(Just an initial sketch of some of the tensions/questions that have come up in early design, things that might be informing how decisions get made, and also therefore things that might show through in the final product as “things to think about” relative to the game and its experience?)
“No, no, no, that’s not the way it happened.”
The idea of failing the myth. Each minigame is based on a “real myth” established in literature (other than Zeno’s Paradox, but even that clearly has an air of eternal punishment). When you invert the roles and have the player be the antagonist, it’s possible for them to fail their task (of punishing the protagonist). But unlike in the standard version, failure of the antagonist isn’t part of the story, and so instead it constitutes a “game over”. Thus you have a game of striving to continuously punish the protagonist, with the threat of instant failure looming if you ever let up.
Myth versus gameplay.
Extending on the above, which is an example of enforcing the mythology, it’s also quite possible that there are tensions between myth and gameplay in this new context. Specifically, it seems that in order to provide an “interesting” agency to the player, it’s less possible to just repeat the bare mechanics of previous games. In Zeno, for instance, staying true would involve the player just triggering the half-way space dilation at the correct moment, which isn’t an interesting task (it’s too obvious, and not even expressive given that there’s a price moment to perform it - no timing). Thus my plan for Zeno, for example, is to allow the player to move the flag at will. This keeps the spirit of the myth (well, thought-experiment) in the sense of creating the idea of a space that cannot be traversed - just by moving the finish-line. But in a sense, maybe that’s another way to talk about Zeno’s paradox - that it’s about moving the finish line while the race is being run? At any rate it feels in the spirit of the punishment, and it allows for more expressive play (dancing the flag around, taunting the protagonist). All in all I think the game should stay true to the spirit of eternal punishment, without being too slavish to details that might cut against player agency/interest (and obviously I have a very low bar for “interest” but there still needs to be something.)
“The rock is in hell too.”
This phrase jumped to mind as a way to convey the idea that even the antagonist is effectively suffering an infinite punishment: that of infinitely punishing someone else. It’s perhaps less physically arduous (in portrayal), but it’s still infinite and boring in exactly the same way. Won’t someone think of the eagle? I like that it’s still “ancient greek punishment” and still infinite, but pointed in another direction. “One must imagine the boulder unhappy”? I think there’s something very pleasing about the agency shift pointing out a quite different perspective on the myth, notably for the eagle I suppose, but even better for things like the boulder where you’re doing a kind of “alien phenomenology” experience?
“You never step into the same story twice.”
One myth many ways. Part of this project is clearly its nature as a further extension on the already illustrious series of games with the same name, it’s another edition. A such it’s part of a larger project that’s examining, I guess, the ways in which the “same game” can be used to think about/illustrate/explore different ideas. We’ve seen
And now the inverted edition (or is it antagonist edition?) exploring the experience and nature of the other agency in each mythical scenario. As above, it’s a way to illustrate ideas of the antagonist as suffering, of object-oriented ontology/alien phenomenology, and perhaps some other stuff I currently haven’t thought of.
Two-player.
Assuming I implement it, this game is also a chance to explore/enjoy a two-player version of the scenario which is a pretty comical idea all told. I’d been fretful about the idea that this meant both players should have an equal chance of winning, but that doesn’t make sense. Rather it should end up a negotiation and competition between players in a lop-sided contest, and yet in which both players are being punished for the length of time they accept the premise. Who gives up first? Or can they simple exist in statis, doing nothing? What would that mean? Etc.!