Cool! I’ll try and do that after I finish up Lucy’s add-ons (and just revamp that entire section 'cause boy howdy now that I’m looking at it I’m remembering why I put,
right before that section begins.
Will do! I’m probably going to leave the Ricky part alone for right now because, as you said, that’s pretty much entirely made up of talking to Lucy.
I’m writing in some more sections for Lucy right now as responses, so hopefully that’ll help.
Yay! I’m glad you enjoy it. One thing that I really want to be my goal with this story is to do just that, and have a bunch of tinier conversations that the MC can find and/or stumble upon that can change the story in some way, if only in how the reader thinks about the characters and situations. (And some of them will have a larger effect than others, of course…)
But I kinda like the idea of tucking them away into these tiny not-quite-so-obvious corners, even if it means most people might not find them or read them I just like the idea that these snippets of information are hidden away, and could help the MC out later on.
So what I have sorta planned and try to do with these different paths is kinda like what I did in the beginning of the game where you chose to go to a restaurant, go research, or contact Finley. Each will provide information but the key is that they provide different kinds of information. And also it depends on what each MC emphasizes. So… yes, it is on purpose… But I wouldn’t say that one provides more info than the other, it just provides a different kind.
So short answer: Yes
Long answer: Using the Ricky-or-QnA example, [spoiler]going with Ricky allows the reader to get more clues into the MCs past, and more information about Raf/Lucy. Granted, the latter of these two isn’t anything directly stated but the MC can start to get an idea about Raf/Lucy’s coming role in the game. Also, depending on your choices, the reader can start to learn more about why the MC reacts so… negatively, to seeing Raf/Lucy again. And a bit more as to why the MC is working for The Rust to begin with.
The QnA, on the other hand, provides information that has to do with the MC’s case, as well as the opportunity to get some extra information that wouldn’t be available otherwise (i.e. the key to question 3 which will come in again once I write the end of the QnA session).
Yolanda’s interview, while not written yet, is planned to also have more to do with the MC’s case… or learn more about Yolanda herself.
So it all very much depends on what the reader/MC wants to focus on. Do they want to focus more on the MC’s past? Ricky will provide the most information there. Are they more concerned with the case? Well, either interviewing with Yolanda or going to the QnA will help there. Do they want to focus on more personal relations? Yolanda’s one on one or meeting Raf/Lucy with Ricky might be good there. Or are they more concerned with the MC’s own past and troubles, and want to know more about why the MC works for The Rust? Raf/Lucy can provide some insight as to that.
Granted, none of this is obvious when you make the original choice of how you want to get to the party. But by that same vein, I don’t really want it to be? A big part of the game, both in the surface-reporter-story and in the more hidden nuances like this, is about finding information that’s hidden without any clues, developing your own leads, detective-style stuff like that.
That, and it is, admittedly, kind of fun to see what people choose and run into, on purpose or on accident.
Some that are like this will be more obvious- like the first choice. Researching and talking to Finley are pretty obvious choices for an MC who’s concerned about the story, going to a restaurant to eat, on the other hand,
doesn’t exactly help you investigate… But that works well for an MC who’s main priority isn’t just the stories.[/spoiler]
I hope that helps!
Hmm… though you do give me an idea:
I already had variables in the background that would set the contradictions as true and then just use those instead of the question booleans if the whole ‘choose which contradict each other’ model didn’t work out. As of right now, those contradiction booleans are just kinda floating in space not providing any purpose.
But maybe I change it, so that they’re set true after the MC points out the contradictions, and then I can add a little extra text (or maybe even the option to recall her previous contradictions) in order to back up the MC’s point and perhaps even change the outcome a little bit?
Ex. Something that wouldn’t be considered suspicious if the MC asks before they point out the contradiction that might seem suspicious after would hurt the MC if they choose it first, but help the MC if they choose it after the contradiction (because that way they can point out its similarities to her previous lie).
Sounds like some good ideas. I’m gonna re-go-through that bit and see what I can mess with to make it a little better.
Oh yes, she might very much try to do that…
And it might very much backfire on her. Or on anyone from the MCs college days that is…
Whoops! I’ll need to fix that up.
So… a cat burglar?
Back in the golden age of ads.
Of course! How could I be so silly?
At the same time. Having every other word be from the good news portion.