Hacker News Reader

> show slightly different versions of the show to different viewers

The 1985 movie Clue was released with three different endings[1]. And if you really wanted to see them all, you had to go to the movie at least three times in different theaters.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clue_(film)

For anyone who hasn't seen it...

First, go watch it before the rumored Ryan Reynolds remake. It's a fun movie and holds up fairly well.

Second, when released for home they rolled all three endings into the storyline so you get to see all three.

Three, watch it again after the viewing the endings to see how all three actually do work in the story. May require more than one additional viewing to get it all, but worth it in my opinion.

Four, relatively safe for children and my kids love it.

Awesome, thank you.

Ten years before that, Monty Python put out a record[1] with two concentric grooves - this meant that depending on where the needle landed you’d hear two entirely different albums.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monty_Python_Matching_Ti...

I haven't played Heavy Rain but I really enjoyed Farenheit / Indigo Prophecy. Your choices had a limited effect on the structure of the movie, but the game was making constant nods to what you did, often in clever ways.

Heres an example. In the very first scene you have to flee a crime scene. You could leave the murder weapon where it is, or try to hide it. If you hide it, the game doesn't show you where you hid it. Later on, you play as the cops investigating the crime scene. If you didn't hid the weapon, it's in the same spot, but if you hid it, you'll have to look for it now. Most changes to the movie follow this structure. Demonstrating a higher level of play results in a movie with more and longer scenes, and all those extra scenes make it very clear that your actions caused them to exist in the movie.

Not to mention, the recently gone bankrupt Telltale, which suffered from decisions that claimed to make a difference to the story, but which really did nothing to the overarching plot (e.g. you choose to save character A instead of B, A is soon killed anyway).

I've been playing their game The Walking Dead Season 1 and yes, it's mostly the illusion of choice, not real choice. But it's also surprisingly convincing during your first play (characters remember choices you made; they are either friendly or hostile depending on how you treated them; some show up later and some don't; etc). It's only after you replay the game that you see underneath and realize it's all mostly cosmetic, and that you cannot make really meaningful choices.

Illusion of choice can definitely work -- some of my most memorable choices in games are where I _know_ it's the choice between a bad end or continuing-it works because _I_ had to actively make that choice -- but my problem with Telltale is that it dresses it in a way that makes it _seem_ like they are going to be far more impactful, and they rarely are, and there's often a second event to "correct" the choice (e.g. you saved Person A, here's where they die anyway). It breaks the illusion of choice.

You don't need big branching paths for choice to matter, it mattering in the moment is enough, but Telltale's way of making a big deal of choices makes you realise that _nothing_ ever _actually_ matters. It undermines that in the moment nature; they'd be better off just not making you expect it to come up again.

I think we agree :)

Regardless, I remember two instances from Season 1 -- currently replaying episode 2, I think I finished it last time and I know the "plot twist" of the dairy farm -- where you choose to save one character and the other dies, and your choices seem to stick (so far, the other character is alive and even remembers you chose her/him over the other option). The problem for me is that it doesn't really matter who you chose, because these are cardboard characters and whoever survives is going to fill the same role. And of course, the same situations play out with minor differences no matter what. I suppose it'd be too expensive to actually have the game vary wildly depending on who you save or where you go.

If you mean the person you saved eventually dies anyway, isn't this also a flaw of the source material. I stopped watching TV show because of this: it ends up becoming a monotonous series of main character deaths.

Indeed, and this is in a video game, where swapping in a different character model and audio into an identical scenario is reasonably cheap, and thus can be done for many decision. Trying to do the same thing with real actors and re-filming scenes based on choices feels... harder.

On the other hand, I loved the decision making in Skyrim.

Major plot points turn out completely differently on every playthrough. I played as a nord - storm cloak (nationalists) in my first run based on the tradtitional mold of the warrior hero freeing their country from the Invaders.

Mid way through the game their facist side became more apparent, and I helped a genuine asshole of a person become king.

This made my 2nd playthrough as the empire (colonists/settlers) just that much more fun, as I tried to seek revenge on the asshole that I didn't like from a previous life.

It has been 8 years since it came out, and no game captured me quite like it. (Borderlands and Witcher came close)

> I believe when Charlie Brooker first got on board with Netflix to produce the third season of Black Mirror, he made a suggestion to introduce some kind of interactive element to the show

I really hope you’re wrong. I mean, watching Metalhead put me off watching Black Mirror for a couple of months because that episode was just so extremely fucking dark. But I really don’t want to be able to choose a different ending to that story.

In my opinion, we shouldn’t be able to water down Black Mirror with happy endings, and extend our denial about what tech can potentially do to our lives.

I agree choosing your own ending would be a big mistake for most shows including Black Mirror. Like I said, I can't remember where I heard this but I was hoping the kind of 'interaction' that Charlie Brooker would introduce would be less explicit (i.e. you choose an option on the screen) and more implicit (e.g. you watch the show for a second time). If it was done in the right way, I think it could enhance the experience.

Interactive endings have already been done on UK terrestrial TV as some sort of gimmick for specials made for Comic Relief. It's pointless and crap, and what professional screen writers are supposed to be for. I imagine if Charlie asked, C4 said "no".

To be honest, if true, it provides yet more indication how much Channel 4 contributed unseen to Black Mirror, as it's got significantly worse since moving to Netflix. Despite the bigger budget.

Eh, 'choose-your-own-adventure' is a pretty tried and true genre. The Mass Effect Series and Dragon-Age Series are both critically acclaimed, not to mention in Japan there is literally a genre of games/stories that follow this format.

Though maybe not has innovative as you would like, probably logically the next step as for a majority of viewers this would still be "fresh".