So Perfect it's a Curse

No, this is not a Mary Sue rant. I did that already, remember? Actually, I'm going to talk about the main thing the Mary Sue character is lacking: Flaws. And yes, I think I've actually seen the title used as a character flaw.

The Flaw in Flawless

There's one major problem with flawless characters: They're boring. They don't screw up, so there's no tension in watching them. For them, there's no trying, there's only accomplishing.

While there's a certain probability that the good guys win, you never know how often they stumble on their way. That makes watching characters' journeys (literal or metaphorical) worth following. Working around flaws, having them exploited and learning from the experience... all that is character growth. No flaws mean no learning, no growth and no change, and that ultimately makes a character less deep than you'd want them to be.

When is a Flaw a Flaw?

We already established that flawless characters are kind of... meh. That's why the writers of these characters are often told to add flaws to make their character less flat. This is when pseudo-flaws come in.

Rule of thumb: If a flaw doesn't bring your character in trouble/cause inconvienience/isn't treated as one in-story, it doesn't count.

This means that many things that sound like flaws aren't, but on the other hand, everything can be turned into a flaw. I'll just throw in a list with my favorites.

Clumsy

This one is too easy. Just have your character stumble a few times and hah, a flawed character.

Not a flaw, because... this mostly serves to make the character endearing. Also, they can stumble in their one true love's arms and deer-eye them.

Make it a flaw: Turning clumsiness into a flaw is really easy. Have the character stumble while carrying something important. Have people be angry at them for spilling something. Clumsy kids aren't considered endearing and cute by their peers, they're being laughed at.

Too Beautiful

Where do I even start? "Oh no, I'm so beautiful it's a curse!" Ergh.

Not a flaw, because... no matter how much the character whines about being too beautiful, nothing harmful ever comes of that.

Make it a flaw: Beauty is superficial and thus attracts superficial people. It's coupled with expectations in both men and women. There's jealousy from others. I still wouldn't call this the main flaw of any character.

Too Helpful

Yes, that exists, too.

Not a flaw, because... being helpful is kind of a good thing. And these "too helpful" characters are often just a decent amount of helpful, not really too.

Make it a flaw: Where there are helpful people, there are also jerks who abuse that. But it's not just others that can cause trouble for the overly helpful character. If they really want to help everyone, they can easily overburden themselves or feel guilty for failing people in need.

I could continue this list for a while, but the bottom line is that many pseudo-flaws can be turned into real flaws by adding consequences.

Too Many Flaws

Flaws don't replace believable writing. If you just pile up flaws on your character, you'll risk making them unrelatable the same way you do when you add none at all. Also, failing at everything, if it's not in a slapstick comedy, isn't all that entertaining.

So, as with everything, try to find a middle ground between squeaky clean perfect and oh god how can this guy even survive a day. And, to quote a Mary Sue Test on this, if you ever describe your character as too perfect, douse yourself in cold water now.

The Murder Mystery: Black Box and White Box

Another post? Well, I found my inspiration again. Turns out it was laying on dust under my bed... nah, actually, lying around in a hospital bed with nothing to do gives you a lot of time to get bored. Also, reading all the crime novels and thrillers got me thinking about my own ideas. This, in turn, got me thinking about the very thing I kept getting stuck on: The murder mystery itself. Who did it, why did they do it, and how the hell do the cops find them?

This post is about two basic ways of finding that out.

Thinking in Boxes

The terms I use here are something I unabashedly pulled from software testing. There, a White Box test refers to testing the product with knowledge of its inner working and free look at the source code itself. A Black Box test, on the other hand, gives you none of that, leaving you to test it under the same conditions as the eventual user. The same principle can be applied to the murder mystery.

Definitions

White Box Plot

As with the software testing example above, you have all the information. You have plans on who did it, why they did it, who lies and who tells the truth. You follow the murderer, so you know where the evidence is, why they did it, and so on and so forth.

Black Box Plot

The Black Box Plot is best described as "follow the cops". You start out with just the things the cops see at the crime scene and basically do the same thing in your story planning as the cops do in their investigation.

Pro/Con/Black/White

Of course, both Black and White Box have their advantages and disadvantages. Also, not everybody can pull off both things equally well.

White Box Plot

The biggest pro of the White Box Plot is that you start out knowing who did it in the end. You don't pull things out of thin air as you go along, since you already have a fixed set of characters, pieces of evidence and other things where you want to end up. It's hard to get stuck when you already know something that's going to happen.

The biggest con of the White Box Plot is actually the downside of its biggest pro. You know who did it. It's easy to have your investigators jump to conclusions that sound a bit farfetched or have them find things by accident a few times too often. It's possible to ignore that extra knowledge you have, but it's harder than it seems.

Black Box Plot
The Black Box Plot basically writes your story for you. As I wrote above, you follow the cops, who are most likely going to be your main point of view characters. Sure, there's enough stories that include the culprit's point of view, too, but the main focus is still on solving the crime. So you're basically swimming with the stream here.
And again, looking at this from the other side reveals the problems. Following the cops will lead you the same problems as them. You'll find yourself endlessly meandering until you figure out what your next step is. Sometimes, you need to take leaps of faith and see if the story works out the way you want it to.

Plot and Story

Up until now, I've always talked about a something something plot. That was because I was talking about the raw "what is going on" of the story, not necessarily what is written down. Just because you develop the plot white box, that doesn't mean that you have any culprit POV segments in it, and vice versa. Because once you have your plot, you can write your story around it, and that doesn't need to have the same structure as your internal plot notes.
Of course, I'm not telling anyone how to make their murder mysteries, but I think I've done a decent job outlining black/white box differences for writing here. Because I'm preeetty sure you can apply this to other types of plots, too. Make of that what you will.

Writing Icebergs

Yes, I'm still alive. I spent my time working, in hospital and forcibly not doing anything (in that order). During the second period, my only source of entertainment was books. I found out that there seems to be an upper limit as to how much Jack Reacher someone can take, but luckily, my grandma brought me another book from the family crime novel stash (Yes, that's totally a thing.). That book did a few things wrong, mostly with its characters. One of these things is where my inspiration for this post comes from.

Oh god, I'm rambling again.

Iceberg ahead!

Icebergs (I love loanwords) are funny things. The reason I'm using them as a metaphor here is the way they swim. The largest part of an iceberg is, invisible to the common Titanic passenger, hidden under water. But it can still influence its surroundings, as the common Titanic passenger had to realize.

 Yes, and?

And now let's apply this to writing. Many concepts in storytelling should, if done well, be icebergs. How exactly that looks depends on the element, though.

Worldbuilding
One of the most common mistakes I've seen with people who want to present their game idea to the common public is way too much worldbuilding in the pitch. I already talked about plot in relation to the setting, so go read that post for more details. The bottom line is that the plot is what drives things forward, not the world it's set in.
Sure, you shouldn't completely ignore your setting. It exists for a reason, and not referencing it at all makes it interchangeable. But the other extreme, endlessly wallowing in the setting with hardly any plot, isn't much better. Make the setting matter, show things that need explaining, but don't cram every detail you have into it.

Characters
This is where my original inspiration for this post comes in. The book I read almost constantly threw its main characters' backstory at me, to the point where I started identifying them by what happened before the plot. As with the world, having actual backgrounds for your characters is a good thing. The things that happened in a character's past influence their decisions in the present. But that doesn't mean that these things should be elaborated every time they influence that character. Also, backstory is not an excuse for everything and characters should have at least some development over the course of the story.

Plot
Yes, even the plot can be iceberged to an extent. This refers mostly to overly detailed subplots that don't really add that much to the grand scheme of things. Alternatively, there's people who want to tell you every little thing that happens between important scene A and B, no matter how insignificant or matter-of-fact it is. This is like toilets in video games. Just because they're not in the game that doesn't mean that nobody poops. It's just not shown because it's irrelevant.

The Bottom Line

It all comes down to, well, paring down the things that are visible. I have the feeling that too many people feel that their audiences are morons and will not get things if they're not waved in front of their faces. Things can be left out. Things can be abstracted. We don't need to know that Bobby McJohnson's dislike of the color pink comes from the embarrassing hat he wore at his first day of school.

Also, this is one of these topics that's a highly uneducated opinion, so if I'm talking garbage, feel free to tell me. But include the non-garbage interpretation, too. Now, if you're looking for me, I'm in my tomato shelter.

Pillars of a Good Game

It's been a while since I last wrote a post here. I just couldn't find a topic I could write about here. But guess what, now I have! And once again, warning, this is very much of a personal point of view/opinion/observation. You may see things differently, and if you do, you're not necessarily wrong about them.

Pillars? What Pillars?

I've been thinking a lot about what really factors into a game, and how these things interact and all that. And in the end, it comes down to three things. Narrative, Aesthetics and Gameplay

The Basics

There's some basic rules for this three pillar system. The most important one is that none of these elements should be badly executed. They should be mediocre at best, because no matter how good one of them is, if another one is bad enough, that won't save the final product. Also, these three elements are not absolute. Depending on the kind of game, their relevance varies. The quality of each pillar is always going to be determined relatively to its importance.

Gameplay

Yes, I know, I put that last in the list, but really, it's kind of important in a game. Gameplay is the interactive part of the game. While it's usually quite important, mediocre gameplay can work if the narrative is good enough. On the other hand, you might just accept a flimsy plot if the gameplay is good enough.

Narrative

Narrative consists of the plot, the characters and the world the game is set in. The relevance of the narrative can vary a lot. Gameplay-related games often just have an excuse plot, because you're supposed to play the game for the gameplay. This doesn't make the narrative bad, since it's supposed to be judged relative to its importance for the game. A good story in a gameplay-driven game is essentially a bonus point that, ideally, makes the game even more fun and enjoyable. A good story in a narrative-driven game, on the other hand, is a must.

Aesthetics

Aesthetics is what most people mean when they say graphics. Aesthetics are so misunderstood, Extra Credits made a video. In a nutshell: Aesthetics are not about the objective quality (amount of pixels, polygons and shading filters), but about how everything blends together and how well the end result looks and feels. Also, there's one difference to the other pillars here: Aesthetics cannot carry a game. A game is based on the interactive experience and/or the story it wants to tell. Aesthetics are a bonus point, and bad aesthetics sure can drag it down, as well as lift it up, but there needs to be more to a game than just that.

The Extremes

Of course, there's always people who focus on just one element and completely leave the others in the dust.

Gameplay - I swear, it's fun: Actually, I think it's really hard to mess up a game that only has gameplay. But if you really drop the other elements, you might just end up with something too unappealing to play, even if it would end up being a fun experience. But with these looks and that story, no one's going to touch it with a ten foot pole.

Narrative - go write a book: There can be such a thing as too much plot. This kind of game comes from someone who desperately wants to tell a story, but doesn't really get game design. This is a game you'd rather watch as a Let's Play than play yourself because it gets tedious.

Aesthetics - the spectacle: I would have liked to compare this kind of extreme to a movie, but then again, most movies have plot, too. So it's mostly like a 90s action flick that believes itself to be serious character drama. And for a movie, plotless BS can work. But a game has to be more than that.

Exceptions

As with all things, I'm sure there are exceptions to this, and it's by no way meant to be the ultimate way games work. It's just what I think is a good way to design and also judge games.

The Zombie Table

So apparently zombies are a big thing now. Or were. Or whatever. World War Z is a thing. But when I talked to a friend about it, he said something that I, who has not seen the movie, had suspected already: It's not a zombie movie, it's a movie with zombies. Also, why weren't they already overrunning everying? That made me think about some common zombie features, and what kind of zombie they made when put together.
This list is in no way complete and rather black/white. I'm just showcasing the extremes.

The Traits

Since I'm trying to cover every combination of traits, I'll limit myself to these:

Fast vs. slow: This is kind of a big deal, to the point of sparking discussions about the anatomy of zombies. I don't care about that here, I just care about the speed.

Many vs. few: There's the handful of zombies from a local cursed graveyard, and there's WWZ-style pandemics.

Strong vs. weak: The only thing worse than a fast zombie is a fast zombie that takes a ton of hits. On the other hand, they're kind of brainless meat sacs which may or may not be rotting.

The Table

Fast?	Many?	Strong?	Kind
No	No	No	Wat
No	No	Yes	Teenie-Killer
No	Yes	No	Cannon-Fodder
No	Yes	Yes	The Barrage
Yes	No	No	Thing in the Night
Yes	No	Yes	Thing in the Night That hits you in the Face
Yes	Yes	No	Fast Cannon-Fodder
Yes	Yes	Yes	The Invasion

The Explanation

Yeah, the description above kind of sucks.

Kind: Wat
Threat: Wat.
This is ridiculous. It's what happens when a hobby necromancer decides to dig out some corpses on the local cemetery. They're slow and probably fall apart when you stare at them too hard. Just hit it until it breaks down, or run and get a car to run it over.

Kind: Teenie-Killer
Threat: You should probably get some guns.
They're just as few as the necromancer's experiment, but they don't fall apart easily. You can still run and leave the heroism to the guys with the heavy machinery.

Kind: Cannon-Fodder
Threat: Easily underestimated.
These are Romero zombies. They're slow, so you can still run/drive away, but they are everywhere. While they may not be that strong on their own, there's a lot of them. You can probably gun them down, if you have the ammunition to do so.

Kind: The Barrage
Threat: Not so easily underestimated.
The only thing that saves you from these is their speed. And you probably need heavier machinery to take them out. Just call the military and run.

Kind: The Thing in the Night
Threat: Not so harmless.
Speed is an immense advantage. They may be brittle, and there might not be many of them, but they're fast. They can run after you, so you'd better have that car around somewhere. But then again, once you know how to get a hold of them, they should be easy to deal with.


Kind: The Thing in the Night That hits you in the Face
Threat: Even less harmless.
And now they're not even brittle. They're basically like a group of Generic Alleyway Thugs. Yeah... speed and strength is a bad combo in itself.

Kind: Fast Cannon-Fodder
Threat: This is already an invasion.
Another case of getting the military here. Only that this time, the military should be a bit faster, since the zombies are too. As with all zombies in large groups, this is an invasion, and their speed doesn't make it better. They're bound to get more people in the beginning than their slow counterparts, but at least you can try to beat them up.

Kind: The Invasion
Threat: Nuke the whole site from the orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
These are the worst zombies. They're actually the thing that got me thinking. In the movies, these are the kinds you see in "they won" scenarios. When they attack, you're boned. Don't call the military, they'll only lock down the place and, indeed, throw a bomb on it. And who can blame them?

I left out the whole infection by bite thing, since it would have made things more complicated. Just don't let anything like that bite you.

The Zombie Feel

Back to WWZ not being a zombie movie... I can see it from the trailers. The zombies don't seem threatening on a personal level, and for their abilities (zombiepile on the wall), humanity's quite fine. Because I don't know about you, but the whole "oh god, we could die" thing belongs to a zombie movie. Even if it just features Wat zombies.