffy...and I choose to save Muffy. That is a big choice. But I'd prefer the consequences for that choice also to be dependent on how I've treated Muffy and Buffy throughout the game. If I have always been hostile to Buffy and then I chose to sacrifice her...there should be different consequences than if I've been really devoted to Buffy throughout the game and then chose to sacrifice her.

There is no PONR for that sort of set up. You just have to play through it.

I know that might frustrate players who don't care about *playing* the game. They just want to college all the endings (skipping through all the text along the way). But I don't think I'm making my games for those players. A game can't be all things to all people. for A Close Shave, I'll do something for completionists, but I'm not creating the game to make it easy for people to just skip the game to get to the endings. That isn't what I see the point of my game as being. And people who want that, should probably play a different game.

[annpan]

Sorry if this is stupid question but what kind of indicators do you put in game to direct the player about the wrong direction? I don't have much input on this topic since I tend to read the walkthroughs first. However, I do know the annoyance of messing something up and doing it again with no skip function. If that's the case, I tend to quit because it's really unbearable to read the same thing over.

[E-night]

I am actually in a bit of a struggle between making the game structure clear for the players and making the game I want.

Now I have two serious games I work on right now. One is a stat-based game and I want to build up my skill at ren'py and the world more before it gets started. (I favour fantasy).

But my other game is, to use Trooper6s definitions, a more narrative based romance game, centered around a anti-heroine MC with potential of going completely villain protagonist. (It was meant as an experiement to write a different otome heroine for me).


At first I just thought I would choose the whole pick a route option and I structured my game around that, but then I realized.

I didn't want to force the player to have to have a pick an LI before the game starts, because it brought obvious attention to the game ascpect and forced the player to make a blind choice since they have no context as to who the LI's were. T
The obvious solution would be to have a short prolog to introduce the LI's, but that wouldn't work because two of the LI's are nowhere near the action at the start of the prolog.

Then I looked at the choices I had written in the prolog and I realized something. From a game play point of view the mechanics I had written would look like this:

Prolog - Crisis - Player react to crisis:
Choice 1 - Open path for LI1 and 2
Choice 1b - Choose between LI1 and 2
Choice 2 - Open path for LI3 and 4
Choice 2b - Choose between LI 3 and 4
LI 5 - Mechanically has a vs. system towards the others and tries to interrupt the paths.

Now there wouldn't be something wrong with this if it weren't for the fact that choice 1 and 2 aren't related to the LI's, but center around what the Mc wants to do for her own survival.
Yet those two choices have really, wide reaching consequence because they are what causes the crisis to spiral out of control and sets up the story.

That means:
1. The first choice is basically the most important. Yet I don't know how much to signal this to the player.
2. The nature of the romances are not - will they end up together or not. If path 5 doesn't interrupt they will end up together. It is how will this romance end?
3. Since it is gxb/g it means that the player can potentially end up with a gender the player doesn't want to, do to a choice which doesn't seem to have anything to do with this. Personally I feel little pity here since the MC's canocially have fluid preferences, but I know that it is important to some players.

Now I have played enough romance games to know that players of the genre doesn't expect the mechanics to work that way and they could end up frustrated because of it, but the designer/writer of the game in me doesn't want to change because this system is the one that makes sense for the narrative.


The whole making it easy for the player to get the ending they want vs. making the choices meaningful vs.how the player expect it to work, does not have an easy answer, but I do think it is important to think about.

[trooper6]

Sorry if this is stupid question but what kind of indicators do you put in game to direct the player about the wrong direction? I don't have much input on this topic since I tend to read the walkthroughs first. However, I do know the annoyance of messing something up and doing it again with no skip function. If that's the case, I tend to quit because it's really unbearable to read the same thing over.

My ideal game doesn't have "wrong" or "right" directions. It just has directions. There isn't "messing up," there are just choices with consequences. Some good, some bad, some neither good nor bad. But all of them interesting. A mystery game where your choices result in you not catching the killer should still be interesting...just as interesting as if you did catch the killer. If I as a creator really don't want it so that you can fail to catch the killer, then I shouldn't make that an option. I don't necessarily even find endings where the MC dies as "failures" unless they are written that way...but they don't have to be.

My ideal player is playing for the journey, not for the destination. My ideal player makes choices because those are the choices they stand behind...because they are the choices their character would make, not because if they make this choice they know they'll get this ending they already know they want. If there is a player that can not handle things not going just the "right" way...so much so that they play with a walk through from the very first play through to ensure they do everything "just right" so that that they "win." If a player never wants to feel sad, or frustrated, or challenged, or disturbed, or thoughtful.

There are lots of gamers who want to play games to escape into a place where they are powerful and handsome/beautiful and do all the right things. They want wish fulfillment or consequence free violence. They want a fantasy. They want lack of moral ambiguity. They want to win. And that if completely valid. They are, however, not my ideal player. I'm not making my games for them. They should probably play something different.

For me I think about something jazz musician Ornate Coleman (creator of Free Jazz) said: "If you have a written out chord progression, then you might as well write out the solo, you might not as well play at all…you already know what’s going to happen. Let’s try to play the music and not the background.”

So I want games that aren't already written out like that. If that is what I want, I'll read a Kinetic Novel...or I'll write a Kinetic Novel. I want the game to be like free jazz, where you are in the moment and you live in that moment. I want the game to be the music and not the background to the ending. And you make choices and you react, and the game reacts back.

Now, not everybody likes free jazz. And that is okay! But they should probably not listen to free jazz. And just because someone doesn't like free jazz, doesn't mean that free jazz should become something else to please that person.

I mean, I cannot stand romance games that valorize what I see as unhealthy relationship dynamics. So I don't play those games. I don't demand that they conform to my tastes...because a lot of people do like playing those games.

In the end, I think the artists should be true to their artistic vision first. And then see if they can successfully market that vision. If there is only a small market they then need to make some choices. Alter their vision in order to get a larger market, or continue to follow their vision and keep a small market. And maybe your vision taps into an untapped market and lots of people will want it! Who knows!

[annpan]

Sorry if this is stupid question but what kind of indicators do you put in game to direct the player about the wrong direction? I don't have much input on this topic since I tend to read the walkthroughs first. However, I do know the annoyance of messing something up and doing it again with no skip function. If that's the case, I tend to quit because it's really unbearable to read the same thing over.

My ideal game doesn't have "wrong" or "right" directions. It just has directions. There isn't "messing up," there are just choices with consequences. Some good, some bad, some neither good nor bad. But all of them interesting. A mystery game where your choices result in you not catching the killer should still be interesting...just as interesting as if you did catch the killer. If I as a creator really don't want it so that you can fail to catch the killer, then I shouldn't make that an option. I don't necessarily even find endings where the MC dies as "failures" unless they are written that way...but they don't have to be.

My ideal player is playing for the journey, not for the destination. My ideal player makes choices because those are the choices they stand behind...because they are the choices their character would make, not because if they make this choice they know they'll get this ending they already know they want. If there is a player that can not handle things not going just the "right" way...so much so that they play with a walk through from the very first play through to ensure they do everything "just right" so that that they "win." If a player never wants to feel sad, or frustrated, or challenged, or disturbed, or thoughtful.

There are lots of gamers who want to play games to escape into a place where they are powerful and handsome/beautiful and do all the right things. They want wish fulfillment or consequence free violence. They want a fantasy. They want lack of moral ambiguity. They want to win. And that if completely valid. They are, however, not my ideal player. I'm not making my games for them. They should probably play something different.

For me I think about something jazz musician Ornate Coleman (creator of Free Jazz) said: "If you have a written out chord progression, then you might as well write out the solo, you might not as well play at all…you already know what’s going to happen. Let’s try to play the music and not the background.”

So I want games that aren't already written out like that. If that is what I want, I'll read a Kinetic Novel...or I'll write a Kinetic Novel. I want the game to be like free jazz, where you are in the moment and you live in that moment. I want the game to be the music and not the background to the ending. And you make choices and you react, and the game reacts back.

Now, not everybody likes free jazz. And that is okay! But they should probably not listen to free jazz. And just because someone doesn't like free jazz, doesn't mean that free jazz should become something else to please that person.

I mean, I cannot stand romance games that valorize what I see as unhealthy relationship dynamics. So I don't play those games. I don't demand that they conform to my tastes...because a lot of people do like playing those games.

In the end, I think the artists should be true to their artistic vision first. And then see if they can successfully market that vision. If there is only a small market they then need to make some choices. Alter their vision in order to get a larger market, or continue to follow their vision and keep a small market. And maybe your vision taps into an untapped market and lots of people will want it! Who knows!

This is very insightful! Oh yes, I do agree on the concept about experiencing a journey. I feel that if I were to make a game, I wouldn't want to make someone lead towards one ending since in my world I really want there to be no true ending. I believe that the bad endings are a part of the pieces or rewards of a great game experience. It's up to the programmers to ignite the creativity in the players to inspire them to keep on guessing about the ending. However, having played so many otome games I been convince that an otome/dating sim game must have a happy ending to meet the staple. My mind is at a loss; I just don't know how to create that mystery anymore. I've been dumb down on where I should lean on this topic. I'm ashamed to admit it but my game might just follow that format. Thank you for answering and providing feedback on the user's experience!

[trooper6]

This is very insightful! Oh yes, I do agree on the concept about experiencing a journey. I feel that if I were to make a game, I wouldn't want to make someone lead towards one ending since in my world I really want there to be no true ending. I believe that the bad endings are a part of the pieces or rewards of a great game experience. It's up to the programmers to ignite the creativity in the players to inspire them to keep on guessing about the ending. However, having played so many otome games I been convince that an otome/dating sim game must have a happy ending to meet the staple. My mind is at a loss; I just don't know how to create that mystery anymore. I've been dumb down on where I should lean on this topic. I'm ashamed to admit it but my game might just follow that format. Thank you for answering and providing feedback on the user's experience!

For my tastes, when it comes to dating games, I think it would be important to question what a happy ending means.
Does a happy ending only mean finding a boyfriend/girlfriend? Why is that the only definition of happy ending?
I really loved the old 1930s musicals like Golddiggers of 1933 or 42nd Street. Why? Because the female protagonist had a goal...it was to become a Broadway star! Along the way she found romance, but that wasn't the central thing in her life. And her triumph was not the kiss, but her stepping in at the last minute to save the show, then saving the show!
Also, I think it is important to learn that being single is better than being in a bad relationship.
So, my ideal dating sim would involve there being the ability to have a happy ending and be single; to have a happy ending and be dating; to have an unhappy ending and be single; to have an unhappy ending and be dating...and have all those endings be interesting.
I think Magical Diary did this to some extent and I still love that game for it!