I've often wondered if it would be possible to create a detective game where the player is not required to reach any specific, pre-determined "correct solution", but it would instead be enough if...
I've often wondered if it would be possible to create a detective game where the player is not required to reach any specific, pre-determined "correct solution", but it would instead be enough if they were able to put together any solution that makes some sort of logical sense. In other words, as long as they could make a compelling case for some series of events that could explain the clues, the game would accept it as a solution and the story (if there is one) would move forward in some way. Criminals might not be punished, innocent people's lives might be ruined, but that is life.
Papers Please sort of does something similar with its narrative, but not quite. And how exactly one would create a video game like the one I have in mind, I don't know. Perhaps the cases should or could be procedurally generated. But how to check for the logic of the solve, without it being very gamey in the ways that the video also discusses, I really have no idea.
I've actually done something similar in a tabletop roleplaying setting. My players were trying to solve a mystery, but unbeknownst to them, as they debated amongst themselves about what had happened, they were more or less actively altering the past and the present to conform to their theories. In the end, they never quite realised that the solution was not something that they were supposed to discover, but rather needed to come up with. I tried it as an experiment in collaborative storytelling, and although a couple of players started to suspect that something unusual was happening on a meta-level, it never quite got to where I was hoping it to go, as my players kept on clinging onto the "realism" of the situation, even when everything, including the fourth wall, was crumbling down. It was an interesting, if flawed, experiment. And it was a lot of fun to run, even if it did require quite a lot of extra work and quick thinking, as I had to constantly rearrange things behind the scenes, so to speak.
Without a predetermined solution, I imagine it would be difficult for the narrator to keep the state of all the "lies" they're telling, and the consistency of the fictional world might suffer....
Without a predetermined solution, I imagine it would be difficult for the narrator to keep the state of all the "lies" they're telling, and the consistency of the fictional world might suffer. After the initial sessions, when the players figure out the procedure, you may get to a point where the challenge of deciphering is replaced with creative ways to manipulate the narrative. Both options can be enjoyable, but only one is about mystery solving.
I've often wondered if it would be possible to create a detective game where the player is not required to reach any specific, pre-determined "correct solution", but it would instead be enough if they were able to put together any solution that makes some sort of logical sense. In other words, as long as they could make a compelling case for some series of events that could explain the clues, the game would accept it as a solution and the story (if there is one) would move forward in some way. Criminals might not be punished, innocent people's lives might be ruined, but that is life.
Papers Please sort of does something similar with its narrative, but not quite. And how exactly one would create a video game like the one I have in mind, I don't know. Perhaps the cases should or could be procedurally generated. But how to check for the logic of the solve, without it being very gamey in the ways that the video also discusses, I really have no idea.
I've actually done something similar in a tabletop roleplaying setting. My players were trying to solve a mystery, but unbeknownst to them, as they debated amongst themselves about what had happened, they were more or less actively altering the past and the present to conform to their theories. In the end, they never quite realised that the solution was not something that they were supposed to discover, but rather needed to come up with. I tried it as an experiment in collaborative storytelling, and although a couple of players started to suspect that something unusual was happening on a meta-level, it never quite got to where I was hoping it to go, as my players kept on clinging onto the "realism" of the situation, even when everything, including the fourth wall, was crumbling down. It was an interesting, if flawed, experiment. And it was a lot of fun to run, even if it did require quite a lot of extra work and quick thinking, as I had to constantly rearrange things behind the scenes, so to speak.
Without a predetermined solution, I imagine it would be difficult for the narrator to keep the state of all the "lies" they're telling, and the consistency of the fictional world might suffer. After the initial sessions, when the players figure out the procedure, you may get to a point where the challenge of deciphering is replaced with creative ways to manipulate the narrative. Both options can be enjoyable, but only one is about mystery solving.