I know this has been brought up before, but I thought a poll might be in order (The last thread was over a year ago). I was reading recent reviews on Highway wars, and despite being almost 200,000 words, having a lot of replay value, and an average play through of over 30,000 words, there’s still complaints about the replay value and it being too short. I know that is always going to happen, but it got me thinking again about length vs branching.
So question for everyone who feels like answering, just how much effort do you think authors should be putting into making a game with significant branches? Do you prefer a long game with limited variation, or a shorter one with lots of replay? (You can’t pick long and good replay, because the more words, the longer the playthough is expected to be, so I’m asking you to choose one or the other ) I’m also not talking ones that are super short with wide branching (ie 100,000 words, with only 10,000 playthroughs) or super long with nothing more than flavour text (ie 100,000 word with 90,000 words per play through.) Just your average game that leans one way or the other.
I think something that ties into that, is if you at least half like a game (so excluding those that you read and decide were not something you enjoyed) how many times of average would you play it? (I know there’s a lot of variation there depending on a lot of things, but just approximately.)
How many times would you play a game you didn’t dislike?
- Rarely more than once.
- 2-3 times.
- Until I’ve gotten most/all of the branches.
What style do you prefer if you had to choose one or the other?
- Longer play throughs, less branching. (Longer storyline but potentially less replayability.)
- Shorter play throughs, wider branching. (Less words per story, but better replayability.)