Way way back in 2017, I made a
video that essentially asked... where are all the good detective games? I mean - sure, there are plenty of fun
games where you play as a detective. Like The Wolf Among Us and Sherlock Holmes. But - in terms of the game mechanics - they never actually made me feel like I was
doing any real detective work. For that, I had to dig much deeper. I'm talking about ancient PC artefacts, and obscure indie titles, and unfinished
Itch.io demos, and bizarre FMV games. But! A lot can change in five years. Because since that video came out, we've
seen an explosion of new detective games. At least one of them made in direct
response to that original video! These new games have given
me a whole new perspective on this design challenge - and
they've made my old video... pretty much completely outdated. So it's time to do something I've
never done on GMTK before - a sequel! A follow up? A re-do? Ah,
whatever you want to call it. I'm Mark Brown. This is Game Maker's Toolkit. And here's how to make a good detective game. So - I played a bunch of
detective games for this video. Everything from Disco Elysium to
Judgment, and from Frog Detective to The Murder of Sonic The Hedgehog. All wonderful games, to be sure. But I was hunting for games that
truly made me feel like a detective. And in my search, I realised that those
titles fit into three different categories. I'm going to call them deduction-style games, contradiction-style games,
and investigation-style games. Let's start with deduction-style games. And the ultimate example
for this type of game is... ♫ Music ♫ Return of the Obra Dinn - Lucas Pope's
1-bit murder mystery masterpiece. Okay, so in this game we're on board
a 19th century merchant vessel where all 60 passengers are dead or otherwise missing. As an insurance inspector, our job is to fill out
a log book by jotting down everyone's final fate. And to help with this, we can use a
magic timepiece to transport ourselves to a freeze-frame vignette, showing the
exact moment of each person's death. VOICE: "Captain! Open the door!" *Gunshot* From here, we can gather clues and
information - including those final words of dialogue, and the
accent they're spoken in. The location of each character,
the outfits they're wearing, the objects they're holding, and so on. And we can then use these clues to
answer the questions in the log book. So now we know that this
guy was shot by the captain. But... who is he? Ah, well. You see, the clues alone won't
always provide the answers we need. In fact, no where on this ship will we
be directly told this person's name. So, instead, we'll have to deduce his identity by
cleverly interpreting the other facts and clues. For this one, we will later hear the captain's last words - admitting that
he shot Abigail's brother. From the crew roll, we know that
Abigail's maiden name is Hoscut. And that there's a man on
board with the surname Hoscut. Which means William Hoscut is almost certainly Abigail's brother - and our mystery
man getting a face-full of buckshot. Bingo. Obra Dinn is not the only game that
fits into this style, of course. There's also Case of the Golden Idol. Here, we also explore dioramas from
the moment of some poor sap's death. We can read notes, rifle through people's
pockets, and bounce between different rooms - before filling out these scrolls
which detail the events of the murder. And in the upcoming Scene Investigators, currently available in demo form,
we're let loose on a 3D crime scene. After rooting through this apartment
we have to figure out the answers to five questions about the murder
- and type them into a laptop. Plus, the game doesn't actually have to
involve a murder - or any other crime. Take Riley & Rochelle, for instance. In this game we play as a documentarian
who is making a movie about two musicians. We must pour through letters, notes, tapes, and vinyl records to figure out the
exact date of some key documents. Ultimately, this deduction-style
of gameplay can work in any kind of game where we must make sense of information - because while we might think of
these titles as "detective games", they're really just logic puzzles. Reminiscent of some of the riddles
in a Professor Layton game. We are given some information. And we have to answer questions
about that information. But the only way to get to the truth is to
perform various deductive reasoning tricks. So that might involve cross
referencing multiple clues. We can establish this man's name by
piecing together a surname on a poster, a first name on a pocket watch,
and two initials on a score sheet. Or process of elimination. If we've named two of the
midshipmen on board the Obra Dinn, then we can safely arrive at the third's identity. Or using inference and assumption. Whoever is sat in seat five at this party is
the only one drinking juice instead of wine. And because Jake is referred to as a
recovering alcoholic, it's probably his chair. The second type is the contradiction-style game. And for this, let's look at Lucifer Within Us. So we play as a digital exorcist, who is hunting down humans who have been
tricked into doing a murder - by AI demons. Stick with it. In each crime scene we can interview a handful of witnesses and suspects -
who share their testimony. Their recollection of the day is detailed in
a nifty timeline at the bottom of the screen. We'll need to use these statements
to figure out the killer - but if we simply take all of
the testimonies at face value, we won't have what we need to close the case. And that's because... well, people lie. This guy, Abraham, says he was
tending the bushes all morning. But that directly contradicts the testimony of
Nerissa who says she spoke to Abraham first thing. So by presenting Nerissa's statement to Abraham, he'll fess up to his lie and amend
his statement to give more detail. Do this to all the phoney statements and we'll finally have the evidence needed
to accuse the correct killer. Now this is a pretty common style
of gameplay in detective games. It's most famously seen in
the Ace Attorney series, where we cross examine witnesses on the stand - and can present evidence that directly
contradicts statements in their testimony. And it's also a big part of L.A. Noire. When interviewing witnesses we have to
judge if each statement is truthful or not. Sometimes we have to rely solely on
body language and facial cues - but we can also use cold hard evidence
to prove that someone is lying. WOMAN: "Do I?
Would you like to prove that, detective?" This time, the gameplay isn't about logical deduction - it's more like
playing spot the difference. Closer to something like Papers,
Please, where we need to point out inconsistencies in each traveller's documents. So we have to carefully assess the
veracity of each piece of information, and look for ways that it contradicts
evidence that we know to be factual. Perhaps a suspect's alibi doesn't check
out when compared to a CCTV recording. Or perhaps a witness's testimony needs to be amended because they
misremembered a crucial detail. These contradiction-style games require a keen
eye and a deep knowledge of all the facts. The final type is the investigation-style game. For this, let me show you a murder case in Shadows of Doubt - a detective game
that's currently in early access. This is my victim: Kyra Brison. She was gunned down in the
hospital where she works. Next to the body is a toy car - maybe
the sick calling card of a serial killer? If so, it's a crucial clue because it has
an unknown fingerprint on it: type BD. Now, in all of the games so far, the
information we need is easily accessible. Perhaps spread across two or three screens. Or contained within the
testimony of two or three people. If that was the case in Shadows of
Doubt we'd have this case wrapped up in minutes - just find the
person with the correct prints. But, in this game, there are
slightly more than three people. In fact, the game takes place
in a densely packed city block that is populated by literally
hundreds of simulated citizens. They all have homes and
jobs, partners and friends, shoe sizes, blood types, and fingerprints. Finding the owner of these BD
prints is going to be... difficult. That's the crux of the investigation-style game. The game space is just impossibly large to
wade through, and filled with red herrings. We could check the prints of every person
in the city but it would take hours. So the real detective work comes from figuring
out the best way to move through this mess. How can we find the needle in the haystack? So, back to my serial killer with BD prints - I check the surveillance cameras at the
hospital and scrub through to the time of death. There's a suspicious man skulking about. I decide to ask Kyra's
co-workers if they know him. I knock on every doctor's door and show the photo. No one knows his name, but I
do keep getting the same info: he was seen at the Novak apartment block. Maybe he lives there? I break into the security room at Novak house and
log into the resident database on the computer. I make a list of every man
who lives in the building. Todney Ribbs, Johannes Young, Martin Peters,
Nino Arquette, Arran Smith, and then... bingo. Oscar Nielsen. It's the man in the photo. I head up to his door. Check for prints on the handle. Bingo again - they're type BD. I knock on the door and then immediately cuff him. I check his pockets and find buckshot. I check his office. I find a shotgun. This is the one. I've found the killer. Of course, the challenge with making this type of
game is that it requires a lot of content to work. You need all the dead ends and red herrings
to, essentially, hide the real answer. Like, I always wished that LA Noire let me
investigate the case for myself - but that would mean letting us explore every
house and building in Los Angeles. So, sensibly, the game simply
tells us exactly where to go. Now, Shadows of Doubt achieves
the seemingly impossible by leaning heavily on procedural generation: it can magic up hundreds of
other citizens in seconds, in order to obscure the true
criminal amongst the masses. But the game doesn't have to be
set in an actual city at all. And many titles in this investigation style use
a massive database of information, or a fake internet, to construct an information space that
is too big to check every nook and cranny by hand. So that includes Hypnospace Outlaw, where we must traverse a humongous 90s-style web
portal to enforce a set of rules. Or the old Sherlock Holmes:
Consulting Detective game, where the pertinent locations are hidden in a
sea of red herring addresses in a phone book. And in Her Story, all of the information we need
is contained in a database of 700-odd clips. But a clunky archive retrieval
system makes it impossible to simply watch all of the clips
in neat, chronological order. You might even consider Outer
Wilds to be an investigation game. So in these games, we have
to think critically about how to wade through this enormous set of clues. Perhaps we can look for leads in the information
we do have, and figure out how to follow them - so in Her Story, we can search
for terms mentioned in the clips, or make best guesses about what
words might be spoken elsewhere. Wait, did she always have a
tattoo? Let me search for that... We can also learn how the worlds
are structured and organised. Knowing, for instance, that each home in Shadows of Doubt has a box with the
occupant's birth certificate. Or that in Hypnospace Outlaw,
it's possible to find hidden file archives on a secret server
by typing in a special web address. Sometimes we even need to think in
terms of not just space - but also time. In Outer Wilds we might need to be in
a specific spot at a specific moment. And in Shadows of Doubt, we can go
back in time with CCTV footage - or use a person's work schedule to find the
perfect time to break into their home. So these three styles of game really capture
distinct elements of the detective fantasy. Whether that's making logical deductions. Or interrogating a witness to unmask their lies. Or doing the more procedural side of police work. But we're missing one key moment - the big reveal,
where the detective finally accuses the killer. So this usually crops up at some
point during these detective games. Lucifer Within Us is primarily about spotting
contradictions, but we're ultimately trying to find enough evidence to accuse a killer - and
present the means, motive, and opportunity. Likewise, Shadows of Doubt will see us leading
an in-depth investigation across the city - but we'll ultimately need to accuse someone, and
present evidence that ties them to the murder. And we'll need to pick the correct killer as
one of our deductions in Scene Investigators. But there are also games that make
this accusation the primary focus. Take Paradise Killer. In this one, a man is on trial
for allegedly murdering a bunch of council members... while
being possessed by a demon. Okay, this again. As detective Lady Love Dies, we have
to figure out who the real killer is. The gameplay involves exploring an open world
island, hunting for clues, and interviewing a bunch of possible perpetrators with bonkers
names like Doctor Doom Jazz and Crimson Acid. I guess it's technically an
investigation-style game, but the gameplay is so straightforward when
compared to something like Shadows of Doubt. But the real draw is the accusation. At any point during the game, we can decide that
we have enough evidence to make a conviction. We enter the courtroom and make our
case to the judge - picking the most likely perpetrator for each crime on the docket. We only get one shot at this, making
for a dramatic, high stakes moment. And the game doesn't actually tell
us if were were right or wrong in our accusation - so we'll just
have to live with our decision. Or look it up on the internet. There's also Whispers in the West
- a cowboy themed detective game. Once again, we conduct a simple
investigation where we try to amass as much information as possible about
the case - before making an accusation. This one ramps up the stakes by putting a
ticking time limit on the evidence gathering - and it also lets us play in co-op with
three other pals so we can confer, compare notes, and, uh, bicker about who
has the best explanation for the crime. So these games capture every moment
of a typical crime-solving case: gathering evidence, interrogating witnesses, following leads, making deductions,
and accusing suspects of deadly crimes. But I don't think that's really
what makes them detective games. Instead, it's that all three types of game ask you to think about information in
the same way that a detective would. To be observant of your surroundings, and then to think critically about
the clues and leads you find. Detectives are famous for
their intellect and perception. Sherlock Holmes creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
has said that a detective has little more than "an alert acuteness of mind to grasp facts and the
relation which each of them bears to the other." Basically - they're a smarty pants. And these gameplay structures
make us feel smart too. But that only works if the
designers are smart about how they ask the player to input their answer. What I mean by that is that pretty much
every detective game needs some way for the player to prove to the game
that they've figured something out. To prove that they spotted the
connection or made the deduction. Some kind of "tester". And it's really easy to slip
up here - and actually ruin the puzzle through the design of this tester. Like, let's go back to that moment in Obra
Dinn where we had to figure out this mystery man's identity - and consider different ways
of asking the player to provide their answer. Perhaps we could have our in-game
investigator create an inventory of thoughts. Like "Captain shot Abigail's brother", "Abigail's maiden name is Hoscut",
and "William's surname is Hoscut". Then the player can link these clues
together to create a deduction. It's a nice gamified simulacrum of
thinking - but it totally gives the puzzle away! If the player hadn't yet made
the connection between Abigail and William... well they certainly will now. And if they had made that connection... putting it on screen like
this can feel patronising, and discourage critical thinking in the future. Why bother if the game is
going to do all the hard work? So perhaps we could ask the player a question, like "who is Abigail's brother", and then
provide four possible choices to pick from. It's a really nice and simple way for the
player to provide their answer... but again, it totally gives the game away. The text of the question spoils the line
of thinking that the player should be on. And by providing just four answers, we can
narrow our thinking to just these possibilities. Or just pick the most plausible from the list. Or just guess! And if we don't guess correctly, simply guess again until we
brute force our way to victory. Obra Dinn does not do any of this stuff. Instead of providing leading
questions that prompt the player, it asks the same generic
questions for everyone on board: who are they and what is their fate? Instead of giving the player clues that
they can combine and connect in a UI, it trusts players to write
things down on a notepad - meaning it's up to them to
figure out what's relevant, and how those facts can be
interpreted or connected. And instead of giving the
player a handful of choices, it lets them pick from any of the 60 crewmates
- making it basically impossible to guess. And because we need to actually establish
three correct fates before the game confirms our thinking, it's also impractical
to brute force our way to victory. So in Obra Dinn, the design of the tester means we aren't prompted or led - and
we can't guess or brute force. We have to figure it out for ourselves. And it's the same across most
of these other detective games. In the deduction-style Riley & Rochelle
we need to pick a complete date for each document - meaning that there's
thousands of possible answers. You can't guess that. And in investigation-style games like Shadows
of Doubt, the sheer size of the game space means its near impossible to just stumble
upon the right place or person by chance - you need to run the investigation and make
intentional choices about where to go - and when. And I think this is why contradiction-style games
are usually my least favourite of the three, because you often can just
tediously try every piece of evidence on every single statement
until you uncover all of the lies. So. The design of these testers makes
for games where players have to think about information like a detective - and
the game won't move on until they do. Which can lead to a truly electric Eureka-style
moment of satisfaction when you figure it out. But... it also means you're
completely stuck if you don't. So let's look at how these games subtly - or not-so-subtly - assist
players in their investigations. For one, the questions posed by the game are
often extremely straightforward and specific. Like, during development, Golden Idol
actually let players form full sentences to describe the events of the murder - but
it was impossibly overwhelming to play. It was better, the devs found, to focus on
much more clear and unambiguous questions. They shouldn't be leading - but
they also shouldn't be vague. Two, these games ramp up in complexity over time. Riley & Rochelle starts with just a few notes
and simple logic puzzles - but in later chapters we'll have to juggle loads of clues and figure
out more complicated, multi-step deductions. Three, the games provide multiple
avenues to reach the right answer. In Obra Dinn there are often
multiple ways to deduce an identity, so you don't have to rely on one specific clue. In Shadows of Doubt, a killer can be
traced in many different ways - from footprints to fingerprints to CCTV
footage to telephone call history. And in Hypnospace Outlaw, if you
can't figure out a clever way in, you can sometimes just farm for
currency and pay to get access. Four, the games give players small victories,
by giving step-by-step confirmations. In Golden Idol we get confirmation for every panel we figure out - rather than having
to solve the entire case in one go. That would be a lot less manageable. Five, these games provide useful tools. Sometimes all we need is a notepad and pen, but
I love the pinboard system in Shadows of Doubt. You can place any person,
place, or object on the board, make connections with string,
and even write custom notes. It makes investigations, like, 10 times more fun. Elsewhere, Her Story lets you tag footage and
Hypnospace Outlaw lets you bookmark useful sites. And six, these games provide useful hints. Obra Dinn lets us know when we have access to
enough information to fill in a character's fate. If we can't track a killer in Shadows
of Doubt they'll eventually kill again, giving us more leads to follow. And in Golden Idol we can simply unlock written hints - as long as we can get through
an intentionally-tedious mini-game. Now look: There are also some great detective games that
don't really fit into these categories at all. Take, for instance, Overboard, which
is a sort-of reverse detective game. You play as a murderer who has just offed her
husband and now needs to falsify evidence, construct an alibi, and throw
suspicion onto someone else. Or Silicon Dreams, a cyberpunk
interrogation game where you're basically doing the Voight-Kampff
test on a bunch of androids. You chat to these bots - but instead
of looking for contradictions and lies, you're actually assessing their
emotional response to your questions. And you can even manipulate their emotions
to make the androids more talkative. If this bot isn't playing ball, maybe slap
the cuffs on them to scare them straight. And what about Among Us? That's
totally a detective game, right? But the killer is another
player, and the team of detectives have to figure out who is telling the
truth, and whose alibis don't stack up. So, the book is certainly not closed on the
question "what makes a good detective game?". But in this video I hopefully showed
one very effective way to do it. Basically - give the player clues and information. Ask them to think about it
critically, by making deductions, looking for contradictions, forging
connections, or making accusations. And then test them on their thinking
in a way that doesn't prompt or lead the player - or allow for guessing or brute force. This will make players think like
a detective - and have the same potent thrill of piecing together a mystery. But there could be many different
ways to achieve that same goal. So maybe I'll come back in another five years
and see how this genre has evolved by then. For now though - did you know that
you can now follow GMTK on Substack? This is a free email newsletter -
and so every time I release a new episode you'll get a link to the video
- and a fancy written version to boot. Now you don't have to worry about
YouTube forgetting to notify you. Oh, and if you stump for the
paid version you'll also get a monthly reading list packed with
articles and videos that I recommend. Pretty cool, right? If you're interested
you can find a link in the description.
