MoPark wrote:
I do not like it when a game's flow is structured as [30 minutes] [interaction] [30 minutes] [interaction]
This bugs me as well. Just like a story, gameplay needs to have a certain ebb and flow. I've stopped playing playing good VNs because they went too long between choices, and I've kept playing mediocre VNs because I felt I had a lot of agency as a player. I got annoyed and stopped playing
My Girlfriend is the President because it got to be a LONG time between choices, while I had made a couple of choices fairly close together at the start of the game. It went on long enough with no choices that I stopped, saved the game, and looked online to see when I would next get a choice. Only then did I discover the "game" only has 4-5 choices. Combine that with the fact that the nearly HALF of those choices are made almost immediately and consist of "Did you read the manual?" (Wait - what my response to a 4th wall breaking joke at the start of the game is a 20-25% factor in what ending I get?!
) and "What do you think of this girl's butt?" and I lost all interest in continuing the "game".
I try and have the player make SOME kind of decision or interaction at least once every ten minutes of game time. Not getting a proper balance between reading and decision making is just as bad as a story with too much action or too little action.
papillon wrote:Trying to avoid that awkwardness is one reason I often end up inserting some choices that are totally meaningless, just to prevent the player from feeling too disconnected from the action. I feel a bit guilty about it because I know some people really HATE meaningless choices, but I feel like it's necessary to keep the player in the frame of mind of actively evaluating the story they're reading and being ready to make decisions.
I think that, in general, giving the player choices every so often, even meaningless ones, is important to keep them connected to the story and paying attention. As you said, it keeps them actively evaluating the story. They'll pay more attention to what characters say and do because they know they'll likely have to act or make decisions based off that information.
Now here's a part where you could have done/said something different, but the MC does his or her own thing- and you completely disagree with it! What happened to my free will?
This is a big source of annoyance for me in VNs - or any game for that matter. A big reason is the sudden disconnect from previous gameplay. If you let me choose whether or not I wanted to walk home with the girl earlier, why are you suddenly forcing me to stand on the sidelines and watch her get bullied without being able to do anything? The answer of course is that if you let me step in and defend her your story would be over before it began.
That's really an example of poor writing. It is entirely possible to frame events so that your story can continue regardless of what the player does or doesn't. I could decide what my character had for breakfast this morning, but now the character is telling ME they won't do something because they are afraid or weak?
It creates a weird twilight zone where you may get to make a lot of small meaningless choices for the character, but suddenly the major decisions that actually affect things are out of your hands.
papillon wrote:
One idea I want to play with at some point in the future is a VN that uses a more "RPG" method of dialog... the kind where EVERY SINGLE THING the main character says is a choice, although usually a choice that only affects the flavor of how you say things and gets you to roughly the same outcome. But even with that, there will be times where the option you want doesn't exist.
I'm trying this for my game. One example from the game:
“When do I get a rematch?”
NPC 1, bemused: “Against who?”
NPC 2, angry: “Against that girl! I'm stronger. Better!”
Option A: That black eye says different.
Option B: Fine. Let's settle this right now.
Option C: I'm sorry I hit you.
Option D: Say nothing.
The thing is, none of those choices have much impact beyond this one scene. There is some different dialogue, but all of it relatively short. The player's relationship with NPC 2 is adjusted point-wise one way or the other, and the negative or positive points with the NPC may cause different versions of scenes later on, but the future scene scenarios are still the same, just with different dialogue. It isn't much more work for me to write different versions of scenes where the same effect or story goal is achieved, but the NPC's treatment of the player or role in the scene is different.
However, these choices let the player define their character's personality in their own head. Is your character snarky? Antagonistic? Maybe the type to be friendly and turn the other cheek? Or perhaps the character is aloof, cold, or mysterious. This makes things easier on me as the writer, and gives the player the illusion of great agency. Often all I have to do as a writer is add ONE extra sentence where another character acknowledges the player's attitude or action. The player feels vindicated because the game is acknowledging past actions,
regardless of whether they really changed anything.
In Mass Effect 2, Shepard is interviewing an enemy guard. The same information is gained regardless, but Shepard can end the conversation by letting the guard run off or shoving him out a window. You get Renegade or Paragon points depending on what you have Shepard do, but nothing changes in future scenes or dialogue. There is no branching of the story path. The goal of the scene within the larger story is achieved no matter the player's action. However, if you shoved the guard out the window, one of your party will remark, "Remind me never to piss off Shepard!" Just a simple nod to the player that says, "I saw what you did there" that makes all the difference.
In my game I'll often take control of the player's character for minor decisions or remarks, but I always make sure that any seemingly meaningful or important choice let's them give input. For instance, I may control all the dialogue of the main character in a conversation, but I'll let the player decide how the character should start or approach that conversation. Using the example above, if the player chooses the snarky option to reply I'll write the rest of the scene with the main character speaking but the player won't have further input - instead all the main character's dialogue in that scene will reflect that initial choice and the MC will be more flippant or snarky for that scene. The gist of what is said remains the same in all 4 versions, but the player feels invested because I essentially let them pick between the same conversation phrased in different ways.
Since every scene is there for a purpose - a goal it must accomplish story-wise -
all that matters is the scene succeeds at that goal. HOW it succeeds at that goal is where I let the player have agency. So the player essentially stays on a linear path that gives them the illusion of control until the real branches occur. Those branches are also linear paths with illusions of player agency until THEY branch for real. But the player doesn't always know when they are making a plot branching choice or picking a flavor for a scene. It keeps them invested in every choice.
It is still extra work, but not a lot.
As I mentioned in this thread:
