I have a dilemma. As a confirmed 'make it up as I go along' type, I'm developing a number of alternative paths in my game, all of which offer various perils and/or rewards.

But now I'm wondering if all these different paths should converge at various points, giving the player chance to access all locations, rather than missing out chunks of the map just because they chose a particular path early on.

Pros for this I've just mentioned, but the con is that they could feasibly end up going round in one huge circle. Of course one path will eventually lead to the goal/finish, but if they fail to take this, the round-in-circles scenario may occur.

Would be interested to hear your various approaches.

All paths converge to a similar goal/game completion.

XanMag wrote:All paths converge to a similar goal/game completion.

I don't think you've understood... or probably I didn't explain well.

I'm not talking about having multiple goals/ends, I mean do you have the various paths that lead there, converge at various points, or do they remain totally separate routes to the same goal?

See attached.

Oh. Separate paths for sure. It's adds a bit of drama to your choice.

That is, as long as it doesn't drastically change the course of the game. If you mean ... I find the sword instead of the hammer... or the chest with gold versus the dreaded "Mimic" chest... or the plate armor or the bone shield... then, I'm 100% in for the separate paths. If you mean the choice will consequently hide cool things that enhance your game, then they should converge.

I would DEFINITELY prefer option #1. Yes, you run the risk of the player getting in a loop, but converging paths make it just as easy to get back out of one. In the second option, choices made early on eliminate much of the game from being accessible at all. The only time I would ever want totally separate paths is if they are mutually exclusive; say one path where a character lives and another where they die. Obviously you don't want to player to loop around and do both for something like that, but so long as going down multiple paths isn't illogical in-game, I'd let players have the freedom to wander.

obviously, it depends on your game design, both methods can work well for excellent games, but the game has to be built around it, and built very well around it. For example, if you want a game with replay value, than obviously you want them to choose a different path (thus a different game) each time. If your game features unique character builds, then if you got separate paths, you're going to need them to be equal for each of the different character builds a person may use: you don't want a person playing an archer taking the left path, which only has stuff for a barbarian character. There's just a ton of such variables, so it's a bit moot to discuss such a topic. There's just too many factors involved.

That said, in general, and for me personally, I like divergent~separate~unique paths, as it feels like it's many games in one, but I also in regards to each individual paths, I prefer more forced (linear) paths than openness of play (HK looks at Morrowind), too (though if done well they give the illusion of more freedom~openness).

----------------

also, are you refering to physical paths in the game (maze, rooms traversed) vs story~plot paths ??? As obviously these are very different things.

if you're interested in story~plot path ideas... an example:

http://luct.tacticsogre.com/valeria.html

from a game and website that I like, hehe

jdpjdpjdp wrote:I would DEFINITELY prefer option #1.

I think this is where I lean, too. If only because the thought of cutting off two-thirds of my game saddens me.

It's all an illusion anyway, isn't it? None of it really matters. Sure, you can create a bunker which can only be accessed if you found and picked up the torch at the last location, but not being able to enter that bunker isn't going to mean the player can't finish the game.

... or should it?

As a player I'd prefer #1 too, though as an author I can see where that could be a nightmare trying to cover every eventuality. The difference to me is something like an open game like Morrowind vs one where the player is kept on a path following breadcrumbs. One gives more freedom and encourages poking around and experimentation to decide on a path, the other's more of a controlled experience. Not necessarily a bad thing, but a different feel.

OurJud, we're going to do an experiment now to try and ease you into the greater IF community. Some of them are set in their ways and talk out of their asses, just like in any internet community, but many times there's a lot of good recommendations or advice on game design that can be had by people who have a lot of experience under their belt. Go here: http://www.intfiction.org/forum/ and ask for a list of games with multiple paths, either on a map that's wide open or cuts off paths as you go. Might be useful for you to look into or read discussion on the process there. I know there's been a few high profile ones over the years, but All Hope Abandon by Eric Eve is the the only one that jumps to my mind at the moment.

Not sure what you mean by every eventuality. I'm just making sure the rooms which contain any form of interaction have a 'second visit' description. Not sure what else I need to worry about.

As for the IF community, I may dive in one day

The player having access to different paths will mean different puzzles and different objects, won't it? The headache in a more open world comes in suddenly having lots of objects available the player is assuming will have a use, or lots of puzzles they're assuming will need to be solved to progress, when neither is the case. It means covering all kinds of 'why can't this object meant to be used on this puzzle be used on THIS puzzle instead' situations, and it takes some care to keep them pointed in vaguely the right direction and not just wandering in circles.

Since Morrowind's been used as an example...well, lots of people loved Morrowind, but lots of people were utterly overwhelmed by it too. You'd be surprised at how many went running off and got lost and never could figure out how to get back on track because they forgot or didn't pay attention when told to deliver the package, or they couldn't figure out how to find Caius altogether.

What is this Morrowind? Is it on the textadventure page?

OurJud wrote:What is this Morrowind? Is it on the textadventure page?

OurJud, you are dead to me.

(you n'wah)

Ive since discovered it's one of the Elder Scrolls games, but why are people still going on about it when Skyrim is the latest , and so much better from what I can see.

Because Morrowind was TES' breakout game, and probably the first most people played, which got them hooked, buying the next Oblivion, and now with Skyrim.

a good site for TES games:

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Morrowind

I wish I was younger, I'd love to be playing TES games 24/7, sighs.