13ventrm t1_j88a7fd wrote
Could you elaborate on "mechanical consequences"? Aside from narrative consequences, I can't quite picture the core gameplay loop being substantively changed, though that may be because I don't quite have a sense of the genre either.
tyeishing OP t1_j88hj4z wrote
Fantastic question- here's an in-depth explanation of how the core mechanics function. After the intro the player has 3 statistics to manage- Hope, Hunger, and Health. The game is broken up to semi linear exploratory sidescrolling environments with items to find, and then a story moment, and then a campfire to rest at. The exploratory areas have items like food and medicine to find to increase your hunger mostly, but also have dangers that can hurt Dante. The most common of which is falling of the map, which generates a random "story moment" where you're spawned at the start of the level and Dante is given a health or hope debuff. The story moments are either a medical or ethical emergency, which Dante can usually approach from a couple of different perspectives. There's sometimes a medical RPG style interaction to represent Dante's treatment. The core of the game is here- almost always the most moral option will notably leave Dante weaker in some way. For instance- if Dante tries to interfere with an execution, he can just get shot and take a major health debuff. If Dante tries to treat a man with a highly infectious repository illness then Dante might catch it and have a status debuff for the rest of the game he needs to manage. Dante can be genuinely crippled at points too which reduces his efficacy as a doctor. All of this creates a desperate, edge of your seat moral thriller which will leave you earnestly thinking about your choices. (Once Dante reaches a campfire his health is adjusted proportionally to his hunger, and his hunger increases, then this cycle starts again.)
13ventrm t1_j88lg95 wrote
Interesting! You cited Pathologic as a source: one thing I found with the original in particular is that it became easy to contextualize the moment to moment moral decisions as just elements to be considered within the scope of the gameplay.
A lot of punch can potentially be lost when what's supposed to be a tough moral decision becomes less about the narration itself and more: "well this event gives me a permanent debuff if I do decision x, so let's not do that". "Hm, this choice gives me +5 Hope, but -5 Food. I'm low on hope atm though, can afford to lose the food".
Is this sort of gamifying a concern for you in crafting the narrative? If so, do you feel you can address or incorporate it?
tyeishing OP t1_j88nrs8 wrote
Min-maxing is the blight of moral narrative game design, and it's something that you can never get rid of, but you can minimize. How Yuma Will Burn discourages this type of play is being slightly restrictive with its save system. The game automatically saves over your one save slot after a major descion so a player can't personally reload 57 times and find the mathematically perfect solution. There is where the dynamic narrative stuff helps me too, for a lot of interactions with 10+ outcomes it's hard for even me to keep a running understanding of what happens if you do X,Y, and Z. Now- will that stop players from just looking up a guide and ruining the mystery? Probably not, but that's their descion, and anyone who approaches the game in good faith, trying to engage with thematic experience, will have atleast 3 playthroughs worth of uncertainty before the clear mathematical systems behind yuma will burn will become TOO clear
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments