There are experimental mechanics that bring player and protagonist together but still tell a story (but I think the story should be the game exactly as it was played; the experience of the player in playing the game, should be the only story the designer wants to tell — otherwise one is obliged to go into allegory and representation).

Wow, a lot of this text was unnecessary. tl;dr, this game wasn’t interactive in one way at least, the player could not affect any of the outcomes. I would argue that its irony came from its indirectly telling a story, from the world of storytelling and not from that of games.

ie, consumer as agent vs. consumer as spectator don’t seem to mix, at least most storytelling games have them both without mixing them; dramatic irony comes squarely from the latter aspect of a game. (BUT, I just realized that it would only be necessary to give the consumer the sense or illusion that she is an agent. If she believes it then it’s true. Maybe I was so hell-bent on analyzing the game that I didn’t actually play it?)

Wow. Now I will read other comments, just because. nobody mentioned six inappropriate choices: I would still argue that this situation separates the protagonist (at least the idea of a protagonist presented by the game) from the player; the player herself cannot say something sincerely while knowing that it’s inappropriate. She instead is in a situation where she knows what to do, but is prevented from doing it by an artificial constraint imposed by the game. (That reminds us of a twine-like that would mix story and game: the player is given four inappropriate options because the protagonist only has four inappropriate options, and the predicament of the player and protagonist is becomes one. Could that be dramatic irony?)

I love the idea of two playable protagonists in a game that don’t get to communicate with one another, but I would like to see them influence each others’ actions more. No-one has done this really since Day of the Tentacle (please tell me if I’m wrong!)

For example the start of Half Life – you know the “failed experiment” trope, and expect that the experiment will fail – but you can’t stop it.

Maybe recognizing a familiar story (that’s a retelling of Romeo & Juliette! Protagonist, stahp!) can also count – but I don’t remember this in a game.

I feel compelled to comment on Steven Poole’s quote, however. I feel it’s somewhat anachronistic, and it only applies to a limited definition of “videogame”. I would argue that it only fully holds true if the protagonist has no established personality of their own, and when the game never deviates from the player’s perspective. Any game with cutscenes automatically opens up the option for dramatic irony, though you could argue that at that moment, it’s a film and not a game. A game with multiple protagonists, as you have established, also enables it, as does any “meanwhile, in another part of the kingdom…” type scene. Indeed, even with the most silent, blank protagonists, it’s possible to create a disparity between the character and the player. Half-Life 2 is a good example of this.

Also, it occurred to me that this whole idea is ripped straight from Tintin.