Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411276 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 11:33:59 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignSatisfying resolution in detail based games?
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Satisfying resolution in detail based games?  (Read 808 times)
Armageddon
Level 6
*



View Profile
« on: July 29, 2015, 07:05:52 PM »

First I guess I should define detail based games. I mean like Papers, Please and such where you have to check a certain number of things before making a choice. That number of things can be very simple or get very complex. The choice, however, in Papers, Please and such, always feels a little annoying when you get it wrong.
I always imagine that there's a second guy above you checking your work and giving you warnings. While humorous for a moment, it can become very annoying. I think it'd seem far more realistic if the warnings came at the end of the day when maybe all your paperwork is checked elsewhere.
The problem is if you move it to the end of the day the player isn't going to learn as fast how to play the game. And they also might not remember which case was which and be able to do it right the next day. So I see why immediate warnings are needed but if you're given them the second a person walks through why wouldn't you just phone the guards and tell them to send the person back?
The only problem I really have with these warnings is they make it feel like a game.

And I want to make a detective/investigation game now where you have to find clues and then come up with someone to arrest. And placing and doing dialogue and such is fairly straightforward to implement. But when you end a case/level I think the player would like some indication that they succeeded or not. And I feel like telling them "You Win", "You Lose" just wouldn't work.
If you tell the player they won then it'd be like, what did I spend the last twenty minutes doing that for if you know who the killer was.
And if it's you lose then they'd be like, well how do you know or why didn't you tell me and arrest the right person?

Basically I want to satisfy the player without telling them directly so that they can feel like they accomplished something and will live with their choice on their own, whether right or wrong.

Any thoughts on this?
Logged

starsrift
Level 10
*****


Apparently I am a ruiner of worlds. Ooops.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2015, 12:15:22 AM »

If it's a persistent world, do it as in RL. The crimes continue on even after the player thinks they've closed the case, meaning there's either a copycat or the original suspect was innocent, and the player could take some kind of penalty - demotion, reputation, or something. Continuing effects may be trickier for crimes of passion instead of habitual criminals being stopped.

But more importantly, the perpetrator is acquitted by the court after their arrest. You can just show this up as a newspaper article or whatever similar thing may be genre-congruent for you.


If it's not a persistent world that the player continues to live in, then yeah, just break the fourth wall and tell the player whether or not they succeeded or failed.
Logged

"Vigorous writing is concise." - William Strunk, Jr.
As is coding.

I take life with a grain of salt.
And a slice of lime, plus a shot of tequila.
The Translocator
Level 2
**


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2015, 06:02:09 PM »

It depends on if you're going for the moral consequences or the mystery-solving.

You could have interrogations in-game where you choose what to ask after they've been apprehended to try and prove they're guilty/innocent, and never tell the player how they did at all, specifically because a detective IRL probably doesn't know for sure that the apprehended person is guilty unless/until they confess. And even if they confess, could they be doing it as the path of least resistance rather than because it's true?

Just some food for thought.
Logged

Armageddon
Level 6
*



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2015, 07:10:33 PM »

I'm going more for mystery-solving, I don't want any "moral choice" moments, everything has to be grey. I just worry that the player will feel like the investigation ends too abruptly and moves on to the next one with no time to contemplating your actions. Do you think it'd be impactful to just fade out after making a decision? It would make a lot of choices very invisible to the player I think. And maybe they would expect multiple endings.
Logged

gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2015, 12:48:11 PM »

let's break it into logical phases (not gameplay phases)

1: gathering the clues
a- collecting evidence
b- analyzing evidence
c- interrogating people

2: building the mental model
a- reconstructing the events
b- finding the motives
c- finding contradictions

3: confronting
a- showing on discrepancies
b- showing the lies
c- bringing the mask down

Go back to 1 until the mask of culprit is brought down.

At which phase you have a problem exactly?
Logged

Armageddon
Level 6
*



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2015, 08:14:26 PM »

Finding the contradictions and then showing the lies are the two areas I'm having the most trouble with. I originally thought I'd have a clue combiner where you take two clues and find a discrepancy between them, but you could just brute force that like inventory puzzles in Monkey Island. And while I actually enjoyed doing it in Monkey Island I don't think it'd work here. Papers, Please got around the brute forcing by having a timer so you couldn't go through every last thing every time or else you'd never get through enough people to have money.

So the main thing I'm considering is just copying the L.A. NOIRE system where, you win a case by using clues in dialogue bosses. In L.A. NOIRE every conversation/interrogation had stages where you could win or lose by choosing one of three options: Truth, Doubt, Lie. And with Lie you'd use a clue against their story. I think I'd make it a little less gamey by giving hte player a number of responses to choose from, or use an item from your logbook of clues. Kind of like Grim Express, but Grim Express still had the problem of brute forcing since you could ask anyone anything about your clue book at any time in any order.

I mean really though, it mostly comes down to the writing and staging of each case to begin with. It could get really complex or keep it fairly simple about how you reach a conclusion. If the writing/logic behind it is bad the game mechanics won't help.
Logged

gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2015, 09:10:05 PM »

L.A. NOIRE is basically phoenix wright. Both game tried to use a system of tells to spot lies (facial expression, stress, etc) especially phoenix wright who dramatize them by equating seeing like a super power, however they don't necessarily point to a lie, they might reveal new information or cast light on the motive of the character, this is specifically highlight with the physic lock mechanism where character won't tell you about something until you find the correct way to introduce it.

For contradiction it's generally easy, information collected don't add up, it's a puzze, if for example two character flee to married and the mother tells you her son don't like the girl, then one of those information is false as they contradicts themselves, it's the mental problem. Let's say the mother is lying, bringing the proof they flee away (say a letter) by selecting her lying statement is how you bring the lie (OBJECTION! like in phoenix wright).

The mental model is also how you can judge completeness of investigation, if there is gap then the investigation is no done. I would structure that as in a large mid term goal (say a victim has been shot, you need to find the bullet) and a series of smaller "puzzle" that lead to the resolution of the larger goal. It keep the player on a path and get a sense of closure's progression.

I would also have a system of intel (to avoid the comical dramatization of PW) where aside from the main investigation you gather data on character and place to know how to handle them (how to interrogate for example in case of character), for knowing affecting events, emotional disposition, past events, can leverage hook to deal with a npc (for example appealing to his sense of responsibility, or the loss of his son, to get more data or expose a lie).

If you haven't play phoenix wright series you should, it's all about the problem you are having and it's much more solid than LA NOIRE. I think the dagonronpa series too have similar concern in their gameplay.
Logged

gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2015, 09:21:21 PM »

Brute forcing mean there might be failure state to interrogation (hence closing access to data) you might do this by rotating character disposition (ie each state mean you need different interrogation strategy with different hooks) and/or there must be enough redundancy that you can get the information elsewhere.

Also for direct feedback to the player, you can have a "sidekick" (like in PW or in movies/series) or have the player character talk to himself (or have facial reaction such as embarrassment, or gloating, etc ...) in order to tell the player how well he is doing or even subtly hint the correct path. For example the character can tell that he really need the testimony of this character or else there will be a gap in his demonstration. Also the notebook can contain logical map with highlight of what does not work and profile of character to look at, for example noticing that some character seems to be hiding something as she is nervous when certain subject are brought up.
Logged

Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic