Steamberry Studio
patreon
Right and Wrong Choices (Dev Perspective)
🕑 Added 2023-07-05 11:37:02 +0000 UTCSo this is one of those topics that I have thought about and just written down some random observations and thoughts.
But.
Trying to collate it into something coherent is a little tricky though, so bear with me.
My opinion is that "Right Choices" and "Wrong Choices" are a feature of any game that gives you choices. This is an inherent quality of choice (and, therefore, having multiple paths and goals.)
Let me explain.
The moment you introduce potentially conflicting objectives (Path A *OR* Path B) there will be "right choices" for Path A and "wrong choices" for Path A.
My observation is that many players (and developers) view this concept of "right and wrong choices" as something some games have and some games don't. And they associate these "wrong" choices with either a desire to "punish" the player or else a requirement for "meaningful choices" (aka "choices that matter").
I find this association between right/wrong choices and "punishment" or "mattering" to be an oversimplification that lends itself towards unrealistic expectations and miscommunications.
As a dev, I don't really think of the choices in my games as being "right" or "wrong" necessarily and I don't create them with this distinction in mind. β β
So here are my personal thoughts on this topic.
The "Right" Path
So a lot of visual novels don't really have a "correct" path. They have multiple valid paths - in a lot of cases these can be divided paths that lead to happy endings and paths that lead to tragic endings. (But sometimes there are other variations - neutral, friendship, bittersweet, etc.)
The reason I say that I don't think of choices as being "right" or "wrong" per se is because I think of them as being associated more with specific endings, none of which I necessarily consider the "Correct One."
That said, I notice that, often, players don't see it the same way!
Many people play, assuming "the good ending" (or "the most ideal ending") is the correct path through the game. When I say "correct" here, I really mean that people see this as the one you're "supposed" to obtain. So it is immutably correct in an absolute sense.
The choices function as an obstacle to *that specific ending.*
From a game design perspective, a game that has multiple paths and endings is usually set up with the intention of players pursuing more than one path.
It's obvious that most players will want to read the "Happily Ever After Ending" - but alternate endings are not really just simple fail states even if the HEA is the most desired one.
What I mean by that is that alternate endings are content that you are intended to see (if you want - like all content in the game).
It's not like playing a dungeon crawler where you get a death screen and start over. Typically bad endings have incentives for the player. Achievements, CGs, interesting scenarios - these things are meant to reward the player for getting those endings. This makes the "bad endings" possible end goals for the player.
This means that the choices that are "right" and those that are "wrong" really depend on the player's *current goal*. The "right choices" are the ones that lead to your desired outcome. The "right" outcome is the one you're trying to achieve.
I would argue it's impossible to play a game without creating mini goals for yourself every time you make a choice.
You are presented with choice A and choice B; you like how choice A sounds and want to see what happens when you click choice A. Your goal is "see what's behind choice A."
Choice B is now the "wrong" choice. π€
The only way to avoid doing this is to close your eyes and pick at random. To leave everything to chance.
I would argue most VNs aren't meant to be played that way, and most players do not actually play that way exclusively.
This, to me, is just the most neutral way to view how choices work and how goals function in the game.
But, again, this is *really* not how players view "right" and "wrong" choice.
The Goals We Create
As a developer, I always set certain targets for what I intend the player to try to accomplish when they play my games. And not just what I intend, but what I assume they'll be attempting to accomplish.
But the thing is, players don't always play with those targets in mind.
Often, they create their own targets that are strategies I didn't consider and that my game may not really be designed for. This isn't wrong. We all create our own experiences; that's the fun of games.
It just means the experience they're looking for may not be 100% compatible with my game design because I wasn't thinking of it that way when I made the game.
This is one of the dangers of devs using vague phrases like "There are no wrong choices!" when they advertise their game. That means something different to everyone and may set up expectations for an experience that isn't compatible with that game.
When I make my games I usually make them with the intended goals in mind (among others):
- Play for the Romance Ending (and get the CG there)
- Play for the alternate endings to unlock the flowchart
- Play for the Tragic ending to get the CGs there
- Explore the different character scenarios locked behind different choices
The reason I don't necessarily view my choices in terms of an absolute "right" or "wrong" is because some of these goals contradict each other. Like I said previously, the right choices for a given goal are unique to *that goal* and won't be the right choices for another goal.
But you can see how this may not align to a player who goes into a game with a goal of "Get the Right Ending" and "The right ending is the most ideal one. All other endings are incorrect."
Players aren't always as exclusively 'ending focused' in their goals either.
For instance, I may consider the objective to be "Get the happiest ending" while a player's objective may be "Follow the happiest path to the happiest ending and avoid any scenario where the characters are unhappy with each other."
In fact, "Follow the happiest path" could be the player's primary goal without any focus on the ending because they assume that the happiest path leads to the happiest ending so all they focus on is the path and not the ultimate outcome.
But I don't really set up my games with "the happy path" and the "non happy path" in mind. When I create choices I am often thinking in terms of "choices that show a good affinity with the LI's personality" or "choices that show MC isn't quite on the same page".
I view it as a pretty neutral thing most of the time - if you show a lot of affinity with the LI, the MC will vibe with them and they may have a sweet moment. But if you're on a different page, you get a more neutral interaction.
This isn't wrong, it's just the result of choices you've made to that point.
But if your view is that "the happiest path is the right path" then even if you are on track to get the most ideal ending, you can see how choosing a less than ideal choice feels wrong.
I find this difference in the way of thinking really interesting.
It's not about wanting only happy stories
That said, I think it's really interesting that just because a player doesn't want their choice to lead to a bad ending or unhappy content, it doesn't mean they only want happy, wholesome games.
It comes down to the idea that they don't want their *choices* to lead to that content.
The content is allowed to be there as as a sort of deterministic part of the plot that you cannot avoid. But they don't want to encounter it because of their choices. They don't want to be responsible for that content being a part of their journey.
Bad things are allowed to happen but if they happen because the player instigated it without meaning to, it feels like a punishment.
I think this is really logical but also so easy to forget when making games and thinking of the risk/reward element for players!
Why do I think about this topic?
It's really a matter of communication!
When I see players say they don't want "wrong choices" in their games, I am not sure what they mean. But I think there's an expectation that I do know exactly what it means. π€π€
- do they want no 'bad outcomes'?
- do they want no optional scenarios where there is anything uncomfortable, sad, or upsetting for the characters?
- does this mean they want a game with no obstacles to their goal?
- what do the choices in this style of game do? What do they look look?
Games without tragic outcomes are definitely considered by some as having no wrong choices (even though objectively there should be wrong choices based on the definition I described above). And there are a lot of players who only play that kind of game.
Some players are satisfied as long as they have a guide to lead them to the ending they want. But some players don't want to have to play with a guide to avoid undesired outcomes.
It's really interesting to think about what an ideal game looks like for players like this and if I'd be able to create that. β¨
A Brief Aside About Good And Bad Endings
Because these two topics are somewhat related, I just kind of wanted to talk a little about the concept of good and bad endings. As you can imagine, I view it similarly, in a way to the concept of right and wrong choices.
Like I said before, "Bad Endings" are not simple fail states in most visual novels. They are alternate paths that are meant to be explored by people who like angst or tragedy or getting achievements.
Logically, a "fail" is any time you don't achieve the objective at hand, right?
If I get Happy Ending A when I wanted Happy Ending B, I technically...failed my objective, right? It doesn't matter that the outcome was happy - I still didn't succeed. This is why good endings can still be viewed as failures.
This is just a purely objective view of it. Though I notice that as players we usually tie failure to the tone of an ending rather than whether we were attempting to achieve it.
But as I said before, bad endings are content players are intended to see. Which is why we put interesting rewards in there for people who do achieve them.
And there are many people who have a favourite "bad ending." π
The truth is that while "good" and "bad" are convenient shorthand (just like "right" and "wrong") - I've been trying to get away from describing endings that way for my games.
There's nothing inherently wrong with good/bad. It's just that I think describing endings in term of emotional vibe or exact outcome communicates better and is more interesting.
Some of the ways I'm trying to train myself to describe endings are things like "happy ending" versus "tragic ending" - or even a host of other descriptors - Sweet, Passionate, Spicy, Romantic, Dramatic, Bittersweet, Neutral, Friendship, Dark, Sad, Heartbreak, Grim...etc etc.
Conclusion
I think the main take away from this ramble is that often we use phrases like "wrong choices" in a way that implies a level of objectivity the terms don't actually have.
So much of how we describe games is incredibly subjective. People have very different things in mind when they talk about game features, game play, etc.
Sometimes I get stuck on those subjective meanings and ponder hard what I usually mean when I say it. And then think about whether or not that aligns to how I know the game actually functions.
I'm always really intrigued when I realise that it doesn't align. And that's what leads me on little rabbit trails like this one. π€π
I know I really can't stop people (and shouldn't stop people) from setting their own goals within games or viewing things in terms of an absolute right or wrong path. But sometimes it's useful to remember that is how some players approach the story because it helps me think of better ways to prepare them for how my games are structured.
In theory anyway! β¨β¨β¨
Comments
Steamberry Studio
Yeah! Only about 40% of my players deliberately try for the tragic endings (based on popularity surveys in the past.) But I do notice that people attribute risk and reward with meaning. So no risk means less important rewards. Which means that they feel their choices don't matter. It's a really interesting dynamic and it's one of the reasons I get frustrated when people say VNs don't have "gameplay" or say the "gameplay" is just "clicking choices." It's obviously more complex than that - both how choices are used and how players engage with them.
Meredith Carr
As someone who has designed a game, I am always fascinated by the voices devs make. Mine was a war game which is very different but I see a lot of the same challenges. I play games like yours and Iβm always trying to get the perfect romance endings. I play the game with a consistent personality though, and sometimes that means a different result. I never try to get a tragic ending, but it happens. I donβt like them, but without them I donβt enjoy the game. I like the potential of risk of not getting my desired ending. Regarding Changeling, I could it more challenging to reach my preferred ending than in Gilded Shadows. I did do the other endings for Carissa because I wanted to fully explore the option with him. One I get all my desired endings, I stop. Iβm not a completionist. I wish I could have gotten all the CGs, but I donβt want my last plays to be a bunch of tragic endings. (Ok, too long).
Steamberry Studio
A lot of people don't play the tragic endings - which I think is totally valid. But as a game developer, when you are creating multiple paths through a game, it means you aren't usually looking at them in terms of the correct path or the incorrect path (or even good/bad, happy/sad). You're often just looking at them as Path 1 and Path 2. I think that really can impact how our choices are positioned in the narrative. The "problem" (it's not really a problem per se - just a misalignment) comes from forgetting that players see things differently! Thinking about things like this really helps me re-configure my dev brain so I can remember that players and devs look at games with different lenses.
Steamberry Studio
I have a whole write up on the point of choices in VNs and different functions they have. They definitely are not always meant to be world altering (actually most VNs only have a couple of world-altering choices in them because that's just not the branching structure VNs use!) It's a whole topic! @_@ LoL
Sarah
My therapist always points out that things aren't "good" or "bad" and saying "shouldn't" implies that there is inherent wrongness in what was done. And, if you say you "should've" done something, you are implying that not doing that thing was wrong. Whether someone likes or doesn't like something based on how they interpret it, is one thing. But good and bad are lazy terms that people use to imply right and wrong when really they just did or didn't like it. (some things are wrong like abuse obv). I personally always play to get a happy ending, but I like characters to struggle and grow as people to get there. I understand that a tragic or neutral ending is a completely valid story, but it isn't the type of story I want to read because I have enough things making me sad usually. I like stories that warm my cold heart I guess (^_^) But that is just what I like, and it doesn't mean that someone else can't like an explosive/tragic ending :) I think an example of a game where I felt I could give my character a variety of personalities and still end up getting a romantic ending with a specific guy I liked (regardless of what personality I chose) was Reverie Ebon Light. Aggressive/fearless or charming/afraid or cunning/steady it didn't keep me from pursuing and attaining anyone I wanted but did change other aspects of the game.
Emily Belle
I was having my male partner try a VN demo I thought he would like (unfortunately, not yours although I've contemplated bribing him to read Jack's route). his complaint was that it seemed like the choices boiled down to, "do I want to see this content or not?" And that it wasn't world changing. He wanted a most choices to change the world in some way, but sans a very few games that exist where that is almost true (Detroit Become Human a AA game, Survival of Sarah Rose which 4 completely different outcomes just so far but is unfinished) I felt like he was missing the point of VNs in general? I'm going to have him read your dev log, this was so well time for he and I's conversation
