next »

[Graham-]

yeah I see what you're saying.

I love text too. I think he was just being hyperbolic.

My game is going for no text too... but it's not b/c I hate text. I like procedural stuff because it lets me tell a story more dynamically. Procedural behaviour is easier than procedural writing. You can also link behaviour to mechanics more easily. So I empathize.

Also I understand systems much better than I do the written word. I think it's a good idea to make a game that suits your strengths. I imagine Balster is in a similar boat.

Also, language barriers disappear.

[Evan Balster]

I was in love with the idea of no language barriers, maybe more than anything.

I did a little experiment last night, though, and I'm realizing total avoidance of language probably isn't forward thinking with what I want to do.  I'd need to use symbolic representations a lot.  It would be extremely difficult to animate it all, and a bit forced.  A slightly more realistic goal would be extremely minimal use of language -- simple vocabulary applied with extreme terseness.  This would permit the conveyance of simple concepts which would act as a sort of "scaffold" on which to build more complex, unspoken ideas.

The time I've spent thinking about the game having no language has been insightful though -- Robin Arnott uses the term "temporary belief system" to describe this sort of thing.  I've found myself paying much greater attention to body language and facial expressions in film and animation and thinking about systems of mannerisms I could construct and convey.

The little script I've written details the mental/emotional state and consequent body language of two characters as they exchange five lines of dialogue.  There's a lot going on behind the words said -- white lies, feelings, motives -- which motivates eye movements, postures, et cetera.  A lot to work with, when I pair a great deal of subtext with a bare minimum of speech.

At this point I'm toying with the idea of having the game's text read like a crude translation of a foreign film, or a children's book.  That's a reasonably "low" language barrier, and more than enough for me to convey complex ideas.  I also feel as though words will have greater weight if few and far between.


As an example:

The protagonist stands at the base of a great tree, wearing a satchel on his back.  Another like it sits against the trunk.  Him arms are crossed, and he is looking upwards into its high branches.  He shifts his weight from one leg to the other.

A leaf flutters into view from above and drifts to the ground beside him.  Giving it no notice, he breathes deeply, and sighs.

Onscreen narration:

"To those who do not know her,

perhaps she does not seem frail."


The unspoken ideas here (which I expect I am entirely redundant in recounting) are that the protagonist is traveling with someone he is protective toward, she has elected to climb into the tree, and he is quietly worried and impatient for her to come back down.

[Graham-]

Yeah, true expression is very hard.

[Muz]

This would be very useful advice if I were using text as my predominant means of conveyance.

Huh, somehow I saw this thread in the writing section and assumed it was about using text to describe body language. Misleading context

[Evan Balster]

My motivation, articulated more carefully:

Action, not words, is the native language of visual games.
I wish mine to speak articulately.

[Evan Balster]

We're having an impromptu Iowa game jam with the theme of "work on your crap".  I'm taking the opportunity to do some research and development on kinematics systems.  If I had a giant pile of money I'd license IKinema, but alas...