Detective Games and "Duck Detective: The Secret Salami" (2024)
It started with a duck. Follow Mischief as they spiral into the depths of detective games after they've played "Duck Detective", a game where the goal is to find the culprit behind a stolen lunch.
“It was easier to know it than to explain why I know it. If you were asked to prove that two and two made four, you might find some difficulty, and yet you are quite sure of the fact.” - Sherlock Holmes, in Arthur Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet; (p. 15)
Detective stories have the potential to be a truly fun experience. However, there are notable differences within the genre itself; What could be summarised as a 'classic' detective story is a story where the protagonist is the brilliant detective, often even part of the upper class, who's solving cases on his own whims. Alternatively, there are detective stories which focus on a protagonist that is more flawed; the setting is grittier and bleak. These detective stories are more commonly associated with the term 'noir'.
This does not mean that our brilliant detectives, such as Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot, didn’t have their own set of flaws, but these flaws never actively indicated a downfall or bad luck streak of any sort for their protagonist. If we take Sherlock as an example, it has been made known that if he was not working on a ‘stimulating’ case, then he’d sometimes use addictive substances such as morphine or cocaine. Moreover, Sherlock never solved a case to be able to pay rent, he already possessed a high station. Instead, he solves cases because he enjoys them, because they entertain him. Similarly, Hercule Poirot is able to “cherry-pick” which cases he would wish to solve. In contrast, the noir-type detective has no room for choice, they will have to pick whichever case knocks at their door, or rings them up, simply to stay afloat.
This difference in setup has no direct influence on the way any protagonist will solve the case; Be it subterfuge, disguise, interrogation, or crime scene investigation - the elements of any detective story seem to follow a similar structure. The main difference simply is the atmosphere and tone.
Now, the protagonist of “Duck Detective: The Secret Salami” is Eugene McQuacklin, a freshly divorced duck detective who’s just reached the bottom of the barrel. After an unhealthy bread bender, Eugene comes to realise that he needs another case solved to be able to afford his house and office space. All of this follows the typical setup of a gritty 'noir'-esque narrative, as established above.
I would consider this game a bit of an oxymoron in itself. The tone and atmosphere it evokes emultes the style of a gritty and dark narrative, which is then contradicted by the details of the story and setting itself. The protagonist is a duck and the art-style is adorable to look at. All the while one is wandering the location, the visuals will remain soft and cute.
I'd like to reiterate how brilliantly this game is able to balance its split artistic choice. There is no reason to disrespect the work behind this game due its rather silly premise. The cast did an amazing job with voicing all the characters. There is so much charm found, simply due to the cast giving it their all. It is the game's biggest strength that it is able to toe the line between silly and serious in such a way that it never felt forced in either direction. Eugene's living situation is truly horrendous and his relationship is beyond repair. He overdosed on bread, a truly dangerous vice to have as a duck. The case that he's investigating starts with a stolen lunch. The perpetrator calls themselves "The Salami Bandit". There is talk about extortion, there is talk about forgery and explicit fiction. There is also a dedicated quack button - and I questioned none of these elements at all during my playthrough.
Regarding the gameplay, there are no additional detective tools for our Ducktective, except for his trusty notebook. This is where all the investigation clues and information taken from conversations are noted down. This is where we spend most of our time solving a case.
The casebook offers one page that covers the name of the mystery and its relevant clues. Additionally, we’re also provided with an indicator whether all clues were found or not. On the other side, we have our actual deduc(k)tion: a fill-in-the-blank paragraph structure.
What this means is that the gameplay loop persists of walking around the location, clicking on every potential clue and then open your little notebook and fill in whichever words are given to you.
While I appreciate the focus put on the science of deduction, there is also a certain amount of trepidation present. The problem I had with this format was the fact that there is a certain structure one has to follow, which can lead to more frustration than intended. For one, we are already provided a framework from within we have to solve the case, there is no need for us to sort our clues into a category, this is all done automatically; There is no need to try and solve the whole set-up behind a case, we’re only supposed to specify.
The way the casebook functions can be both a blessing and a curse. Its clear structure refuses to let you jump ahead, even if you’ve already made the leap to solve the case; Simultaneously, it allows you to brute force it, if you’re truly stuck. As a result, it made me feel less like a detective solving a case, but someone either waiting for the story to catch up with me, or someone that did not understand why my input was incorrect - leading me to brute force the answer. Funnily enough, the reason for my plight was the fact that I used the actual name of the culprit instead of his villain pseudonym.
These moments are reminiscent of my issues with the Ace Attorney series, where the structure demands you to act a certain way - even if that means that you won’t be able to mention the third gunshot fired until another investigation and trial had passed. This is the crux issue with mystery solving games, their expectations on how one is supposed to solve it. This is why it is hard to write a detective protagonist that reads as intelligent while playing as them.
Previously, I’ve enjoyed a lot of Point and Click adventures, which like to provide a detective-type protagonist - or at least an investigative-focused person. Solving a mystery is *the* go-to goal of many P&C adventures. However, in these games it’s less about the deductions that a player can make, more about the investigative nature of them. Potentially, there’s a puzzle solving element, but this will not directly influence the mystery, only the road toward its resolution.
Now, ‘detective games’ have one major challenge that they have to overcome: The visualisation and gameplay of a detective's brilliance - their deductions. While I always enjoy a good detective story, I do have issues with certain detective type games due to their lacklustre form of gameplay. Point & Click mysteries are frustrating if we are left with puzzles that are illogical. The story might be interesting, the mystery intriguing, and the detective within the world a genius - but if your puzzle is nonsensical, it will leave a bad taste in your mouth. Oh, we’re trying to resolve a murder in an art gallery? Neat - but first let’s decipher Grandmother’s cookie recipe, since the instructions were not given clearly enough - Yes, the puzzle from the game Still Life (2005,) developed by Microids, left a brutal childhood scar.
In this instance, there is a lack of connection between the actual mystery and the gameplay. The cookies in Still Life have no relevance. They are simply functioning as a filler. Then again - this disparity might not be too unfamiliar to someone who has also played (and enjoyed) games such as any of the Professor Layton games. Unlike other games, the Layton games openly declare their main focus to be its logic puzzles, which are barely tied to its main story. Instead you will wander the world and hear the famous line "This reminds me of a puzzle" before you're told to solve said puzzle - over and over again. However, honour to whom honour is due, the first game in the series, Professor Layton and the Curious Village, managed to provide a pretty solid reason for the existence of its many logic puzzles (within the weirdness of the world they live in that introduces one absurd twist after another...).
All of this to say, I still enjoy the majority of detective focused games that I play. However, I have become aware of the struggle within, the fact that any game putting us in the shoes of a detective does not know how much input is the perfect amount for us to solve the case and still feel accomplished. How much should we be given at any point? For the Duckdetective, I'd have preferred it if I had to sort the clues myself instead of having had them sorted automatically. This would mean that I still had to think about their uses. Additionally, maybe include more clues that don't actually help me solve the case. Maybe this could have helped me feel more accomplished at the end of the day.
This feeling of accomplishment can also be taken away. One of the more notable instance in my past would have been Ace Attorney (2005 DS). The gameplay loop expects you to listen and interrogate people and find the contradictions within their statements to ensure that your client will be able to walk free. There are many moments where you feel accomplished by noticing these contradictions quickly. However, the game also has a tendency to withhold progress from you. In one of the first cases your only saved by a deux ex machine, which tells the protagonist, Phoenix Wright, to turn a piece of paper to receive an all important clue. There had been no way to investigate the paper before, even though it had been in your possession. Moreover, there is a chance the player would have remembered that this piece of evidence actually entailed that much needed information - but there is no way to "learn" of it until the game tells you this at the end of its chapter. In this moment, everything I've accomplished felt meaningless. The game tried so hard to hold my hand and help me, but it also withheld its logical resolution behind a scripted event, which made Phoenix look like an idiot for not examining the evidence.
Alternatively, some point and click games have such high expectations of their players that it borders on insanity. Some of these logical leaps are impossible to solve without a walkthrough. Worse than the afformentioned filler-cookie puzzle was an instance in one of the Ankh games: I needed to open a door. To do this, I was expected to cook a couscous dish. Nowhere, in any of the locations was anything in relation to couscous to be found. The solution? Use the sawdust next to one of the buildings as a replacement for couscous and then "cook" the dish. Where was my deus ex machina, my scripted event, to tell me that sawdust was a perfect couscous replacement?
All of this to refer back to the start. In "A Study in Scarlet" Sherlock states that it is "easier to know it than to explain why [he] know[s] it". A detective game might expect leaps that we'll never make, it might provide too much information thinking its solution is too complex; It will never be able to know how little or how much its player actually needs to solve the case.
In the end, I was able to solve the case of the secret salami quickly, but throughout it all I had a pretty good time. The shorter runtime preventing any unnecessary padding. Furthermore, the length of the game perfectly allows for the mystery to take the main stage.
The focus on solving the dedu(k)tions in favour of random puzzles was something I personally enjoyed, though I do believe that the means of deducing in games is still in need of refinement.
Overall, this game was able to deliver its noir-esque tale beautifully and left me with a craving for other mystery solving, or detective games - and luckily enough… while writing this piece they’ve announced the Miles Edgeworth Investigations collection. It’s time to return as a prosecutor and solve these murders using the one true lawyer power: Logic.
These are just some of my thoughts after having played yet another mystery solving game. I like them. However, the main question remains: “How can one translate the brilliance of a detective, of a character like Sherlock Holmes, into a gameplay mechanic that remains interesting and fun?”. Now, this topic has been further explored by Mark Brown on his YouTube channel Game Maker's Toolkit.
For anyone interested in the different ways people have tried to create their detective games - Mark succinctly summarises the positives and negatives of these different formats.
References:
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan. Study in Scarlet and the Sign of Four. Dover Publications, 2012.
