I just played Sister’s Little Helper, after having seen it on Anna Anthropy’s blog. Anna says:
games, as a form ordered by rules and performed by their audience, have a unique capacity to use repetition as a form of characterization.
Certainly Sister’s Little Helper demonstrates said capacity for characterization through repetition. However, when I played the game, I noticed another thing that games could express in interesting ways: characterization through confusion.
In the breakfast scene of the game, it took me a moment to figure out what I was looking at and what to do with the items on the table. In that moment, I felt like a person who had just woken up way too early from a terrible night’s sleep. For that brief moment, I assumed that the scene before me had been designed to make me look like an idiot for not knowing how to eat breakfast. I felt self-conscious because Amy was sitting next to me watching me struggle to eat, and I still don’t know what the brown stuff in the bowl is. Suddenly the ritual of breakfast has become a puzzle that I have solve.
As it turns out, there was some vague order to the clicking that I stumbled upon moments after my initial confusion. If I designed that puzzle however, I would have allowed the player to eat the jelly straight, eat the bread without the butter, poor the orange juice in the bowl, dip the bread in the bowl, or perform any other combination of clicks.
If your narrative involves a person whose mental faculties have been compromised, then confusing the player might strengthen the player’s empathy for the characters. That goes against game-design “best practices”, but who cares?