Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
LYING TO AND DECEIVING THE PLAYER
Posts
accha
1260
accha
View playlists
CloseMost games are very clear and straightforward about the tone of the story and the nature of the characters, and so it's extremely easy to tell when people are lying to you and when you're going to be backstabbed. It's a given that the generic NPC will almost always tell the truth, and if they're not, there's always a flag for untrustworthy NPCs (shady speech habits, ugly sprite, etc.) This gives the sense that the creator of the game is doing as much as they can to "ease" the way for the player, to an extent, and let them have fun.
Deceiving the player, though, is the opposite of that. Setting false first impressions, giving incomplete and misleading information, maybe having people tell absolute lies-- except the player doesn't know that that's happening, no, they just believe everything is A-OK, the stuff that the game dev leads them to do is the right thing! Right?
A game I played recently that did this sort of thing well (where the player has to disobey the "person controlling the scene") is The Stanley Parable, but I can't think of many other games where this was done and wonder if there's a reason for that. I'm personally interested because, well, my series is dependent on this.
So what do you think about misleading and lying to your players? Is it a scummy thing to do? Is it the type of thing that can only be done well in certain circumstances? Is it cheesy and overused? Can you think of interesting ways it can be used, or ways it can be done better?
(note: to clarify, this is about the narrative and perhaps how gameplay ties into/affects the narrative, but doesn't refer to lying about game controls or the technical aspects of playing the game.)
Deceiving the player, though, is the opposite of that. Setting false first impressions, giving incomplete and misleading information, maybe having people tell absolute lies-- except the player doesn't know that that's happening, no, they just believe everything is A-OK, the stuff that the game dev leads them to do is the right thing! Right?
A game I played recently that did this sort of thing well (where the player has to disobey the "person controlling the scene") is The Stanley Parable, but I can't think of many other games where this was done and wonder if there's a reason for that. I'm personally interested because, well, my series is dependent on this.
So what do you think about misleading and lying to your players? Is it a scummy thing to do? Is it the type of thing that can only be done well in certain circumstances? Is it cheesy and overused? Can you think of interesting ways it can be used, or ways it can be done better?
(note: to clarify, this is about the narrative and perhaps how gameplay ties into/affects the narrative, but doesn't refer to lying about game controls or the technical aspects of playing the game.)
Lying as a theme is extremely fun. When the game is misleading you and you overcome it it's a great feeling. There has to be some reason to believe the game could be lying to you or just a reason to disobey.
In the game TTT, the entire point is to find the liar basically. The game has help for each side but once you start making connections, it becomes more about deduction which is what most games like this find their fun in. In TTT there's a weapon that appears to be something harmless to everyone else but is actually dangerous. The game lied there but if you realize there's no reason to have the harmless item out that player looks suspicious. That may be a little off though.
In Zero Escape:VLR, the game leads you to believe that all characters will always act the same in different timelines when the only difference from one timeline to another is your choice. It may seem like crap at first but when you realize it's demonstrating Schrodinger's Cat you also realize the seemingly important choice you made was not so important and you were lied too. You have to come to these conclusions mostly on your own but it's worth it.
I also remember this really cool indie game that had the guide character lie to you and the only indication you initially got that they were lying was that you got a game over when you listened to them.
In the game TTT, the entire point is to find the liar basically. The game has help for each side but once you start making connections, it becomes more about deduction which is what most games like this find their fun in. In TTT there's a weapon that appears to be something harmless to everyone else but is actually dangerous. The game lied there but if you realize there's no reason to have the harmless item out that player looks suspicious. That may be a little off though.
In Zero Escape:VLR, the game leads you to believe that all characters will always act the same in different timelines when the only difference from one timeline to another is your choice. It may seem like crap at first but when you realize it's demonstrating Schrodinger's Cat you also realize the seemingly important choice you made was not so important and you were lied too. You have to come to these conclusions mostly on your own but it's worth it.
I also remember this really cool indie game that had the guide character lie to you and the only indication you initially got that they were lying was that you got a game over when you listened to them.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I would be interested to hear someone's reasons for doing this outside of major plot twists. If someone says "it's unrealistic for random strangers to always tell you the truth!" I will punch them.
I mean, plot twists are one thing. The main character isn't fully human! The villain is being manipulated by a bigger villain! That girl who joined your party was a princess all along! These things are key plot elements - and perhaps more importantly, they affect the story but not the gameplay.
Lying about smaller things, though, doesn't make sense to me. Especially when the false information affects what the player actually chooses to do. An NPC telling the player that the bandit's hideout is to the south when it's actually to the west. A shopkeeper telling them that a weapon is fire-elemental when it really isn't. A character leaving and telling you that she'll rejoin the party later in the game, and then never reappearing. Why would you do this? This is just bad design. The player can't make informed choices if they're misinformed. You're punishing players for making the best possible use of what you give them, and rewarding them for cheating.
I mean, plot twists are one thing. The main character isn't fully human! The villain is being manipulated by a bigger villain! That girl who joined your party was a princess all along! These things are key plot elements - and perhaps more importantly, they affect the story but not the gameplay.
Lying about smaller things, though, doesn't make sense to me. Especially when the false information affects what the player actually chooses to do. An NPC telling the player that the bandit's hideout is to the south when it's actually to the west. A shopkeeper telling them that a weapon is fire-elemental when it really isn't. A character leaving and telling you that she'll rejoin the party later in the game, and then never reappearing. Why would you do this? This is just bad design. The player can't make informed choices if they're misinformed. You're punishing players for making the best possible use of what you give them, and rewarding them for cheating.
I'm with Locke on this one.
Being deceived within the narrative is fine, and expected. You mean the big bad is the player's father and not the general, like everyone in the village said? Plot twist! That's fine. Straight up lying to the player when it comes to gameplay mechanics is fucked up, however. "Scan told you the ice dragon is weak to fire? Nah, he actually absorbs it ya dumb hoe"
I take the time to pay attention to the information the game gives me and I get screwed over? Screw you too.
Being deceived within the narrative is fine, and expected. You mean the big bad is the player's father and not the general, like everyone in the village said? Plot twist! That's fine. Straight up lying to the player when it comes to gameplay mechanics is fucked up, however. "Scan told you the ice dragon is weak to fire? Nah, he actually absorbs it ya dumb hoe"
I take the time to pay attention to the information the game gives me and I get screwed over? Screw you too.
I agree with not obscuring the game's mechanics. Lying to the player about the stuff that are required for play is downright evil! Story-wise, this will be an excellent way to go.
Having the narrator as unreliable is also a good idea. But if overdone, this'll only lead to frustration. The 'unreliable narrator' is usually used in books and literary works, but it sure can be applied to gam mak. Just make sure to balance the narrator's flaw with something else though. The goal here is to make the player not trust the narrator, and not to confuse the player.
In the end, it's all but a balancing act on a tight rope over lava. One tip too far to one side will end up with you burnt.
Having the narrator as unreliable is also a good idea. But if overdone, this'll only lead to frustration. The 'unreliable narrator' is usually used in books and literary works, but it sure can be applied to gam mak. Just make sure to balance the narrator's flaw with something else though. The goal here is to make the player not trust the narrator, and not to confuse the player.
In the end, it's all but a balancing act on a tight rope over lava. One tip too far to one side will end up with you burnt.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
At first I was going to quote FF5 (surprise! that game is, like, 100% of my world right now) on this and mention that your actions in the second world actually help Exdeath with his schemes to bring the worlds back together to get closer to the power of The Void because by destroying him, you destroy the world's crystals that are, in fact, pieces of him and the resulting chaos leads to said world fusion, but then I thought about it and realized that wouldn't apply.
What I think is truly interesting regardless of who lies or tells the truth is genuine struggle and seeking a means to an end even if it means throwing the whole world and yourself with it away to do so. Moral ambiguity and self-serving antiheroes are really what I'm trying to hint at, just not in the terms of "I'm a hard-ass and I do hard-assy things 'cuz I just don't care."
What I think is truly interesting regardless of who lies or tells the truth is genuine struggle and seeking a means to an end even if it means throwing the whole world and yourself with it away to do so. Moral ambiguity and self-serving antiheroes are really what I'm trying to hint at, just not in the terms of "I'm a hard-ass and I do hard-assy things 'cuz I just don't care."
accha
1260
Thanks for all the insight so far!
I'd be annoyed as hell by the examples Locke posted, too. If it's just about being random or inconveniencing the player then I agree that it's bad game design. I did mean deception in the narrative/story of the game, and not the gameplay/technical aspects, to be clearer.
Gourd, thanks for mentioning some games to check out! I think you really nailed it with this:
Context really is important so the players aren't floundering. I'll keep this in mind.
Soulkeeper, glad you brought up the unreliable narrator. I also read recently that they could be "frustrating for the reader" which is actually exactly why I brought up this topic, since "deceiving the player" is very similar. Locke and Feldshlacht brought up exactly how it can be frustrating in games, so that's good reference.
And I agree, Corfaisus -- moral ambiguity is definitely interesting.
I'd be annoyed as hell by the examples Locke posted, too. If it's just about being random or inconveniencing the player then I agree that it's bad game design. I did mean deception in the narrative/story of the game, and not the gameplay/technical aspects, to be clearer.
Gourd, thanks for mentioning some games to check out! I think you really nailed it with this:
There has to be some reason to believe the game could be lying to you or just a reason to disobey.
Context really is important so the players aren't floundering. I'll keep this in mind.
Soulkeeper, glad you brought up the unreliable narrator. I also read recently that they could be "frustrating for the reader" which is actually exactly why I brought up this topic, since "deceiving the player" is very similar. Locke and Feldshlacht brought up exactly how it can be frustrating in games, so that's good reference.
And I agree, Corfaisus -- moral ambiguity is definitely interesting.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I can think of several games off the bat that do the "plot twist" style lies. Obviously, spoilers happen below.
OFF is an interesting case, where nobody lies, but the player (along with all the NPCs) is led to believe that the main character's mission is something a lot more pleasant than it actually is. (The question of whether this is good or evil is left rather vague.)
The first three Silent Hill games are pretty great for lying and deception. 1 and 3 involve tricking the main character into doing the villain's bidding; 2 is more about the main character lying to himself. One of my favorite things about these games is the little hints you get via scenery and puzzles that make more sense once you know what's going on.
Tales of Destiny had a pretty good twist halfway through the game where it turned out that the (very nice) people who got you to foil an evil megalomaniac were actually ALSO villains trying to take over.
Persona 3 and 4 have some great villains in disguise. I understand that Persona 1 has a lying party member as well, though I haven't played it.
I rather like when you're given lying NPCs, especially if you can replay the game and see subtle hints that things aren't all right. (I felt a little disappointed with P3's handling of this.)
A lying interface (the "scan says the opposite of reality" sort of thing) seems like it could be interesting, if it's the main gimmick of the game and the challenge is to survive an asshole interface; I can't see it being fun if it's another obstacle for a regular-style game. In this case, it'd need to be consistently a liar, within defined parameters, to make it possible to deal with it. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in frustration, which most players aren't really into.
OFF is an interesting case, where nobody lies, but the player (along with all the NPCs) is led to believe that the main character's mission is something a lot more pleasant than it actually is. (The question of whether this is good or evil is left rather vague.)
The first three Silent Hill games are pretty great for lying and deception. 1 and 3 involve tricking the main character into doing the villain's bidding; 2 is more about the main character lying to himself. One of my favorite things about these games is the little hints you get via scenery and puzzles that make more sense once you know what's going on.
Tales of Destiny had a pretty good twist halfway through the game where it turned out that the (very nice) people who got you to foil an evil megalomaniac were actually ALSO villains trying to take over.
Persona 3 and 4 have some great villains in disguise. I understand that Persona 1 has a lying party member as well, though I haven't played it.
I rather like when you're given lying NPCs, especially if you can replay the game and see subtle hints that things aren't all right. (I felt a little disappointed with P3's handling of this.)
A lying interface (the "scan says the opposite of reality" sort of thing) seems like it could be interesting, if it's the main gimmick of the game and the challenge is to survive an asshole interface; I can't see it being fun if it's another obstacle for a regular-style game. In this case, it'd need to be consistently a liar, within defined parameters, to make it possible to deal with it. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in frustration, which most players aren't really into.
accha
1260
Oh, damn, the Silent Hill games! Why didn't I think of that?
I loved the story of 2 because of that messed up psychological stuff, lol. People in denial are fascinating.
Really need to play OFF sometime. I hear it's amazing.
I loved the story of 2 because of that messed up psychological stuff, lol. People in denial are fascinating.
Really need to play OFF sometime. I hear it's amazing.
Speaking of P4...
Most important characters get a portrait but the big baddie in the begginning doesn't get one specifically to tell players she's unimportant which is a huge lie./hide]
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
OFF is lovely and interestingly written, but the battle system is boring and annoying. I'm not sure it's quite deserving of the hype, but it is pretty fantastic and I personally adore it.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
The number of times I've actually seen games lie to the player about the gameplay is startling though. Bad designers like to come up with all sorts of shitty justifications.
The classic example would be a seemingly solid wall that you can walk through, or an invisible treasure chest. This is used in too many games to count. You very clearly tell the player there's nothing there, and then punish them for believing you. This is supposedly used in order to "reward thorough exploration" but there's a difference between hiding something by making it require effort to find and hiding something by lying to the player. One rewards careful, observant players and the other rewards a combination of blind luck and stubbornly refusing to believe anything the game tells you is true. Pressing A on every tile in the game and bumping into every tile of every wall isn't fun.
In Dragon Quest IV, there's a shopkeeper that sells steel broadswords for a very cheap price. If you buy one and then open your inventory, what you actually got was a useless wooden stick. This was supposed to be related to the plot point that the town was populated by trickster foxes, but was ultimately just bullshit. You can come up with less infuriating ways to convey your plot.
The zodiac spear in FF12 would be a different kind of example. If you don't open three specific (completely unmarked) chests, which are separated by several hours of gameplay, a fourth new chest appears later. No other treasure chest in the game has a negative impact when opened. If you open that fourth new chest, you get the most powerful weapon in the game - but only if you're NOT wearing the accessory that improves the quality of items you get from treasure chests. Once again, this accessory improves every other treasure chest in the game. Not only does the player never receive a hint to this solving puzzle, but they're never even informed that a puzzle exists in the first place. In this case you aren't lying through the environment or the text, but you are lying by teaching the player the game's rules, and then punishing them for understanding them the way you taught them. You're lying about how treasure chests work, and about how that accessory works.
Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI actually do kind of the same thing as the first half of the issue in FF12. If you open certain treasure chests, you can't get other ones. However, at least in Chrono Trigger this was done in a sensible, foreseeable way. It was rewarding you for cleverly manipulating time travel, in a game about time travel. I'm not sure if that complete excuses it, but it definitely makes it less awful. And in FF6 I think it was probably a bug - but if it wasn't, it was really stupid design.
In one of the earlier Final Fantasy games, I think FF5, there's a bomb-type enemy early on that is weak to ice magic. Later, there's another identical-looking palette swap with a very similar name, which counterattacks by self-destructing and killing you when it's hit with ice magic. WTF. Thanks for teaching me something and then killing me for remembering it later, assholes.
All these situations are rewarding you for not doing what you're supposed to do in very specific, mostly-random instances. In the worst examples there's no possible way to predict when you should and shouldn't. In the less bad examples, the player is given two conflicting pieces of information ("shops list the prices next to the items they sell" and "steel broadswords usually cost a dozen times this much") and rewarding for guessing which one is the truth and which one is a lie. The latter is less bad, but the player still has to read your mind either way. The latter just gives them a higher chance of accidentally stumbling into the right answer.
Please don't do this crap. Yeah, I know you have a reason for it. It's almost certainly not worth the pain you're causing though. You can come up with a way to accomplish what you want without leaning on dishonest bullshit.
-------------
On the other hand, lying as a core gameplay mechanic could be interesting. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, L.A. Noire, and the entire genre of hidden picture games all feature lie detection as the main form of gameplay. The difference being that the player knows, up front, that this is what they're doing, and is focused on it - and they are given the information and tools needed to succeed at it.
The classic example would be a seemingly solid wall that you can walk through, or an invisible treasure chest. This is used in too many games to count. You very clearly tell the player there's nothing there, and then punish them for believing you. This is supposedly used in order to "reward thorough exploration" but there's a difference between hiding something by making it require effort to find and hiding something by lying to the player. One rewards careful, observant players and the other rewards a combination of blind luck and stubbornly refusing to believe anything the game tells you is true. Pressing A on every tile in the game and bumping into every tile of every wall isn't fun.
In Dragon Quest IV, there's a shopkeeper that sells steel broadswords for a very cheap price. If you buy one and then open your inventory, what you actually got was a useless wooden stick. This was supposed to be related to the plot point that the town was populated by trickster foxes, but was ultimately just bullshit. You can come up with less infuriating ways to convey your plot.
The zodiac spear in FF12 would be a different kind of example. If you don't open three specific (completely unmarked) chests, which are separated by several hours of gameplay, a fourth new chest appears later. No other treasure chest in the game has a negative impact when opened. If you open that fourth new chest, you get the most powerful weapon in the game - but only if you're NOT wearing the accessory that improves the quality of items you get from treasure chests. Once again, this accessory improves every other treasure chest in the game. Not only does the player never receive a hint to this solving puzzle, but they're never even informed that a puzzle exists in the first place. In this case you aren't lying through the environment or the text, but you are lying by teaching the player the game's rules, and then punishing them for understanding them the way you taught them. You're lying about how treasure chests work, and about how that accessory works.
Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI actually do kind of the same thing as the first half of the issue in FF12. If you open certain treasure chests, you can't get other ones. However, at least in Chrono Trigger this was done in a sensible, foreseeable way. It was rewarding you for cleverly manipulating time travel, in a game about time travel. I'm not sure if that complete excuses it, but it definitely makes it less awful. And in FF6 I think it was probably a bug - but if it wasn't, it was really stupid design.
In one of the earlier Final Fantasy games, I think FF5, there's a bomb-type enemy early on that is weak to ice magic. Later, there's another identical-looking palette swap with a very similar name, which counterattacks by self-destructing and killing you when it's hit with ice magic. WTF. Thanks for teaching me something and then killing me for remembering it later, assholes.
All these situations are rewarding you for not doing what you're supposed to do in very specific, mostly-random instances. In the worst examples there's no possible way to predict when you should and shouldn't. In the less bad examples, the player is given two conflicting pieces of information ("shops list the prices next to the items they sell" and "steel broadswords usually cost a dozen times this much") and rewarding for guessing which one is the truth and which one is a lie. The latter is less bad, but the player still has to read your mind either way. The latter just gives them a higher chance of accidentally stumbling into the right answer.
Please don't do this crap. Yeah, I know you have a reason for it. It's almost certainly not worth the pain you're causing though. You can come up with a way to accomplish what you want without leaning on dishonest bullshit.
-------------
On the other hand, lying as a core gameplay mechanic could be interesting. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, L.A. Noire, and the entire genre of hidden picture games all feature lie detection as the main form of gameplay. The difference being that the player knows, up front, that this is what they're doing, and is focused on it - and they are given the information and tools needed to succeed at it.
Desertopa
775
[
I think even this kind of deception could be good, provided the player doesn't actually face consequences for it. Like, scan tells you the dragon is weak to fire, it actually absorbs it, you go on to lose the fight, but the plot requires you to lose the fight and you didn't actually have the capacity to win anyway. Then the gameplay deception is further addressed in the story.
I think you can do interesting things by using gameplay deception to *reinforce* the story, as long as it doesn't impose anything frustrating on the player. I'll give an example which isn't actually an example; in Final Fantasy VII, there's a point early in the second disc where Elena of the Turks catches up with the party, and tries to hit Cloud. She warns him in advance that she's going to hit him, and the game tells you how to avoid it (making it essentially the game's shortest minigame.) The first couple times I played through this part of the game though, I got the timing wrong, and the result is that Cloud does nothing, just stands there and takes the hit, and collapses. And I came under the impression that this was actually the only result you could get, that the game was lying to you about being able to avoid the hit. And I thought that was actually pretty cool, because in context, there's a lot of reason for Cloud to feel guilty and depressed, and I assumed that given the chance to avoid the hit, he was deliberately choosing not to. Since you just wake up in a nearby house which has plot-relevant scenes to view, there's really no disadvantage gameplay-wise in taking the hit. The fact that it's avoidable was honestly kind of disappointing to me when I found out.
I'd personally like to implement a comical variation on this, where the player is given instructions for the rules to a minigame to resolve a situation, and the minigame never happens because one of your characters just goes ahead and resolves the situation in a much simpler and easier way, rendering the whole thing unnecessary.
author=Feldschlacht IV
I'm with Locke on this one.
Being deceived within the narrative is fine, and expected. You mean the big bad is the player's father and not the general, like everyone in the village said? Plot twist! That's fine. Straight up lying to the player when it comes to gameplay mechanics is fucked up, however. "Scan told you the ice dragon is weak to fire? Nah, he actually absorbs it ya dumb hoe"
I think even this kind of deception could be good, provided the player doesn't actually face consequences for it. Like, scan tells you the dragon is weak to fire, it actually absorbs it, you go on to lose the fight, but the plot requires you to lose the fight and you didn't actually have the capacity to win anyway. Then the gameplay deception is further addressed in the story.
I think you can do interesting things by using gameplay deception to *reinforce* the story, as long as it doesn't impose anything frustrating on the player. I'll give an example which isn't actually an example; in Final Fantasy VII, there's a point early in the second disc where Elena of the Turks catches up with the party, and tries to hit Cloud. She warns him in advance that she's going to hit him, and the game tells you how to avoid it (making it essentially the game's shortest minigame.) The first couple times I played through this part of the game though, I got the timing wrong, and the result is that Cloud does nothing, just stands there and takes the hit, and collapses. And I came under the impression that this was actually the only result you could get, that the game was lying to you about being able to avoid the hit. And I thought that was actually pretty cool, because in context, there's a lot of reason for Cloud to feel guilty and depressed, and I assumed that given the chance to avoid the hit, he was deliberately choosing not to. Since you just wake up in a nearby house which has plot-relevant scenes to view, there's really no disadvantage gameplay-wise in taking the hit. The fact that it's avoidable was honestly kind of disappointing to me when I found out.
I'd personally like to implement a comical variation on this, where the player is given instructions for the rules to a minigame to resolve a situation, and the minigame never happens because one of your characters just goes ahead and resolves the situation in a much simpler and easier way, rendering the whole thing unnecessary.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Desertopa
I'd personally like to implement a comical variation on this, where the player is given instructions for the rules to a minigame to resolve a situation, and the minigame never happens because one of your characters just goes ahead and resolves the situation in a much simpler and easier way, rendering the whole thing unnecessary.
Oh my god you just reminded me of the best and most relevant game.
Everyone in this thread needs to play CHASM SPASM. It lasts about two minutes. Your life will be incomplete if you do not play this game.
What you probably had in mind was probably something closer to this scene from my first game, where you encountered a couple floors of fairly simple puzzles involving switches and moving platforms, and then you got to one that was vastly more complex-looking:
nurvuss
958
In Baten Kaitos for Gamecube, the protagonist betrays the party around the half-way mark, and the story shifts its focus to a different character.
It's not a particularly well-written game, and the first protagonist eventually comes back to be the hero again, but it's still an interesting idea that I can't recall having seen employed previously or since.
Also, seconding Gourd, Zero Escape does some really neat meta-fictional stuff that ties its game system into the plot in a very interesting and effective manner. It's unmissable for that.
It's not a particularly well-written game, and the first protagonist eventually comes back to be the hero again, but it's still an interesting idea that I can't recall having seen employed previously or since.
Also, seconding Gourd, Zero Escape does some really neat meta-fictional stuff that ties its game system into the plot in a very interesting and effective manner. It's unmissable for that.
author=Sooz
Tales of Destiny had a pretty good twist halfway through the game where it turned out that the (very nice) people who got you to foil an evil megalomaniac were actually ALSO villains trying to take over.
The Tales series is famous for this. Tales of Phantasia (you may have skipped this one), had the heroes led to believe they were saving the world from an evil sorceror. Nope, he's a space alien, and he's trying to saving Mana, so he can harvest a Mana Seed, and help his people. Making the heroes the bad guys. ^_^;
Mother 3 has the quiet rural town actually refugees from another world, and they memory wiped everyone, except in an emergency.
My game (Oracle of Tao, not the other one, though actually Tales from the Reaper takes place in the same universe), has the game start out with these words from the protagonist. "My adopted father sold me this story. Before the Earth we know of now, there was another created, with eons of history. The world had all kinds of plants and animals, and people worshiping a bunch of different religions. Despite what they thought, God didn't really care what they worshiped, just so long as they took good care of the Earth and each other. But they couldn't even get that right! I mean, how hard is it really? So, God intervened. God split the Earth into light and darkness, a world of existence and void..." Basically, we have a backstory from her adopted parent, about a reality split in two. We also have a prophecy about the Oracle of Tao bringing the universe back to balance. Unfortunately, it's complete nonsense, meaning I fooled not only the player, but the protagonist too.
Ambrosia's adopted father is adopted for a reason. She later finds out her real father was God, who apparently gave her mom really good sex (somehow when her memories return, she has memories before her life began. But this makes sense in regard to later knowledge). But wait, that's not even true. Both worlds are a fake reality, a dream of God. Ambrosia wakes up in a white expanse, and finds out that rather than God's daughter, she's actually God (basically, a dream split-off, since without her mom existing, she couldn't rightly either except by being what she actually is). And the reason the last Oracle couldn't stop the big bad demon Belial? It's because previous Oracles have the ability to see reality as it is, and winked out of reality from the discovery they weren't real.
There's a whole mini-genre like this. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnreliableNarrator
I am going to assume this topic wasn't talking about lying in terms of plot twists. Uh that's not lying, that's a natural an expected aspect of storytelling, so should we continue to list examples of that?????
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=EgyLynx
LockeZ Which rpg maker is picture? Anyway i hawe guest but...
RPG Maker 95. Please don't use that engine, or play that game.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
P. sure the OP describes plot twists exactly, unless you don't count omission of information as deceit:
author=accha
Most games are very clear and straightforward about the tone of the story and the nature of the characters, and so it's extremely easy to tell when people are lying to you and when you're going to be backstabbed. . . .
Deceiving the player, though, is the opposite of that. Setting false first impressions, giving incomplete and misleading information, maybe having people tell absolute lies-- except the player doesn't know that that's happening, no, they just believe everything is A-OK, the stuff that the game dev leads them to do is the right thing! Right?
