next »

[Reecer6]

How could any subconscious afford a cockpit, then?
Anyhow, GL.

[mirosurabu]

Very lame demo:
Direct
Mediafire mirror

SITUATION: Tom broke the glass. You saw him.
GOAL: He must admit he's guilty.

Notice that only phrases Tom can understand in this lame demo are:

Code:

Yes
No
NOOO!
Did you break the glass?
DID YOU BREAK THE FUCKING GLASS?
Do you know who broke the glass?

Eventually you'll come to a point when Tom will stop reacting to whatever you say. At this point press ALT+F4 and start again.

If you replay it several times and try different things (variations, no interaction, repetitions) you'll see how Tom's behavior shape. But at the end there's nothing you can see there other than basic idea behind the game.

[increpare]

i like what you came up with here, dude.  i think it could be pretty effective, if you got it up and functional.  i felt some guilt as to all the things i was saying (this is before i read that only a couple made a difference).  and in general, i got really in-character.

[agj]

Hmm, the interface is confusing. I don't understand the logic behind the grouping. I think my grouping would first divide between questions and assertions, and then further from there, possibly making both main groups symmetrical ('Do you know who did it?' in questions, and 'I know who did it' in assertions). I also don't think that you need this many options, as many are redundant or are just not applicable to the situation, so I'd make only a few choices that have the same general meaning available, but the actual text would change depending on the context. The problem with your current system is that programming all the possible reactions would be a nearly endless task.

What would the use be of the buttons along the top, that speed up or down the animations, in the finished game? Also, will the cube's expression change?

The idea seems promising enough. I hope you manage.

[mirosurabu]

The speed buttons located at the top control the speed of both animation and storytelling. My primary intent was to allow new players to stop or slow down the storytelling in order to get familiar with the interface.

There are probably better ways to group options. The grouping style you seem to talk about (I call it Z-depth grouping) is the grouping style I used in MICA. But, for several reasons, I thought it was too complex for both me as a player and me as a programmer and designer. So, I went with the flat one.

Regarding number of options - you may be right. I had so many design goals I wanted to achieve with this one prototype. One of them was to demonstrate how simple variations can give different results in communication. Another one was to experiment with unfiltered multiple-choice lists. Then there was that need for punctuated continuity rather than quantized time. Far too many design goals for a single prototype.

Now when I think about it, time-sensitive dialogue multiple-choice systems such as ones used in Indigo Prophecy and Mass Effect could do the same thing.

Thanks for the comments, in any case.