So much interactivity

[Indestructible antilope]

I started working on my first game last week, though I didn't know this back then as I just intended it to be nothing more than a way for me to get to know the software.


Yesterday, however, I began to realise that it's beginning to look like an actual game and it might turn out pretty decent.


Now, it's still early stages but my initial idea was to see how much interactivity I could cram into a short game and the answer turns out to be: a lot.


In my game, every single thing the player does has a significant effect on both story and gameplay, which means it will get exponetially more difficult to make the further I get


I currently have over 50 events with most of them having at least 10 tabs, in addition to 30 switches and probably over a thousand lines of dialogue, even though on a single playthrough you would only see a fraction of this depending on your choices. And all of this on barely four maps with an estimated playtime of 5 minutes.


What do you guys think? Am I getting in over my head?

 

[Kes]

This is a borderline case for moving - actually merging with another thread, Features Feedback.


This could be a general discussion about interactivity and its implications, limits etc.  OR it could be feedback on your specific game.  If it's specific, it doesn't belong here.  Am I correct in thinking that you want a focused bit of feedback, or are you looking for a more wide-ranging discussion?

 

[Indestructible antilope]

Why can't it be both?


Even though it's technically about a game, I thought it was rather general considering it's more about the limits of the interactivity of RMMV than it is about a specific feature or gameplay element.


It's basically two questions:


Are so many story paths a good thing?


Am I crazy for trying?

 

[taarna23]

Here's a thought experiment - take a flow program of your choice - something you can make branches in and plan things out. Start at where plot points start diverging and branch out each time. See how complex it gets and decide if this is something you can/want to do.

 

[Indestructible antilope]

I already have a broad outline of which story branches will appear, but honestly, I like to improvise and build the story while I'm working on the game.


I'm used to writing and plotting in my other, non game related projects and generally prefer the flexibility and control I have when no definitive decisions have been made, so for me it would be counterintuitive to map everything out at the start.


I'm more worried over how I could take things too far. Right now I have a switch or variable on pretty much everything the player could choose to do, so that the game can adapt and react to every decision taken, no matter how minor. So far it's going great, but I could see myself getting to the point were this becomes a nightmare as I progress further. Either way, it won't be a long game in any case as I don't see a single playthrough lasting any longer than an hour.


I'd just like to know some opinions about how much interactivity would be exciting to play. Would most players even care about the (very likely) dozens of different story branches?

 

[taarna23]

I think you'll have to strike a balance between meaningful storyline changes that actually impact things in the game (do I kill Magus, or let him join the party?) and ones that only really have minor changes. You don't want to overwhelm both yourself and your players. A lot of these kinds of things are about the illusion of choice. Do you choose to join the enemy side, or leave with your party? Maybe joining the enemy side has them try to kill you and your party rescues you, having you leave with them anyway. Same result, a little extra cutscene-ing, but it still leaves players with a feeling that they made a choice that affected things. Not ALL choices need to branch very far.


To keep players engaged, have some choices result in different endings (Chrono Trigger did this, hence it being on my mind when replying).

 

[Indestructible antilope]

Well, I'm not crazy enough to have every single decision turn into an alternate storyline. On the other hand, I'm sometimes annoyed when a game has fake decisions, especially when you do a second playthrough where they stand out like a sore thumb.


But I think I could still get away with, say, 4-8 different story branches with each having a couple of different paths and at least two endings per storyline. On top of which there would be differences in how the player interacts with npc's based on decisions made early in the game. Only thing is it would effectively have the content of a 20 hour game, while only being an hour long.


If it gets a bit much, I have the option of scaling back some things, so maybe I shouldn't worry about it for now and just see how far I can take the idea.

 

[BigToastie]

I think taarna hit the nail on the head, each choice doesn't necessarily stem off to its own end. 


Different choices can lead back to the same scenario, but you would get there by different means (again taking taarna's example).


It also entirely depends how organized and motivated you are to do something on this, as its more making sure everything works in the end that will take up your  time (does one choice suddenly break the game where you can't progress any further etc.)


All projects are worth undertaking as long as you personally feel that they will lead to the outcome you want!

 

[Indestructible antilope]

Yeah, I'll just see where it goes.


But I kinda wanna avoid the fake decisions as much as I can.

 

[cabfe]

If it's the core gameplay of your game, there's nothing wrong in having a 5 minute game with plenty of alternate paths. There are a few of them available, although they look more like technical demos rather than true games due to their extremely short length.


However, if you're making, say, a role-playing game, it's probably too much. This kind of game focus more on combat and exploration, even though choices and consequences are always welcome. It's a matter of balance at this point.


If you're working on many branches and consequences, be sure to prepare everything in advance and not add them on-the-fly, as this could lead to inconsistencies and plot holes in the story later on.


Also, this may not apply to you but keep in mind that choices need to have a meaning. You can put choices like "Eat an orange or a pear?" but this not very interesting for the player. Choices like "Save or kill?" are better received.


As a general rule, if you need to pause and think, it's a good "choice".

 

[Indestructible antilope]

I have a pretty good track record with writing on the fly. Up to the point where I've been asked how I managed to plan all of it in advance even though I was making it up as I go along, so I don't think (hope?) that's going to be an issue. But as I've said earlier, I do have a general idea of where a lot of things may end up going


There will be exploration and combat in nearly every storyline, but some choices may end up with less or more of each, depending on the logic behind each decision. I'm not just thinking about branching 'save or kill' options, I'm talking about every decision, no matter how minor, having some sort of effect later in the game. This doesn't have to be anything huge, it could just be optional dialogue paths or minor references at some point. I just want the player to feel as though everything he did mattered (Although I've yet to write anything like the orange/pear dilemma, I may reserve the right to do so in reference to you).


But, yes, it will require a lot of double, triple, even quadruple checking to make sure there aren't any major mistakes in any potential storyline. I've already added several hidden features for myself to make playtesting easier, so I am sort of planning ahead in some aspects: I have a 'warp drive' that can transport me to any map I like without having to go there manually, in addition to a control map which allows me to set certain switches and variables at will (in fact, working on that right now).