[Lee in Limbo]

My friend Deirdra, better known as Squinky in these parts, has been writing a series of game development articles being published right here at AdventureGamers.com. I've been enjoying them a great deal. This is really no surprise to me, as I came to be a friend of Squinky through her insightful writing and her entertaining writer's voice. I always understand what she's getting at, even when she discusses something a little over my head. And that goes doubly so for her game dev articles, which are dear to me for being on a subject I'm extremely keen on.

*snip* (self-editted; although I still suspect that a 'discuss this article' link might be more helpful. I've never been in this part of the forum before.)

Now in this installment of AA: CiND, Squinky discusses not so much interactive storytelling as she does the very nature of interactivity in adventure games, and she manages to jump up and down precisely on a point that I often find myself doing as well: puzzles should support the game, and should stimulate thinking, rather than frustrate the audience and send them scurrying for walkthroughs. I love them, myself. I have UHS bookmarked in my web browser. I don't so much blame game devs as I often seem to on this topic, because the resources to put in an in-game hint system are often prohibitive and take away from the dev resources available. So I wait for someone more clever and efficient than me to answer the questions I can't seem to answer for myself. I do alright for the most part without, but I still find walkthroughs essential for most AGs, and I wish it weren't so. And it all comes down to the problem of making interactivity transparent without making the directions invisible.

If you build a game from the start to follow the 'classic' AG formula, the more logically minded of us will excel while the rest of us blessed or cursed with fuzzier thinking will be gritting our teeth to get to the next plot point, hoping we don't completely lose immersion and walk away. AGs have become a little freeze dried for this reason. Anyone who played an AG 10 years ago and found it annoying won't be interested in trying new games, and you can bet that is the main reason the numbers of AG players dwindled so badly over the years. Almost in retaliation, AGs themselves have tended to become more calcified, clinging to the basic formula and refusing to even attempt to woo casual game playing audience members who aren't blessed with lightning reflexes and an addiction to action movies. The audience dwindles to a small clique. Perhaps that's what we all aspire to, really. A close knit group of a few thousand of our closest friends all playing a narrowly defined game genre.

But to my mind, it ignores the principle function of AGs, which is to get the audience to submerge themselves in an interactive universe where they can explore and experience a story in ways they've never done before. The best AGs have always striven to do this, while balancing the gameplay elements to stimulate the level of difficulty if not the actual process of resolving a plot conflict. We may not (yet) be able to simulate the actual physical movements necessary in game to actually perform the real life actions needed to actually make a disguise or false ID or obtain information from a security-keyed computer, but we can simulate the difficulty through interactive 'puzzles'. Some are more sensible and connected to the plot and theme than others however, and the best puzzle design and integration makes these things seem absolutely seamless. It's when the game devs decide to ramp up the difficulty and challenge the audience that these things can and often do go awry.

What Squinky talks about in her article, using interactions as the main puzzle element, is fascinating and intuitive. Naturally, you are going to try to devise a strategy for dealing with the guard based on what your character is capable of, and hopefully, based on what your natural playstyle dictates. Dialogue in AGs is a no-brainer. Action sequences not so much, unless the action is fairly choreographed, which alienates Action game players, but makes the game more accessible for casual players who don't have a level 58 Tauren Druid under their belt.

But what else can you do there? What are the natural extensions of the problem of 'assassin needs to get passed guard to see queen'. Disguise? Distraction? Sneak attack? Persuasion? Acrobatics? Evasion? These are all known elements of a character whose main stock in trade is stealth. However, even in an experimental game, you have to limit the number of possibilities based on the resources (art assets, animations, game engine) available. And of course, the theme should dictate which are the most important types of interactions to follow. If you can't afford to have all of those possibilities, you choose the ones that need to be there to frame your puzzle correctly. Naturally, choosing action or thinking comes to mind here, and the two most obvious are Sneak attack and Persuasion.

I also find Squinky's comment about making these decisions have direct consequences on later segments of the game to be fascinating. It's also interesting to note that some of these questions can only be answered by the player, since the consequences might be quite different if your choice is never witnessed. Presumably, such actions might only affect the kinds of choices you might be more inclined to make later in the game, regardless of how it colours the interactions with other characters up to that point.

That level of interaction may prove to be too subtle for some, but nevertheless presents interesting possibilities for audience immersion. They will really feel like it's up to them to decide the ultimate fate of the protagonist in the game.

Greatly looking forward to the next segment in this series. Good stuff, Deirdra.