Territan (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} territan) wrote,@ 2007-11-19 22:16:00 |
|
| Current location: | home |
| Current mood: | inspired |
| Entry tags: | fiction, games |
Wrights and Masons
Okay, call it a strange little caprice. I just finished playing through a game, with online assistance
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney. Ever hear of it? It's an excellent little framework for presenting fiction in an interactive fashion: each phase in the game consists of either sorting through a series of statements and picking out someone or something that contradicts one of them, or answering questions by presenting people or things as a way of demonstrating that you're actually paying attention to the story.
As a game, it's more or less good. In later editions of it, they've recycled characters and introduced new play features, some of which are good calls and bring stuff to the party and some of which are more sort of meh. But they they are all just icing on the cake, which I have to admit tastes a little funny.
My major qualm with the series is that the interaction of prosecution, defense, and witnesses is a little contrived. And when I say there are "contrivances," I mean they're big enough to drive a truck through. I'm not sure how the justice system normally works in Japan (the games' country of origin), but I really doubt it works the way it's portrayed. It couldn't possibly.
Which is why, in the title of this little hit-piece, I bring up another name in the legal genre: Perry Mason, the defense attorney created by Earl Stanley Gardner. In those stories, the presentation of any case was pretty much straightforward. I'm not sure how it compares with the real American legal system, but it comes a lot closer to what I'd consider an ideal.
It also looks significantly better from the pure game theory standpoint as well. Prosecution calls witnesses for their testimony, defense cross-examines (requesting clarifications on or countering any points brought up in direct examination), prosecution re-directs (requesting clarifications on or countering any points brought up in cross-examination, and defense re-cross-examines (you get the idea). After prosecution has built up its case with all its testimony, it's defense's turn to break it down. Defense does the direct examination, prosecution cross-examines, defense re-directs, and prosecution re-crosses. It's a simple, straightforward (ABAB)*(BABA) progression.
Other rules determine what can be talked about. Redirects and recrosses can only be used to address points on previous levels, and sometimes a single innocuous question at one level could spawn a dozen or so inconvenient questions at the level below because that one question "opened the door" to the whole different line of inquiry. Leading questions can only be asked under certain circumstances. And so forth.
Programming such a game could be a complex and daunting task. Perhaps the Inform 7 language would be up to the task? There are already libraries written in it for things like interaction matrices (ask character about topic, get certain information back under certain circumstances, etc.) It could be a lot of fun to play through... which is I suppose why I'd rather someone else create this puppy. I don't have time to write such a beast myself.
Any takers?
