coyotecraft
Sponsor
When people process information they pay more attention to things at the beginning and end while everything in the middle is read with less importance. I learned from a writingexcuses.com podcast that you can use that to your advantage if you don't want a telling clue to be too obvious. For example if the narrator describes a scene of a murder and starts with "A gun on the mantelpiece"; that's an obvious murder weapon. But you can blend that detail into the room by putting it in the middle of a list: "A picturesque hunting cabin with a bear rug on the floor, antique pistol on the mantel, and a lamp made of antlers hanging from the ceiling high above."
The gun isn't so obvious now because it feels decorative. It's advantageous to put a red herring is at the beginning or end of the list. "The the gun-case door was missing a glass panel." Suggesting the real weapon came from there. It sounds important but it's misdirection.
In video games, you'll probably won't be narrating a scene like that, but you will be providing direction to the player. So for clarity begin with where they have to go and do first, followed by whatever reasons the characters will have.
This is related to another common piece of writing advice that dialogue shouldn't mimic real speech. Generally this is understood as leaving out the "how are you? I'm good, thanks." But another aspect of real life conversations that should generally be left out is an apparent process of problem solving during a conversation.
"Can we stop by the orphanage? It's been a long time and there is something I want to do there."
It starts with a suggestion of where to go next, followed by a reason that's just vague enough to pique the player's curiosity about what will happen when they get there. Compare that to this:
"There's something I've been meaning to do for a long time... I want to go to the orphanage. Will you come with me?"
It stuffs directions for the player in the middle, and structurally tricks the player into follow murky logic. The points at the beginning & end suggest that "coming with" is somehow related to "the thing". A problem, answer, and solution which gives the player a sense that their action is required.
In the first statement, the player can accept the character's reasons as their own and withhold judgments and expectations. But in the second statement, the reader will attempt to exercise problem-solving in some small amount, by empathy or by some social instinct to synchronize with the whoever they're engaged with.
That may or may not be desirable.
Edit:*I realize the examples are concise enough to be easily understood anyway you read it. But it's my hope that you can still see the principle behind it.
The gun isn't so obvious now because it feels decorative. It's advantageous to put a red herring is at the beginning or end of the list. "The the gun-case door was missing a glass panel." Suggesting the real weapon came from there. It sounds important but it's misdirection.
In video games, you'll probably won't be narrating a scene like that, but you will be providing direction to the player. So for clarity begin with where they have to go and do first, followed by whatever reasons the characters will have.
This is related to another common piece of writing advice that dialogue shouldn't mimic real speech. Generally this is understood as leaving out the "how are you? I'm good, thanks." But another aspect of real life conversations that should generally be left out is an apparent process of problem solving during a conversation.
It starts with a suggestion of where to go next, followed by a reason that's just vague enough to pique the player's curiosity about what will happen when they get there. Compare that to this:
It stuffs directions for the player in the middle, and structurally tricks the player into follow murky logic. The points at the beginning & end suggest that "coming with" is somehow related to "the thing". A problem, answer, and solution which gives the player a sense that their action is required.
In the first statement, the player can accept the character's reasons as their own and withhold judgments and expectations. But in the second statement, the reader will attempt to exercise problem-solving in some small amount, by empathy or by some social instinct to synchronize with the whoever they're engaged with.
That may or may not be desirable.
Edit:*I realize the examples are concise enough to be easily understood anyway you read it. But it's my hope that you can still see the principle behind it.
