itch.io

>"The fantasy of the game is that a community of people all are aligned in kindness, but disagree or need growth and learning about how to build a better community. The core of the narrative art is about trying to fix a community that relied on one benevolent person holding it, and when that person burned out, they're left floundering. So instead of the protag coming in and taking over that role, they have to help everyone through their own arcs of discovering working as a community. The conversations I feel comfortable in are the ones I have in real life, about how like for example, me and my friends are all levels of disabled and mentally ill, neurodivergent, so we can't all be exchanging equal labor, sometimes we have to unconditionally lift people up (sometimes forever, and not just a limited time), and that also someone helping doesn't have to be physical labor, it can even be just being kind, and this is built on trust that everyone is trying their best."

You know, I really love the ethos of this game. I love that you are subverting Great Man Theory and that you are focusing on building sustainable links in the community rather than a community relying on a single rock. I have seen that dynamic play out so many times myself. I think that such a theme could really resonate and help the players.

I also love the theme that we can't all be exchanging equal labour. I love that community includes unconditionally lifting people up, sometimes forever, and this being okay, rather than community relying on everyone pitching in equally. I love that help doesn't have to be physical. I love that the help is built on trust that everyone is trying their best. I love these themes, and it makes me so happy that you are making this game. Thank you for doing so.

>"So yeah I think regardless of specifics, the ethos is always to ask myself why I'm putting a feature in, can it be done another way?"

Yes! I am going to talk about some ways that I have thought about how I could implement expansion of items without invoking wealth accumulation. I would love feedback on these mechanics, because I am still working through them and have scrapped many iterations of these mechanics.

0. Even if the protagonist lives in a society where wealth exists, one does not actually have to implement a wealth counter with an amount of money which the player can then spend. We could block rewarding wealth accumulation in a game set within capitalism just by Not Including A Number That Goes Up, and instead finding alternative mechanics to gradually increase the decorating pool.

1. One system can involve the gradual expansion of available items through connections to characters. For example, as the protagonist grows closer to or helps out character A, character A provides the protagonist with decoration items (or ingredients, or whatever). This rewards the player for caring about the NPCs and ties directly into the gameplay loop. However, this also creates a transactional system, where the player could see the NPC emotional beats as fancy gates for more decorations/ingredients/etc. This threatens to commodify friendship, or to claim that friendship only matters if the friend can provide material benefit. One could combat this by including NPCs whose relationships do not provide any kind of material benefit and set them equally to NPC relationships which do provide material benefit, which could go hand-in-hand with the idea that not everyone can provide equal labour, but everyone can still have close and important relationships regardless of labour provided. Additionally, one can frame the decorations/ingredients/etc. as that the NPC would have provided these all along, but was unable to do so earlier due to depression/time constraints/etc. which the protagonist helps with, either physically or emotionally.

2. One system can involve replacing wealth accumulation with a Number Goes Up of some sort of more palatable value, such as an abstracted social capital or "favour" system, which one then "cashes in" to obtain goods. While this theoretically promotes a positive value (you are engaging in a mutual aid network by aiding others and then requesting aid in turn), it commodifies aid and relationships more directly. Crucially, it undercuts the concept of not having to provide equal labour, as one can only request aid by aiding others in the first place. The player could at least select a reward and gradually work towards it.

3. One system could involve a global "trust score". As the player progresses in the game, and characters/the community learn to trust in one another and in the protagonist more, the player could gain access to more ingredients/decorations/whatever without having to pursue or commodify specific relationships. The player could still have a say in which items to unlock next, perhaps by requesting specific items. For example, a merchant or trader character could occasionally go to stock on goods and ask the player which goods they would like, whereupon the player can make a limited number of requests based on their overall trust score. The selection of items can also expand over time. This way, just as in 2, the player can select a reward and gradually work towards it.

4. Suppose for a system that the system did not involve money whatsoever, and people can simply request things from other people. This scenario could play out similarly to 1, 2, or 3 above. Alternatively, the player character could just be able to request aid, but in a time-limited fashion. For example, perhaps a society without money would allow people to just ask for things, but to have a wait list so that the requested individual can complete tasks on their schedule. The player might request one item or set of items, then have to wait some in-game time to receive the item, whereupon they could request another item or set of items, perhaps with a time gap to showcase the labourer working on other projects. For example, in a café game, perhaps they can put in one request to a certain character each week, and then receive the item by the end of the week, then have to work the interim days. They might do this simultaneously with multiple labourers. This would most closely match the idea of not everyone having to contribute equally, because the player would simply have to request and then wait. However, this might make the gameplay less satisfying, because this occurs automatically without "rewarding" the player's efforts, and because the player cannot "save up" for their chosen purchase. On the other hand, this might actually positively rewire the player's brain, because the player could then focus on more holistic "rewards" of making NPCs happy without their happiness giving the player material gifts, and because the player could recognise that they are allowed to want things even if they do not "contribute". For example, the developer could add an arc where the protagonist stops running the café for several weeks, but the labourer still takes the protagonist's requests. The protagonist might even feel bad and ask the labourer why the labourer would perform labour for the protagonist even though the protagonist was not running the café, and the labourer might reply with the theme about unequal labour and about uplifting one another, temporarily or indefinitely, and that they would continue to fulfill requests (within their capacity to do so sustainably) even if the protagonist never worked again. Indeed, disconnecting the decoration rewards from the protagonist's efforts could actually directly support the game's themes in this way.

Although I gave the example of a weekly gift, the game could instead have different gifts/decorative items require different numbers of days to complete. A small gift could take a single day, while a large gift could take a week. Thus, players could still meaningfully choose between different types of items. However, this would necessarily include a delay between "selecting the item" and "receiving the item". Maybe that has merit, though?

→ I played Kemono Tea Time, which included both a money mechanic (purchasing ingredients from a pastry supplier) and a time-based gift mechanic (receiving 1 chosen ingredient each day from a tea supplier). I disliked the time-based gift mechanic, but, on reflection, I disliked the RNG mechanic of savescumming the gift rather than the (in-game) daily gift itself. If I could freely choose the gift from a list, or if the game did not punish me for picking the "wrong" gift, I would enjoy the opportunity to expand my tea selection by one each day, without any money involved.

In my game, I currently have some ingredients unlock or lock automatically as the story progresses and events outside of the player's control occur. I also have some ingredients or cooking methods unlock due to the player fulfilling subquests. Not all characters unlock anything. Some characters, when their requests or subquests fulfill, then supply the player with thematically appropriate ingredient(s) or cooking methods. Other times, the player gets to choose between a selection. Some of these subquests lead to one another. For instance, a subquest about cooking a food from another land leads the player down a series of subquests gradually learning about ingredients and cooking methods used in the other land. A subquest involving a vegan character leads the player down a series of subquests about ingredient substitutions and recreating flavours or textures, as well as simply valuing other flavours and textures instead of the ones valued by dominant society.

With respect to the decorations question, I like 4 most of all due to how it changes the player's thematic approach to the game. Players tend to walk into video games expecting to put in effort to receive rewards. Having the game outright decouple effort and rewards, but still incentivize effort through alternative reward such as "human interaction", may help players break the fascist ideals that they must work in order to be "deserving" of support.

Many other ideas surely exist, too. I would love to hear your thoughts.

>"Differentiate the things that I have in there to comment on, and the things in there as idealist examples. There's a lot of discussion I love about allegorical consistency in art. Like a big example being those clunky racial allegories with animals, like okay we're talking about race when the carnivores are discriminated against, but are we also talking about race when the… carnivores factually eat other people???"

Oh, I agree with this greatly. I think about this a lot. Alternatively: fantasy discrimination against magic, but then they show the magic as objectively unstable/violent in ways that real-life marginalised people are not!

>"So yeah, in my game, if I have idealized systems elsewhere, how do I communicate what isn't meant to be shown as ideal. Even if we don't have money, there will be some method of exchange, items from the real world, developed towns, so it'll all need that lens at some level."

I agree with this.

>"I'm certainly more comfortable figuring that out with things I have lived experience in, like how even in my pro ND spaces, we can accidentally oppress each other."

Yes. I think that, even in the most luxury automated space communism, people will accidentally hurt, exclude, and oppress one another. Even if everyone could have everything without any money, these themes would and will exist. 

>"Another part is that I think it's okay for there to be things safe to do in games that aren't good to do irl. Like I think if all of society agreed we don't get to cut down all the trees, but there was like, a tree cutting simulator, that would actually be a really good way to get to experience that without the harm."

Yes, I agree. For example, a game where the player jumps into lava and dies does not actually endorse the person jumping into lava in real-life. Games can provide simulations of harmful experiences in safe ways, where the player can turn it off at any time. In a society where people agree that we don't cut down all the trees, I think that people would benefit from having video games in which one can cut down all the trees and see the impact. We can let people experience inflicting violence and having violence inflicted on them safely in fiction. I would just want that experience to make clear, in some way, the badness of the violence in question.

Satire should take care not to make the satired people believe that they are in good company. A game which provides a satire on or commentary against csa, for example, but which gains an audience amongst people who unironically want to commit csa, has failed.

On a more fundamental level, whimsy can exist. Growing a flower by pouring root beer into the pot would harm it, but growing a cartoon flower with glasses by pouring root beer into the pot wouldn't be propagating a harmful value.

>"It's more about how the narrative frames it, and I agree that a huge issue is that cozy sim games have a narrative issue differentiating what is a thing we want to reflect about an ideal world, and what is something we are creating a space to do without harm, even though we all know it's harmful."

I agree with that.

>"And the diff is probs relating to us knowing it's harmful."

Interesting. I can see that. In my earlier example about root beer, I did make the assumption that the player will know that we ought not to actually water a plant with root beer, but perhaps I am assuming there as well.

>"No one cares much that in my first game you can take a bear cub and keep it in your cat cafe, because we all feel safe knowing most cozy games know that stealing exotic animal babies is bad. But I can really understand the feeling seeing a game feature encouraging a practice that we don't actually feel safe assuming everyone knows is bad."

Right, I agree with that. So much anti-capitalist fiction just involves being the billionaire that I do not feel safe assuming that everyone knows being the billionaire is bad.

>"I do think there's different parts of this that differ between are usual ethical quandies for any game, and what is required consideration for a cozy game. I do think there's added baggage that whatever you show will be assumed to be part of the cozy factor, I haven't entirely solved this for the marketing side yet."

Interesting. Yes, I can see what you mean. I think that players can generally comprehend this, especially when the marketing makes clear that things will change. For instance, a lot of fiction has the protagonist start in the role of the evil empire, then understand the "truth" about what they have been taught, then defect. People do not generally accuse such narratives of fascism, in my experience, unless the narratives have other issues.

But, in a world of bad faith takes, I can understand the anxiety and how people might play the first hour of your game and then trash it forever.

>"Especially given we have an arc where the player discovers the initial concept of taking over the other person's role taking care of everyone on their own is hugely flawed. So I think one of the biggest things is communicating that difference to the player."

That makes a lot of sense. I think that even just showing any kind of initial hesitation or doubt can go a long way. For instance, in my game, the protagonist initially has ignorance of dietary restrictions and such and acts dismissively towards them, but I work to provide enough doubt in the dialogue to make sure to the player immediately that the protagonist will undergo development on the matter. As for marketing, even something like, [Revolutionary Girl Utena shadow puppet voice] "But is that really such a good idea?" in the trailer can communicate the difference without giving it all away.

>"I don't have a good solution yet for that, but is important for me to think over."

I am also always trying to think of solutions.

>"Okay gunna try to find an endpoint bc I could discuss forever. Ultimately, I'd love the dev community to get further in the weeds like this."

Me too! And I have loved the chance to really think about mechanics.

>"To me personally, I feel most of the cozy dev community are already aligned on wanting to do better about these things, but ultimately failing for one reason or another. Generally for all games, we run into issues getting stuck with the established grammar of games, and the immense challenge of matching narrative with gameplay."

I agree. Challenging conventions requires much more effort on the part of both the developer and the player. Shared, established grammar exists for a reason. But, those reasons don't always align with our values.

>"I haven't played any cozy games in a long time that wasn't trying to send a good message, though I've played plenty that tried and contradicted themselves further down the line of development."

I have played cozy games that tried to send some good messages but also some bad messages. I can give many examples where I genuinely think that the developers' intentions, although good from the developers' perspective, would not align with my/your values as espoused.

But I have also played many, many, many cozy games that clearly tried to send good messages and then contradicted themselves!

>"So yeah, I hugely agree there's good crit, and I did see a lot of good crit in your writing!!"

I see a lot of good crit in your writing too, and very good points!

>"I should probably start just ignoring what I deem more shallow dives into the topic, and focus my time on having these more nuanced discussions."

Honestly? A great idea. I just ignore people who think that humans are the masters of nature, because I am not going to readily convince them. But I can engage with the person who thinks that humanity should just die because all of humanity destroys nature, because I can find common ground and work to gently help that person free of their settler-colonialist mindset.

>"Next manifesto jam I think I'll try to make my own actual genre critique, instead of defense. I want to carve out time to actually do what I suggested in gathering some good specific examples and details."

Wow, I absolutely love that. I would love to read that! I really would. I think that it would enhance my experience and game development thinking so much. I would also love to see a defense of the genre which provides a variety of positive examples of mechanics which go against genre conventions to cease propagating these values, as a toolbox and springboard for future developers.

>"I genuinely love this convo, and it very literally spurned good conversation with my own team on the current decisions we have to make soon. I'm definitely going to have to get some books and really get a stronger foundation for the economic part. Sorry for talking in circles, and thank you soooo much for the discussion"

Thank you so much for the discussion too. It makes me so fucking happy, genuinely happy, to hear that it spurred good discussion! I am actually going to be following the development of your game because I love the themes that you have espoused and cannot wait to see how you choose to move forward with these mechanics. Even if/when you "fail" in some ways (just as I will fail in some ways with my own games!), the effort of trying to do better will yield wonder and love.

Nothing to apologise for! Thank you!