Second-Round Playtesters: Iced Oolong

Gordon Levine wrote:

I noticed the change to the card where you observe the woman humming/singing, I think I liked the old and the new equally. Also, last time at the Burrow & Briar I remember playing a couple of cards where Padre Charlie seemed to be cleaning his gun endlessly and I had absolutely no idea who this guy was or how I had come to talk to him, so I appreciated the First Impressions card this time round.

On that card it reads: “Mister Pinkerton, call him Old Pinkie - another older man, unsmiling, starved-looking, humorless. He puts you in mind of a starving wasp.” Maybe it’s just me, but the use of the words ‘starving’ and ‘starved’ in such close proximity pulled me out of the story a little; to keep it as immersive as it had been, I’d consider changing ‘starved-looking’ - maybe to ‘emaciated’ or somesuch? (I loved the starving wasp comparison!)

Sarsmos wrote:

I didn’t notice that my character was supposed to be male, though I remember reading somewhere that this is to be the case, which would be a bit annoying. I can’t think of any decent reasons to limit the gender in such a way, but if there are some further on in the story I suppose I’ll just have to get over it.


Gordon Levine wrote:

I thought the options were pretty reasonable; while they may not have been things I’d have done, they gave a good amount of choice. If you’re worried about about people feeling shoehorned into choices that don’t fit, forcing people who don’t identify as male to play as one might detract from enjoyment of the game.

More stuff about scythemen! The wall and the in-the-future setting are also intriguing, I find myself wanting to know more about this world, Amarillo and the places beyond it.

Enjoyed the opening immensely, it has a great atmosphere. Can’t wait to see more! :)

add me to the list of people that would prefer to be able to pick their gender rather then having it assumed.

Edit: I also found the text in the main game area a bit hard to read as the contrast between text and background was poor.
edited by atheistcanuck on 8/29/2012

[quote=Gordon Levine]STRUCTURED FEEDBACK QUESTIONS (although as always we’re happy to hear whatever you’ve got to say in whatever way you want to say it):

1.) The Opening changed in a lot of small but we hope impactful ways. Did you notice any changes you liked or disliked particularly?

2.) Several players complained during the first iteration of the Opening that they felt like they ended up doing things they really wouldn’t have done (e.g. drinking bad booze.) Do you feel more empowered/less disempowered by this updated Opening?

3.) What did you like best? What are you hoping will happen next, or be explored down the line – setting, theme, character, it’s all fair game.

4.) Have you seen the rabbit? Do you tremble – with excitement? with fear?[/quote]

  1. I liked the change in introducing the three styles, I think it’s a bit nifty that you decided to use the sometimes deck for it.

  2. I don’t feel particularly different, but then I essentially went down the exact same path I did in the first run.

  3. I like Jack, The asian guy from the jackrabbits. He just feels so much more inviting then the rest of them. Truth be told I’m actually kind of interested to see how ethnicities get represented in this. Why are asians so rare in this town, considering it’s 2026?

  4. The rabbit was quite detailed, Of course I tremble not, either way. Rather I look at it with a mild curiosity.

Will get to the structured feedback later (haven’t played all that much yet) but from The View From Platform #1: Pattern Recognition - “Here your memory twinges: families here are much larger than up norte.”

EDIT: On the other hand, just noticed this same spelling on A Friendly Face, so I guess it’s probably intentional.

EDIT #2: Structured feedback.

  1. Never played the earlier iterations, so I can’t comment.
  2. Again I can’t compare, but I felt that the opening was good at empowering the player.
  3. I really liked the scene with the bats on the roof, and look forward to seeing more of the supernatural that they hint at.
  4. No, unfortunately.
    edited by Curtis J. Reubens on 8/29/2012
    edited by Curtis J. Reubens on 8/29/2012

All:

Thanks for the in-line catches! The Old Pinkie double use of “starving” was my fault; I was futzing with the description and forgot I’d already used the word once. And “norte” is an intentional usage. And we did indeed forget an article between “shudder” and “burn.”

I’m continually surprised and interested by reactions along the line of “why am I playing a man, exactly?” I want to C/P an answer I gave earlier about this issue and then add a couple of post-scripts.

[quote=]I’d also like to take @crownoflaurel’s feedback as a chance to address our protagonist. Specifically, @crownoflaurel wrote: "I’d advise giving the option to be a woman too."

The short answer is no – an understanding, I-see-where-you’re-coming-from no.

The long answer has to do with genre expectations and what Iced Oolong is doing.

Fallen London created a genre or a sub-genre all by itself. One of its best features is your ability to play anything – a man, a woman, a something, a golem – and to do anything. In Fallen London, you can do everything! You can be a master thief and a renowned scholar and a scrappy brawler and a Pawn in a Certain Game and probably a beekeeper and… and… the list goes on seemingly forever. With few exceptions, characters in Fallen London can have it all. Fallen London is a sandbox, and the fun of sandboxes is that you can build anything your heart desires.

Iced Oolong is a different kind of game. You can’t play anyone. Your character is the Protagonist. He comes complete with a past (which he can’t remember) and a name (ditto) and a sex and a gender and a strange intense interest in gunpowder-stained fingertips. You can’t play a woman in Iced Oolong for the same reason you can’t play a Martian astronaut in Fallen London: even sandboxes have rules. Those rules enable the game. In a real sandbox, the rule is that you get a box and a lot of sand and some water and maybe a pail and scoop and have at. You probably don’t get architectural drawings and you certainly don’t get self-replicating self-building super-sand. In Fallen London, the rule is that you can be anyone you want – as long as that person exists in the Fallen London universe and not a Heinlein novel. In Iced Oolong, the rule is that you get to play the Protagonist from the moment the game starts until it ends, and nobody else*.

That’s what I mean about genre expectations: you probably came into Iced Oolong expecting a sandbox, because that’s the genre so far – but what you got was closer to a traditional RPG or a novel.

Iced Oolong is all about choices. And choices need to have structure and consequences. We think the best way to make consequences have meaning is to clearly define their scope. One way we’re defining the scope is by limiting the player to the Protagonist. Think about it like this: is the decision to buy a $1000 cheeseburger more meaningful to you or to Mitt Romney? The odds are really, really good that it’s more meaningful to you, because Mitt Romney can afford a $1000 cheeseburger and you probably can’t. Or shouldn’t. (Although if you can, good on you!)

I hope that helps answer your question. We aren’t restricting your character options because we don’t want to write extra material or because we don’t want to write about women. We’re doing it because we think it will make a much better, more meaningful game.

  • Exception: we have a number of side-stories planned that you can unlock with Nex. All of these stories are nonessential; hopefully they’ll also be fun to play and stimulating to read. Many of these side-stories will allow you to play as other characters and experience the events of the main story from other perspectives. Some of those other characters will be women. (If they weren’t, I’m positive the female contingent of our writing staff would thump me, and thump me, and never stop thumping.) [/quote]

Again, my take is that most of the frustration (“why can’t I play as X?”) comes down to genre expectations. FBG and Bioware – our undisputed narrative overlords – have done a great job enabling us to play whatever sex and gender configurations we’d like. And I love FBG and Bioware games! I love the sandbox-style gameplay, the ability to do anything and everything. But that’s not what we’re doing here, for several reasons:

  • We think meaningful choices come from restrictions. The gender restriction is an obvious one, given that…
  • Everyone is playing the same Protagonist – in very different ways, but with the same background, during which…
  • A few key events would become colored very differently if the Protagonist weren’t a man, and while everyone on the Iced Oolong team strongly supports your right to self-identify as whatever gender (and sex, and sexual orientation, and ethnicity, and religion…) you choose, we’re mostly not telling a story about gender.

If you’re curious: we are mostly telling a story about 1.) choice, 2.) freedom-versus-protection, and 3.) violence, in that order. More broadly, we’re telling a story about Westerns, and how Westerns succeed (mostly at being cool whizz-bang Stories For Young Boys, which was my own context for e.g. Louis L’Amour) and how they fail (at emotional depth, at realistic consequences for choices, at any human resonance at all for violence).

Well, they are the size of Volkswagens. ; )

Also, I’m beginning to think that including explicit language in the game’s splat about playing a Man With No Name might alleviate some of the creeping-feeling shock that comes with realizing gradually your gender is in fact prescribed.

[quote=Gordon Levine]STRUCTURED FEEDBACK QUESTIONS (although as always we’re happy to hear whatever you’ve got to say in whatever way you want to say it):

1.) The Opening changed in a lot of small but we hope impactful ways. Did you notice any changes you liked or disliked particularly?

2.) Several players complained during the first iteration of the Opening that they felt like they ended up doing things they really wouldn’t have done (e.g. drinking bad booze.) Do you feel more empowered/less disempowered by this updated Opening?

3.) What did you like best? What are you hoping will happen next, or be explored down the line – setting, theme, character, it’s all fair game.

4.) Have you seen the rabbit? Do you tremble – with excitement? with fear?[/quote]

  1. I noticed three specific changes, though the second may just have been being unobservant the first time: a) The Butterroll woman, I definitely being a male baker the first time. I honestly don’t remember for sure if the butterroll part was there before. I mean specifically the word, I do remember the whole exchange. The word threw me for some reason that I can’t quite explain, it just struck me as weird. I suspect that is just adjusting to a new world though. b) I noticed this playthrough that it says Warren’s smile didn’t reach his eyes. I do not remember reading that the first time, and it caused my character to hesitate this time. I loved Warren’s response to this, and it made me feel even more sure about following him. c) I really like that the rabbit was a separate pinned card it just made it feel special. I am also quite pleased to hear that it will unlock something in the future.

  2. When did we drink bad booze? I have no memory of this happening? Or did that happen during breakfast the first playthrough? I noticed we stopped before breakfast this time, and the rule explanations felt way less awkward this time.

  3. I am just generally excited to see what happens next. I want to get the know Old Pinkie, Warren, and Jack better, their characters just fascinate me ^__^ I am also to curious to see the repercussions of noticing rabbits and being afraid of heights.

  4. I loved the Rabbit note in the first playthrough (clearly ^ ) and it being a separate card this time felt much smoother. As I may have mentioned a few times, I am fascinated to see where that little thread will lead.

Not currently playing the second round beta (did play the first) but I wanted to point out something since I’m also thinking about this issue for my game. In Bioware games (and indeed in Failbetter Games) the things you can change are the things that aren’t what the game is about. For example, in Mass Effect, Commander Shepherd can be male or female because other than with sideplots, gender doesn’t matter. You can’t change ‘Commander Shepherd’ because that’s what the game is about. You can’t change working for the Cardinal. That’s what the game is about. By making gender unchangeable in a game where you can make choices, you’re potentially reducing some of your writing load but you’re also implicitly saying that gender IS what your game is about. And hey, maybe this is true since you’re writing for a highly gendered genre. Although by taking it out of its historical perspective you render that less relevant. Set in the future stands head and shoulders above other genre considerations. So I encourage you to analyze why, in a future Western, you’re restricting yourself to a Man With No Name rather than a Gunslinger With No Name if you’re not telling a story about gender. After all, most kinds of background events work for both genders. Alternately, figure out what you’re subconsciously saying about gender, and go ahead and consciously weave it into your game. It’ll make it richer.

Chrysoula:

I certainly respect your opinion and appreciate the time you’ve put into your response, but I have to disagree that by writing a male protagonist, we’re making Zero Summer about gender – for much the same reason that Link being a man and Samus being a woman doesn’t make Legend of Zelda or Metroid about gender issues in Hyrule and Metroid.

Again, we believe – as a writing staff that includes men and women, as a group of people who are cheerfully friends of and intimate with people who run the gender and sexual-orientation gamut – that our ability to tell this story as well as possible is enhanced by the decision to write a Protagonist who is a specific gender. This isn’t to say Zero Summer won’t include interesting, well-written, complex female characters. It will! In many ways, the plot is driven by one – and we can hardly wait to introduce her.

(All that being said: it’s clear, from all of your feedback and from our own senses of narrative, that we need to be clearer that in Zero Summer, you’re playing a specific person, not your own created avatar – and that that person comes with baggage and traits of his own, including but not limited to a specific gender.

Thanks for all of your feedback on this issue! It’s been really insightful and helpful.)
edited by levineg85 on 8/29/2012

As per above, we’re trying out see new language for the character name page to clarify who you’re playing. Feedback is appreciated. Thanks!


Please enter an account name to the right.

In Iced Oolong, you play as THE MAN WITH NO NAME, a gunslinger with no gun lost in the American southwest. You’ll take the reins and explore the new frontier as you struggle to uncover his past and determine his future.

Please note: your account name is NOT your character’s name. His name, like so much else, is lost – and up to you to rediscover.

My email is lady_madsci@trashmail.net; my Twitter/Storynexus handle is ‘ladymadsci’.

Pacing feels a bit off but that can be fixed up on a later date. Actions refresh excessively rapidly making action usage redundant which in turn lessens the desire to read some of the information in the text after excessive grinding.

It is sometimes hard knowing where you have to go to continue storylines et al. Some better way of leading your player through the story might be good.

Can’t seem to find the third storyline to see the choices for lowering my gumption would it be at the University?

Typo when you first meet Warren:

No Sweat, Right
You stick out your hand; the man in the Stetson takes it. His smile widens; surprise there, and a spark o real human warmth.”

Should be ‘spark of human warmth’.

Typo when you meet Old Pinkie on the roof:

The Silent Treatment
You ask Old Pinkie a series of questions – what is he shooting at? what’s going on up there? why is nothing happening?”

Two ‘whats’ and a ‘why’ need capitalization.

EDIT: Woo! Finished Day 0! This is shaping up to be interesting. I note that there’s hints that this is a modern western aesthetic… hopefully they’ll get stronger, as it’s not immediately obvious.

“1.) The Opening changed in a lot of small but we hope impactful ways. Did you notice any changes you liked or disliked particularly?”
“2.) Several players complained during the first iteration of the Opening that they felt like they ended up doing things they really wouldn’t have done (e.g. drinking bad booze.) Do you feel more empowered/less disempowered by this updated Opening?”

No opinion; I just got let in today.

“3.) What did you like best? What are you hoping will happen next, or be explored down the line – setting, theme, character, it’s all fair game.”

I do like the different character and relationship options. It’s interesting that the Menace is called White Noise. I’d love to find out more about both the setting (what happened here?) and the character (hey, he is a mystery)— though, at the moment, the thing I most look forward to is exploring Amarillo.

“4.) Have you seen the rabbit? Do you tremble – with excitement? with fear?”

Yep, I’ve seen him. A wooden carving. Excitement, if you please.

Oh, one more thing: “Gunslinger”, “Cityslicker” and “Doc” should be moved up to the ‘big main qualities’ block.
edited by ladymadsci on 8/30/2012

Samuel: all content past Rules of the Game should be locked – it feels weird because it’s not done yet. :)

We’re investigating. Thanks for the heads up!

Samuel: preliminary tests show our lock is functional. Are you for some reason set to Key of Dreams 1? Can you tell me what happened after the two Rules of the Game cards for you?

just created Doctor John Sanders :)

Storynexus name: Coyote
email: erichspurgin@gmail.com

I entered the place where the Gunpowder storyline was and am now hunting some ‘crop’ bandits.

I think this is what all the cool developers call “unexpected behavior.” :)

Can you confirm you do not have the Key of Dreams Quality?