I thought some of you may be interested in some of the game design discussions that stemmed from some of my classes that worked on the “Trinity Reimagined” concept. (For those who don’t know, the idea was to take Infocom’s Trinity and rework it with a more defined protagonist and putting some of the more fantastical elements of the game into a better story framework that was backed up by moral premise.)
In short, there was a dual focus in this class on crafting the game with a storytelling focus (i.e., using effective storytelling techniques) and playing the game as a story. It’s the latter that I’m reporting on here. (These observations are not just confined to Trinity as other works of textual IF were played to gather opinions and to make speculative forays into the player experience.) This was interesting because, of course, it shows what people not used to some of the conventions of textual IF from the past will expect or at least attempt. This is probably going to be a long post.
[size=150]LOCATIONS / MOVING AROUND[/size]
People always, always, always expected to be able (and wanted) to do things like this:
- Go to the {room}.
- Find the {room}.
- Get to the {room}.
- Go to where the barrow wight {is|was}.
That’s not too hard to understand. A lot of related elements came out of this, however.
People, for the most part, did not like location descriptions that mentioned a slew of exits. They would rather have a list available that just showed the exits, but where the list was situationally updated. Here’s how that broke down:
- If you (as player and protagonist) didn’t know where an exit went, the list would just show “EAST”.
- If you (as player and protagonist) did know – having been there before – then have it say “EAST - TO PALACE GATE”.
- If you (as player; from past play) knew but you (as protagonist) did not know, the list would just show “EAST”.
- If you (as player) did not know but you (as protagonist) did know, have it say “EAST - TO PALACE GATE”.
This was not something people wanted in game text, such as in the room description. Rather this information was displayed in a separate window or on the status line. That being said, people weren’t often thrilled with the “status line” – which they felt didn’t really offer “status” of any sort. (Yes, score and turns could be considered status but most people felt that reflecting the turns was hardly something that mattered – I agree – and that scoring didn’t make a lot of sense, in that scoring detracted from the story.)
What people indicated they really liked was what we initially ended up calling a “situational location/compass window.” (This name got shorter and combined with descriptions; more on that later.) This window would show your current location name. It would show exits from that location with the above mentioned context based on player or protagonist knowledge.
People did like the idea of relative directions (“to the right”, “to the left”) but more so in terms of descriptions. They liked the ability to “turn around” and “look to the right” or “look up”. They didn’t mind typing “go to the right” or “go straight” or “go back” but they also preferred to just type “go to the {room}” when the room name was known or something like “go to the left exit” if the room name wasn’t known.
I found this interesting simply because “go east” or “go west” seemed much easier. When I brought that up, people agreed it was easier but then said, in that case, they found it easier to just say “go left” or “go right” assuming it was clear where exits were. Then once the connecting room name was known, they would use that room name (“go to {room}”) from that point forward, not having to rely on “right”, “left”, “east”, “west”, whatever. (They also felt this helped keep stories paced a bit better because someone could traverse lots of geography relatively quickly.)
“But,” I said, “I thought we didn’t want exits listed in descriptions? So how would you know whether to go right or left?”
The response (boiled down and paraphrased):
- If the protagonist or player does not know where connections go to, it’s fine to have this: ‘To the left and right are doorways leading out of the room.’
- If the protagonist or player knows where connections go to: ‘To the left is the entryway to the living room; to the right is the hall leading to the bathroom.’
However, people really only wanted to see that once. Once the information was known, it was felt it should go in the situational/compass window and not have to be displayed in the room description again.
So what I did is go with the idea that you as player (acting as protagonist) would make a mental model of the room and then store that in your mind, not having to have it “described” each time. You would simply “know” it as you went into the room. The situational/compass window would represent sort of “your protagonist’s mind” or “your contextual knowledge.”
Keep this in mind because this “mental model of the protagonist” comes up a lot.
[size=150]EXAMINE vs. LOOK AT[/size]
“Examine” is very, very rarely used. In fact, it was never used unless someone already knew that convention or had read instructions saying to use “examine” as a verb. “Look at” was always attempted first.
[size=150]LOOK AT / EXAMINE vs. READ[/size]
When “look at” was used for paper, sign, or anything with writing, the expectation was always that an “automatic read” would take place. As people (rightly) pointed out, it’s hard to look at writing without reading it. It’s sort of built-in to our brain. Again, the mental model of the protagonist: once you’ve seen it, you’ve read it. Even seeing it again means you would naturally and inevitably read it again.
[size=150]WHO IS / WHAT IS[/size]
Commands like these were tried very often:
- Who is {character}?
- What is {object}?
The responses to these, it was felt, should always be part of the narrative, and not the “game talking at you.” So the protagonist might say, “Oh, that’s Jones. He was my best friend. Well, sort of.” If the protagonist didn’t know someone or something that should be indicated, even if it’s just a simple “I had no idea what that was.”
What people also expected were commands like these to work:
- Who have I met?
- What have I seen?
- Where have I been?
Having a separate window that could show the “who have I met” was found to be something people liked, since it sort of kept a list of characters (from a game perspective) but also matched a person’s mental model (such as when you are introduced to people at a new job or a party or whatever and you try to keep straight who’s who). Players didn’t like the information overload of the other two elements being shown in a separate window, however, but they did like if the above commands would then produce a list. (Some suggested that “Where have I been” could bring up a graphical map.)
Here’s another one people expected to work, based on the number of times I saw it (or something like it) tried:
- What has {character} {talked about|mentioned}?
This obviously only mattered in games where the conversation actually mattered. Players responded well to in-context clues about whether a subject was worth exploring. Something like the protagonist (via game) responding with:
“I’ve talked to the butler about the murder weapon that was found, the messed up room, and the rudeness of the police. I got the impression that there was nothing more to ask about the weapon or the room. He did seem to want to talk more about the police, though. I also might want to ask about when the police were called.”
Notice I’m doing the first person thing there? This will come up more in a bit. But as I’ve long argued, textual IF seems well-suited to being a conversation between the player and the protagonist, such that the player is almost acting as the subconscious of the protagonist. (More shades of the mental map.) Writers that I’ve worked with are particularly intrigued with that aspect and readers/players – while not indicating this was desired in those exact words – seemed to prefer levels of description and narrative that suggested it nonetheless.
[size=150]COMMAND PROMPT[/size]
People hated that it was called a “command prompt.” I ended up using “interaction point” and that at least seemed to work better. (Earlier I mentioned people didn’t like “status line” either. Textual IF, I believe, really needs to rethink some of its conventions if it wants to be relevant to new and different audiences. That being said, I still think “interaction point” might be too much of a mouthful.)
Beyond nomenclature difficulties, more variation in the command prompt/interaction point was preferred. People responded well when the interaction point was contextual to some extent about what interaction is occurring. So if you’re in a conversation with an NPC, for example, have that reflected in the interaction point ("[TALKING TO NED] >"). A prompt/point that always was the same thing was found to be annoying and quite off-putting for most audiences.
Some even liked the idea of having the prompt/point reflect a goal if that was what the player was doing. That proved to be really tricky, though, in that if the player started doing other things, they might be going off on a different goal – without even realizing it. In Trinity this was easy in some locations (i.e., “[ESCAPE SPACE STATION] >”) but not in others, such as when you were exploring the land of the toadstools. The player could be doing numerous goals of their own that don’t quite match to the game goals. Some players felt this was a way, however, to direct the player. So in areas where it was more “free play” until a goal was found, have the prompt/point be just nothing or something simple like “[EXPLORING] >”. Others felt that perhaps “story rail lines” could be established as part of the game that would recognize when a player seemed to be trying to achieve a given goal. This would serve as a clue to players that they were on one track versus another and may serve as a form of constant “hint.” We’ll be exploring this in the next class. Oh, and people did agree that the prompt/point should be allowed to be “simple” or “contextual” based on a setting. That way you could just have the simple “>” if you wanted it.
[size=150]VIEWPOINT and TENSE[/size]
Everyone – literally everyone in these classes and studies – felt that the game itself (by which they meant the parser) should be in second person: “You can’t refer to that.” and so on. People were fine with being addressed as “you” in that context and didn’t feel it detracted from the story; on the contrary, it kept them focused. However – the narrative itself was overwhelmingly found to be disengaging when in second person – except for those who already had familiarity with the convention. Having “you” be both “you the player” and “you the protagonist” was found to be a way to quickly get people disengaged in the game except as a brief diversion, almost no different than doing a crossword puzzle.
First person, past tense was the overwhelming preference by just about everyone. First person, present tense was the second runner up. Third person, past tense was the third runner up.
[size=150]IMAGES / SOUNDS[/size]
Images/pictures were found to be annoying – unless the images were very well done and conveyed the location accurately. When images that did this were provided, too much text describing the location was found to be annoying. What was preferred in these cases was more atmospheric text that couldn’t be conveyed by the picture. But what about the locale information? (I.e., the “You can also see…”) People much preferred that to be off in a separate window, except to the extent that people had good description skills and were able to weave what was in a room with effective text describing the other elements (like atmosphere and so on).
Sounds and music were pretty much universally disliked and found to be unnecessary.
That point about weaving locale elements in with the description led to something I was curious about and experimented a lot with and that’s the next point.
[size=150]CHANGING DESCRIPTIONS[/size]
People didn’t mind if the descriptions had to change and thus they had to read them again to find what may have changed. However, this was only the case if the descriptions were well-written and served to bring the player into the “mood” and “atmosphere” of the location. People liked the following idea that we tried with “Trinity Reimagined”:
Upon first visit to a location, have the full mood/atmosphere description, along with any relevant locale information interspersed within that text. (This builds the mental map/model of that location.) Then have that information populate a “locale window.” The locale window would, of course, change for each location. This then led back to the situational/compass window I talked about earlier. Was the “locale window” and the “situational/compass window” the same?
Yes, people ultimately felt that it was. So the goal was to have the window present something like this:
NAME OF ROOM
[list] exit list [in the contextual way mentioned earlier]
locale items
[/list:u]
The main window could still display the atmosphere and mood text. People liked this because they quickly trained themselves to read the main text to ground themselves in the geography as they played (and to keep themselves in the story), but to glance at the “Locale Window” to remind themselves of game specific stuff. People felt this didn’t take them out of the story at all – rather, it allowed them to focus on story where necessary but also actually play the game. The idea of the window being the “mental model” of the protagonist seemed to serve this well.
[size=150]SUMMARY[/size]
I have no summary of all this really. This was more just to present it for what little it might be worth. There’s obviously a lot more detail but I was worried this post was getting too long as it was. This should, at the very least, give the flavor of what people seemed to respond well to, what their expectations were, and a general idea that was settled upon as a metaphor for a textual IF experience.