The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Crane Operator: Shadow of the Operator
Posts
Wow, actually that is an interesting way to make the conversations less scripted-seeming. Is there anyway to make a dialogue script where when you choose a tree it shows a randomly chosen response out of say just three instead of dozens?
________________
Well, that's all that are generated in the end, standard text trees. The difference is that every line, every reply is written collaboratively in a merit-based environment. In theory, you could get HUGE, high-quality conversation trees, larger and better than any one person would ever write them. I mean, we're talking 10, 15 levels deep, 4 branches per reply. Do you know how large that is? We're talking hundreds of megabytes of text trees in the later levels. An absolutely insane proposition in any other scenario, suddenly possible. Yeah, it gets me excited. I'll fight you.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Definitely. The example allows a ton of branching. In the development phase, we'd try to use voting to run the replies down to 3 or 4 options, with maybe one or 2 wildcard options showing up to give them a chance to be seen, voted for, and expanded. Then for the release, an editor (or 20) would run through it, hack off the bad branches, cement down the endings, etc.
Edit: Funny, because of the sheer size of the trees, this would allow for multiplayer, assuming some entire branches would be traps one way or the other, and leaving it up to the players to identify the logic first, guess where it's going.
I like the idea out of the massive amount of dialogue that could be made with this process but yeah, we'd have to filter a lot of garbage out which kind of defeats the purpose of a social writing thing. Also, by using this we may turn the game into just a shell for this particular idea (The Abrupt Goodbye) which isn't quite the same as a persuasion-simulator. hehe, actually, I can't believe that I'm thinking seriously about this. Actually maybe if I just reduce the responses to three per answer I could probably write the whole thing. That way we wouldn't lose the voice as much.
________________
The point of social writing isn't anything else than to bulk up content. Lots of us would help to edit, and most of the improper contributions wouldn't need to be out-and-out deleted, just gentleman'd up.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Well, surely it would be possible to limit participation to those members of PA which have already proved that they can write well, keep the voice, and not fuck everything up? I mean, judging by all the stuff that everyone's already posted in this thread, we've got a whole bunch of good writers in here. And if we write it as a persuasion simulator, it'll become a persuasion simulator.
1.) That would be what the voting would be for. Or we could require registration of qualified individuals to help.
2.) Keep in mind that the idea is to only use this to develop the game. After we decide it's good enough, we take the database, compress it down, edit, and release as a real game, not some crazy web toy where everyone types responses. It's the same approach as the 20Q thing that can guess whatever you're thinking. All it took was a bunch of clever questions, user submissions, and a HUGE database.
3.) Losing the voice is a big concern, as is keeping the conversation threads deliberate and sensical. I think it can be done without compromising the vision but maybe it isn't. There's no way to know unless you try.
If this is the plan, then I definitely support this being the direction this goes.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Nope! The idea is that the Evil CO pretends he is also the Good CO in an attempt to get that sexy point for ending the Victim. It could work.
Maybe.
No that's very true. I like it. Yeah, it would just take a lot of editing. : )
Also, I've started to come up with a way to indicate how good the player is doing or how close the CO is to persuading the victim. I don't exactly know how it well it would work in practice but I kind of like the idea of choosing a certain musical motif for a single victim. Then as the CO progresses down the dialogue tree the music would change.
As a real simple example let's use the first the victim. I'll just choose Mozart for the motif.
The music may start out like this
http://www.classicalmidiconnection.com/cgibin/x.cgi/mid/mozart/gp_k136a.mid
But the closer you get to succeeding it may switch to this
http://www.classicalmidiconnection.com/cgibin/x.cgi/mid/mozart/moz_k540.mid
Then to this when you're really close
http://www.classicalmidiconnection.com/cgibin/x.cgi/mid/mozart/mozart1.mid
Edit: Actually maybe this part of the same piece would be better. I'd really have to think this through. Hehe.
http://www.classicalmidiconnection.com/cgibin/x.cgi/mid/mozart/mozart3.mid
This example may be a little too much right on the nose but we could be more subtle certainly. And I'd like to choose a different motif for each character. Stay within classical music? Maybe, I think it makes the dialogue seem more ridiculous but I'm up for ideas. : )
Edit2: Oh, I guess you can't directly link. :P Well if you're interested you can save the links directly to your harddrive and just listen to them in a midi player. But the obvious point is that I think the music can indicate how well you are progressing through the tree.
________________
Yeah, the idea of distinct levels that increase in difficulty each time is pretty critical to the whole thing.
edit: and your avatar is crazy awesome.
CO: I say there, madam! May I wish you the most good of mornings!
V: Why, think you good sir crane operator!
CO: Fair lady, if you do not mind me saying as much, you are the most beautiful creature my eyes have ever seen.
V: Tehehe! Sir I can assure you that underneath the fan I wave about my face nervously, you have made me blush like a little girl!
CO: I... I love you. 'Tis the most peculiar feeling, as I have met you not more than twenty and ten seconds previous, but everything about you, form the tender, beautiful melody of your voice to the curvaceous nature of your body, which is, as the inhabitants of the nearby slum would describe it, kickin', has left me hopelessly enthralled. I know more than I have known anything before that I love you and that I will for the rest of eternity.
V: And... you, sir. The dizzying qualities of your unsurpassed and unsurpassable eloquence has left me somewhat... flustered as well.
CO: Then madam, I must ask of you to throw your sensibilities to the wind and embrace the madness that love has dealt us! Cast aside your sophisticated ways of high-society, and in their stead, take me, the lowly proletariat crane operator, as your lover. Quickly now, before this love has not but a millisecond to cool, step onto the hook of my crane, so that I might raise you up to my booth and into my arms, where you will stay, God willing, for the rest of our lives.
V: Oh dear me, yes! I shall! I shall! I shall stand on this hook, this hook of fate, and be with you forever! I am coming for you now, my darling! What... what's this? You have raised the hook far too high! I am now above you rather than with you! Wait. Was this all a sham? Did you abuse your amazing rhetorical skills in order to peer up my frock? You scoundrel! You filthy, disgusting scoundr--No! Now I am falling! Your design was far more insidious than I had ever conceived! Oh, woe is me, the tragic figure, lead to her own death by the fancies of her heart. May my death be a reminder to all who--
CO: A woman in my operating booth? Hah! I'd see one in Parliament first.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Thanks. Using science for sloth!
Love that closer. So not only is he insanely murderous he's also sexist for no obvious reason.
________________
While that's certainly good, I'm still a fan of it being a mysterious figure who's shown up to reveal your mysterious crane-operating past, only to be killed by your crane before he tells you.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I think the mysterious figure might be a bit too easy to convince, though. He's certainly a character that should be included, though in a less important position (perhaps a ludicrously unimportant one, relative to his potential impact). A powerful figure who is on to you from the start of your conversation and is actively trying to stop you would be probably the most difficult scenario. The legalized murder bit could be the "perfect" ending, while other paths can still lead to his vertical demise.
...if the target of persuasion is a recognized figure, might not people walking by stop to see what he's doing talking to a crane operator? Now there's a setup for that drop combo thing. XD
How many people can you kill IN FRONT OF HIM and still win.
I like the subtle implication that the entire crane game takes place in 19th-century England, though really I think it's essentially timeless.
Also I want to write one now.
F: "pant" "gasp" Indeed, I am currently participating in an experimental new program to reduce the flabbiness of my manly physique. It is called "jogging".
CO: What would you say to my claim that I can reduce your overbearing weight by not less then two-thirds, using only the simplest of methods?
F: I would express hope tempered by disbelief. Why do you ask?
CO: Sir, I can reduce your overbearing weight by not less then two-thirds, using only the simplest of methods.
F: I am full of disbelief, but it is tempered by hope.
CO: You claimed earlier that your answer would be otherwise.
F: 'Twas a cunning lie. What are these simplest of methods that you suggest?
CO: Verily, I shall raise you unto the sky, then drop you onto this convenient pile of dead bodies which I have placed here as cushioning. The shock shall drive the obesity spirits from your body.
F: Your answer is doubly explanatory, in that it explains both your methods and also the positioning of this pile of dead bodies, which had created strong fears in my mind. Very well, I shall climb onto the hook of your fine crane.
CO: Ah-ha! I have you now. I will raise you high, and then I shall push you off.
F: But what is this? The crane cannot be raised higher then ten feet, because of my gargantuan chubbosity!
And you proceed to threaten my life! Sir, I demand an explanation.
CO: I cannot provide one, as any explanation would threaten the clever sciences at work within my ingenious methods. Please remain seated as I make slight adjustments to my crane.
F: But what if you are in reality a murderer, who plans to raise me to a great height and then drop me? I have deduced a second explanation for the pile of bodies at my feet.
CO: What is it?
F: That you are in reality a murderer who raises people to a great height and then drops them.
CO: That is an imaginative concept, though quite outside the realm of possibility. I have a proposal for you. If I raise you to a great height and drop you, you may proceed to the local gendarmerie and report me to the proper authorities.
F: That seems like sufficient insurance. I will wait on this hook.
CO: I have completed these minor adjustments to my crane, and now 'tis strong enough to raise you to a great good height and then drop you.
F: Alas, you have raised me far too high for my continued survival! I shall report this to men of the police!
CO: It will be very difficult for you to report my ingenious crime to the police once you are dead.
F: It seems I have not thought this through.
CO: And now, to drop you.
F: It seems that I am falling. This is a terrible thing. But wait! I may land on the pile of corpses, which will provide sufficient cushioning to protect me from the concrete's hard embrace!
CO: In fact they will not, as your absurd overpoundage increases your falling speed, which in turn means that you will strike the corpses with sufficient impact as to prevent them from saving you. I have determined this using science.
F: Curses. And now, I die.
CO: I am unsure as to whether or not this is ironic.
Abusing science thusly is no joking matter!
I am sincerely sorry, and have attached a written apology to the top of this crane.
It would seem that this would also involve convincing the laws of physics and reality to allow you to both stand on the crane and operate whatever mechanism it is that drops you.
Well, the exact nature of that mechanism is never made clear. Perhaps it can be operated using one's mind alone, or some sort of remote control.
Haha, maybe the CO could add something about how mass doesn't affect the speed of falling.
________________
________________
The more convoluted, the better. You're planning to write the whole first level now? Then do we have anyone who can take that and turn it into an actual dialogue tree game, just to see what the whole thing might look like?
Well, yeah, I'm making the dialogue tree but the more I get into it the more I think this isn't really game material. I mean in order to see all the writing which is supposed to be the draw you'd have to play multiple times. And that doesn't really sound like fun. It's turning into this thing where, ok, it can be fun to read but then... why make a game out of it? Is the fun in reading the jokes? If it is then the game might be too much time for too few jokes. If the fun is in persuading the victim then a dialogue tree really isn't that interesting in that aspect because then it's the same time after time. I've gotten a different view of this idea after actually trying to put it into a game.
EDIT: Now the way I'm writing it every response the CO gives you can get one of three randomly chosen victim responses so that could lend some randomness and "persuasion" but... is it that fun to go through dialogue trees? I'm not sure anymore. Let's use Mass Effect as an example. Were the conversations the best part of that game? Did they seem like a nuisance? Even if someone enjoyed the conversations more than the rest of the game, then why? Probably because the possibility that you could change the outcome but here there are really only two outcomes. You kill the victim or the walk away.
________________
The only way it works as a game is if the trees are huge and follow some sort of logic, like Phoenix Wright, only with many ways to win and lose. Then it's fun to play (and even replay a few times).
Which is why we should use the branching conversation thing you mentioned before. Though the problem with that is that it might be hard to make sure everything follows on logically from each other - I can see too many non sequiters getting annoying.
Still, I think the writing along makes it fun for most people to play, even if it's not all that interactive. We'd need to prevent it from being too much of a one-note joke, though.
Yeah, that's true but I think this premise, as much as I love it, may wear thin because it's based on the ridiculous. I mean part of the humor is that the CO comes up with ridiculous reasons and then the victims buy them! So the player would have to choose from a selection of absurd choices which then becomes a "which random choice do I choose?" type of game and that doesn't seem that fun. I don't know, I'm still up for giving this a serious go but it just seems a little bit... hmm... difficult to do.
Maybe this is a better example. It's kind of like in those old Sierra type Adventure games when the right answer was just completely non-sensical. That definitely wasn't fun. It was just annoying to try and read the game maker's minds.
________________
Convincing a passerby that they are a secret agent and his assignment and only means of survival are on the crane hook.
Having a man in a nearby building talk to you, convincing him that his entire apartment complex is about to be demolished and having him climb out on to the crane.
Offer a police officer a bird's-eye view to see if he can catch the man who murdered all these poor people.
Perhaps the challenge is in choosing a ridiculous reason and then find logical ways to keep it going. So you'll pick from a variety of absurdist reasons, all of which will allow you to win. Say you choose "It'll make you less fat." Then you have to find a convincing reason as to why it would make you less fat. So "It'll knock the fat right out of your body" would be a wrong answer, because clearly the impact will kill you. "Birds will eat all the fat" is also wrong, because they'd have to break the skin. "It'll work by clever science that you couldn't understand" on the other hand, is at least a theoretical possibility. Perhaps not the best example, but I think the principle is sound.