How Town of Salem made a mechanic interesting

Town of Salem is a cool game. I just wanted to get it out of the way right now. It's free in browser, give it a shot, you'll have a good time. If you're at all interested in what I'm talking about here, I'm sure you'll have a good time.

Source

But it's also really interesting to look at what makes this seemingly simple game tick, and how something as simple as being immune to death at night adds layers upon layers of complexity. If you've ever played mafia, ToS is basically like that, but a bit more complex, taking advantage of it being digital, and having more roles.

Now, being night immune is a trait shared by several roles in the game, such as the serial killer and the godfather. If you haven't played or if your memory is fuzzy, it means you can't be killed at night through conventional means. That means no mafia killing you, no serial killer, and no vigilante. Let's take a closer look at what this means for the game as a whole:

It increases the value of certain roles

There are specific roles that can kill through night immunity. The Jailor, Veteran, Werewolf, and Arsonist all have the ability to ignore this attribute and just kill anyone they want at night. Obviously that's a powerful tool for whatever role has it, but it's not without downsides. The jailor is obscenely powerful, but to compensate they're always in the game and are the number one target for pretty much every killing role. The veteran can't actively kill, and can only react to other night immune roles coming to visit them. And of course the arsonist and werewolf are alone, and can't risk being found out or killed or else they lose.

When you give a role such a powerful tool, you're forced to give them downsides, and in doing so each role is just really interesting. You need to play more carefully as a jailor. It's common to try to bait people to visit you as veteran. This mechanic changes every role it applies to, and it makes the game much more interesting as a result.

It's a key strength AND weakness

Night immunity just sounds like a straight strength, no? It certainly is a necessary one for many of the independent roles. The neutral killing roles, for one, are a target of literally every other player in the game, and your "team" is made up of only yourself in this case. It'd be far too easy for you to automatically lose by a random killing if you didn't have night immunity in this case. The town can rely on their numbers, the mafia can afford a loss, vampires can make more of themselves, and so on. Every role has some sort of failsafe, and in the case of these solo roles their failsafe is just flat out being unable to be normally killed.

However, this isn't just a flat buff in these evil roles. Again, it makes the game more interesting, because the party that tried to attack you will know you're night immune. And that's pretty much always a bad thing. If you're neutral killing, mafia and town both want your blood and will out you the next day or in a death note. If you're the godfather, everyone but mafia wants you gone. In these cases, it means you've been put at a disadvantage but still have several options to get out of this mess, rather than just an instant failsafe.

And it's not as simple as "lynch the immune" for the town roles, either. The survivor and bodyguard both have the ability to assume temporary night immunity, so they can't just go about lynching everyone like this.

This is really, really good multiplayer design. I often see a lot of games stumble in providing interesting options on all sides. Take a sniper rifle in any FPS. Typically your options boil down to "get out of sight or die" and the sniper's options are "keep at range or die". It's just not as interesting when each weapon or mechanic gives a very binary state: play this way or fail. Town of Salem keeps it open, even when something bad or good happens to you. Getting found out as night immune isn't an immediate failure, and finding a night immune isn't an instant success. As a result of this it's also not a straight, boring buff to a class to help it work. It's a dynamic mechanic that helps them do their jobs.

It also works as an unknown

Night immunity is always going to be present in a typical game of ranked. The godfather and a neutral killing role will always be in there, so the killing roles will always have this mechanic to work with. That uncertainty means that night immunity is something every role will want to know about for different reasons.

The mafia will usually want to know who's immune so as to not waste nights to kill, and seeing as they're the only factions guaranteed to have someone able to confirm of someone is immune, it's often in their best interests to reveal who's immune through indirect means. It's a question of risk vs reward, typically. Is it in the mafia's best interest to leave roles that can usually kill them alive to see if they'll get the town first. That question doesn't have a clear answer and must be answered per game, and that's great.

On the other hand, every role with permanent night immunity is an enemy of the town, and a massive red flag that this is likely a bad person. It becomes a goal of leveraging every piece of info you get and then putting it into action, as town usually takes control of the lynchings. If it's not coming from the mouth of an investigative role or vigilante, however, it's typically suspect. This turns the simple act of trying to find the evils into a mad scramble to see who can be trusted and what info is good and it's just great.

The point I'm getting at here is that Town of Salem weaves this one gameplay mechanic through the entire game very well. So many multiplayer games keep mechanics isolated and single use. You can only use the grappling hook for mobility. This shotgun only has one use: close range combat. The mechanic of night immunity is not a one and done mechanic only applying to certain scenarios. It's used across the entire game and has repercussions far more than it appears at first. Not every game needs to do something like this, but it's certainly a valuable tool to keep in mind.

How Far Cry 2 Made War Boring

Hey, I don't hate Far Cry! Just bad stories ;)

In my last article, I expressed disappointment with Far Cry 3's inability to make the story and gameplay work together, and it ended up being a fun game with a story that just doesn't work with the gameplay. This is very often the norm in video games, however. You'll get a dramatic cutscene about how this is a life and death scenario, and then you'll take 30 bullets to the face and not die. However, the reason I took such issue with Far Cry 3 in particular was that this series had already gotten it right.

But before that, just a quick disclaimer: please play Far Cry 2 first. If I tell you what it's all about the effect will be ruined. Just go in blind and you'll get it. Maybe.

Source

Far Cry 2 is an anti-war game to it's very core. Everything from the story to the gameplay is perfectly in tune with what it wants to do, in stark contrast to Far Cry 3. This is pretty much the best execution of an anti-war message I have ever seen. It doesn't make any grandiose statements. It just is, and it's a hell of a thing.

Far Cry 2 is all about war. From the moment you start the game you hear about war. You're shot at 5 minutes in. You can't go more than a few meters between soldiers. The region's very identity has been erased and replaced by war. It's all you do in gameplay, it's what all the missions are about, you cannot escape war.

Already we can see that it's doing much better than Far Cry 3. That game is unable to reconcile the difference between the player and story, constantly talking up how violence consumes while giving the player total control over everything. Fary Cry 2 keeps it constant. The game is about war, and thus the story follows. It's certainly an easier line to toe than 3, but it achieves what it sets out to do.

That's about where I stopped with 3, since if a game fails there it can't really go much farther. However, 2 does indeed go one step further. It's one thing to have the gameplay and story work together. Plenty of games do this. It's another thing entirely to make the game convey a message through all this.

Because Far Cry 2 can get pretty dang boring. Enemies never run out and you need to clear camps every. Single. Time. You move through them. Missions never change much either. You'll run a gun related mission to unlock more stuff in the shops. You'll constantly get in and out of cars looking for meager handfuls of diamonds.

And it's not like the region will ever change, either. It's not like you're able to change anything. At the end of the day, everyone will shoot at you, no matter what. You can get to a new area, but that doesn't change anything, just expands it. You can run mission after mission, and nothing, nothing, will change.

I hope you're seeing my point. This is all very intentional. That's very often a defense thrown out for bad game design (I am looking SQUARELY at you MGS4), but Far Cry 2 gets it right, oh so right. The reason this simply isn't sloppy game design is that it follows the story and tone very tightly, to such an extent that this simply had to have been intentional. The entire plot is tedious and barely changing. The soldiers are hard to tell apart. And it's not like anyone goes about being happy or optimistic. This tone was taken very seriously, and reflected right in the gameplay.

It's not always going to be a fun game! It's really not! You'll grind through camps forever. Maybe you'll get a terrible sniper rifle or an awkward mortar. Maybe you'll get a slightly different pistol. It's all the same in the end, though.

Far Cry 2 makes war just so fucking boring. And I think that is the most powerful thing about this game. You can fixate on the gunplay, the fire physics, or the story, but at the end of the day, this is a game hellbent on showing you the crushing awfulness of war through a feeling common to many games: boredom.

You hear a lot about boredom in war stories. Look at any interview with a soldier and they're likely to talk about the crushing boredom inherent to war. It's not like games portray. It's not adrenaline pumping action, it's a whole lotta waiting. Far Cry 2 knows this.

But what if you push through all that? Surely, if you push through and kill the Jackal, the supposed source of this conflict, it'll all be over, right? Only it turns out the Jackal is on your side, you've been flaring tensions up for nothing, and in the end to actually help people the Jackal is going to have to die. Oh, and even if you somehow make it out alive you have malaria and are going to die anyway. Fuck you.

War consumes everything in Far Cry 2. It consumes the characters, the region, the game characters, and perhaps even your fun in the end. It's got a clear message and intent, and every element of the game works with it. Far Cry 2 is a sterling example of how to weave the gameplay and story, and I do hope more people take a close look at it.

How Far Cry 3 Failed at Story

Far Cry 3 is a video game. That's the start, end, and sum of all of its issues.

Source

This is a very odd game, looking back. It's been almost 5 years since it released and it continues to be a very present game. People look back on it fondly in a lot of ways, and in many areas I do have to agree with them. The actual gameplay is very good, particularly once the wingsuit is relinquished to the player. It gives a lot of choice to the player in the gameplay, and is a nice mix between keeping things at a good pace while also giving the player a lot of freedom.

I'm not here to talk about the gameplay, however. It works, it is good, etc. etc. That's beside the point. The far more interesting bit, and where I think it fails, is in the, well everything else. This is a game that quite honestly falls flat when it comes to everything but the gameplay. It tries to have a complex story deconstructing the gameplay and murder key to the game. In doing so, however, it fails to use this in anything but the script, and as a result comes out limp and toothless.

Except for Vaas actually he's a very good villain who really does do an effective job of communicating conflicting themes and overall pulls things together very nicely with some great voicework and brilliant monologues seriously he's like a character dropped in from a different much better writer

cough

See, here's the thing about Far Cry 3: it's ostensibly about deconstructing the violence in the game and how it erodes the main character's morality and sanity. Not exactly a bad idea for a game. You have to remember, back in 2012 things were pretty different. The violent AAA game was still being played pretty straight and the landscape for success was a lot more limited in publisher's eyes. We've gotten quite a few games going after that nowadays, but back then this was still a fairly new concept when applied to a big game.

The story is... well it's OK. I don't think the writers did a phenomenal job of it, but the core of the script is fine and for the most part I think they had a pretty solid thing going. It does tend to stumble sometimes, but I think for the most part they had a very basic idea going that could have been fleshed out very well. And like I said, whoever wrote Vaas definitely deserved a pay raise. Of course, it also stumbles sometimes, mainly whoever decided Vass should have been replaced with Hoyt should have been fired. But by and large, when I talk about Far Cry 3's story being bad, I am not talking about the writing.

People absolutely love throwing around the term ludonarrative, I've done it before even. I do really like this term, however, because it gives a vocalization to the idea of story and gameplay working together. It's really cool to see a game doing this right! It's also really interesting when it, erm, all falls apart.

It is quite obvious in retrospect that the game designers and story writers were not working so closely. Separately, they're fine as ideas and even mostly in execution in game. Neither works so well when combined, however. Far Cry 3, in what I think was likely some accident of miscommunication, tries to have its cake and eat it too. This is kinda tricky to explain, but let's take a look at 3 different parts of the game and I hope this'll become clearer.

Going forward I'm going to assume you've played the game or at least know the story, as it'd take too much time to explain otherwise.

In the Beginning
Far Cry 3 has a pretty effective story opening, I think, and hell, I think the gameplay for the most part helps out here. It's a tad out of your control, but that generally works to its advantage and you are for the most part in the same shoes as Jason. Out of control, confused, and maybe a wee bit scared. It works, it's not genius, but it's a pretty effective opening and makes the tone of this game known to you from square one.

And then you get in control of Jason, and the illusion just all falls apart.

See, here's the thing. Jason will act and talk like a scared kid in the opening portions of the game, which makes sense. However, it doesn't gel with the gameplay at all. You handle a machete in the same way at the start and end. Your gun accuracy? Always perfect. You'll run through combat just as flawlessly the first time as you do at the end.

The issue here is that this is not at all what's happening in the story. Ostensibly, Jason is terrified, has no idea what the hell he's doing, and barely even knows how to shoot a gun in a firefight. And then you get plunked into a firefight and none of that holds true. The story, in this part of the game at least, is so totally and completely undercut every single time you're in control. I understand that sometimes liberties must be taken, but when the basic acts of moving and shooting are contradicting your story, you may want a second pass at it.

The transition
It's certainly a good idea for a character arc to have Jason slowly enjoy and relish in the violence. It had never seriously been explored in a high profile game before and seeing as games tend to revolve around violence, it's a great fit too.

It was not to last in quality beyond and idea, however. The opening is a little worrying, and those worries just sort of continue and develop throughout the game. The entire game is just... so... static. Nothing ever changes. There is no progression in the gameplay besides the skills you unlock.

While I can perhaps see the intent to have your skills reflect your state of mind as a killing machine, it just doesn't work. How exactly does learning how to cook grenades or getting more health help show the player how Jason is? For that matter, why would an upgrade system work at all in this game?

I'm serious. This game should not have had a skill upgrade system if it was seriously committed to making the gameplay and story work together. The entire purpose of the game's story is that violence without thinking can be easily stumbled into, and any old person could slip into that darkness. That entire point does not gel with letting the player make specific choices on how to progress your killing excellence.

Maybe the idea was that you're somehow complicit in progressing this? It's done really, really badly if that was the intent. The game presents a story of out of control instincts and then hands you a handy menu in which to progress. It just makes no sense. Imagine, if you will, a game where your upgrades are gained by doing specific things. Maybe you learn a new, vicious way to kill from a mission. Maybe after you've killed enough with a grenade you unlock new ways to use it.A menu is just so... direct and against the entire flow. Jason progresses as a character in one part of the game. He progresses as an unlock tree in the next. Does it really have to be this way?

All for what?

Let's be real here; Far Cry 3 fumbles the ending, as it does with everything else. There are 2 endings that you can get by making the choice at the end of the game to kill your friends or not. If you kill them, you get a very, um, let's be delicate and say badly written ending. That's not the point here, seeing as we're looking at the gameplay vs. Story. The point is the other ending, where you just leave the island.

Why does this ending even exist? To fulfill some idea that video games need choice? This screams executive interference, and it just goes against literally everything the story has been building up to this point. Everything is building up to Jason killing his friends. It's obvious. The entire point of the game has been how violence corrupts and takes over one's morality. To give the player the option to say, "no", and go against every single point in the story is just... wrong. End of story. The player should not have had a choice here.

And that's pretty much Far Cry 3's story in a nutshell. OK, but brought low by it's inability to reconcile the gameplay and story. It's clear to me that everyone involved were concerned with making a fun game first, and a story second. While that may be all that is needed, it's disappointing that this is a sequel to a game that got this dynamic so, so right. 

But more on that next time. Thanks for reading!