I thought I was weird for doing this, glad it’s not just me.
You may be right in that assessment but for the most part it doesn’t really apply to me. I’m an avid reader that just happens to read fast, that doesn’t mean I skim through the text and hop from choice to choice. I definitely don’t skip on my first playthrough but since I usually only play it once or twice that means I rarely ever reach a point where I want to skim… the issue with this playstyle is that it never really allows me to truly see everything a CYOA-style game has to offer, thus shortening my experience on a game that is already small.
The problem here for me personally is that I enjoy playing visual novels, the longer the better and when you play something akin to the Grisaia series, or any other title meant to offer at least 10 hours of reading in a single playthrough, every other game suddenly feels shorter. Its not a fair comparison I know, but it sets a standard, so when you’re suddenly faced with a 50k word game split into different paths… the difference is noticeable.
All of this is more of a psychological thing for me than anything else, kinda like staring at a tall glass next to a shorter but wider one while both containing the exact same amount of liquid. The former FEELS like it has more when in reality you’d be drinking the same amount from each, no matter the presentation. A game split into more page breaks with more choices would certainly help but at the same time, as Lys has mentioned, wouldn’t do much in the long run because you’d be setting fake choices just to extend a game that otherwise was meant to be short. And that’s no go because it affects quality.
In the end its not really your fault here but my own - buyers all have their own standards and expectations, its unhealthy to expect or even hope to appease them all.
3 Likes
I would say that these two things are very different. The first one is closer to what you were saying about “railroading” – i.e. it’s not bad unless it’s done badly – (unless it’s a case where every choice has only one outcome), but the second is one thing I really dislike. If there’s only one option that will succeed, then it’s not a choice; it’s a guessing game.
3 Likes
Hey! I think I know the conversation you’re referring to. We discussed it on another WIP thread. For those who want more, you can start with this comment and read on.
I’ve really enjoyed the discussion on this thread, though. A lot of valuable input and different viewpoints that have given me a lot to reflect on. More to the main theme, I agree it’s frustrating when a game, whether on the purchase page or the marketing copy for a store, clearly states the word count or that a game only offers a few chapters for free or that it’s part of a series and people still don’t read or understand that and knock down the game’s overall rating for it (the reasons for which CoG as a business or the authors personally might choose a certain way is a whole other discussion I know a lot of us have had on even more threads, lol). Or they just don’t tell you why it got one star at all! But we also have the benefit of understanding what those counts mean that the average non-writer or coder probably does not. And while there may be ways of wording the descriptions differently, I still think that will always be a problem to some extent, even if only for a small percent of our readers. You know, humans on the internet being humans and all. 
7 Likes
I meant games where no matter what you pick, there’s only failure. No matter how good your stats are, no matter what you learned before etc, it won’t matter. The game needs you to fail. Even though the level of how hard you fail varies, it’s still lazy writing.
Especially if said fail involves fridgeing an NPC so the MC get’s motivation. (Why the hecks do writers STILL do that? Seriously, why?)
The second one gets especially bad, imo, when you not only have to GUESS but to also have to have your stats be in a very specific way. I had the feeling that was going on in Evertree, but I might be mistaken. But there are games that pretty much force you to play a very specific way to succeed.
2 Likes
I would say not necessarily. 
It’d probably work best if you could achieve at least a partial success, though, and if it happens near the start of the story, when the MC is less experienced.
Agreed. 
Especially if it’s an RO (or at least someone who was set up as an RO).
That’s pretty much how Krendrickstone works: if your choices always match the ones you’ve made before, you get an okay story; if you slip up even a few times, you get a terribly depressing story about a failure hero who sucks at everything (and yet, for some reason, is still treated as a great and mighty hero…)
2 Likes
Does code matter? Yeah
Is it fair to include code in the word count as if it’s a part of a story? Nope, not at all.
@DesuVult
Coding doesn’t account for as much as some people think it does. It’s probably only 5% of the word count on average, and it’s an integral part of making the story. So it’s the difference between saying the story is 100k long or 95k long. Plus, the average play through lengths given by random test exclude the coding word count, so the readers would have a very accurate estimate of how much story they’re seeing each time they play. (Like 40k, for example.)
6 Likes
Yeah, but that only works for larger games. There are games in Hosted Games that are free to play with ads that only have about 1,000 downloads, so ad revenue isn’t really going to make any money.
2 Likes
Also, ‘mobile gaming is not going to make you pay for a game’? Good joke there. Every ‘larger mobile game’ with ads and microtransactions is designed to be outrageously frustrating at some point unless one does purchase ingame currency. Most ‘larger mobile games’ make the majority of their money through that, not through ads.
3 Likes
For people who use Choicescript, the term “fake choice” is very literal. It means you’re actually using the *fake_choice coding option, in which the player makes a choice that literally doesn’t effect the rest of the game at all. For any other choice that effects stats or branching in any way, even if the change is only minor, you have to use the *choice coding option, which means it’s not technically a “fake choice”.
Stats can be changed with *fake_choice now, I believe (that feature was added some years ago, if I recall correctly). One can also redirect from *fake_choice; I do, sometimes, if I have several options that go into the next paragraph and only one that redirects to elsewhere, for instance.
So I would think that ‘*fake_choice’ and a ‘fake choice’ (which is to say, options which do not affect much, save perhaps a bit of flavour text) are two very different things even in ChoiceScript, at least with the relatively recent titles.
The idea that the definition of ‘fake choice’ could stem from the readers’ perceptions, rather than the choice’s actual function (I think this is sort of what you were saying, @Lys?) is a very interesting one, though. How to make games feel as though choices are important, and how does that intertwine with mechanics, storytelling, and the PC’s attributes?
Thinking through what best gives the illusion of power to a reader is sort of fascinating to me. I wonder if the actual percentage amount of change via *choice or *fake_choice sometimes has less to do with how railroaded a game seems; maybe a lot of it is the other aspects, like where the changes occur, or how starkly the different outcomes contrast.
9 Likes
Shall we agree on ‘treacherous choice’ when we mean ‘fake fake choices’?
1 Like
They can? … How dd I not know this? I need to start using *fake_choice in coding way more! 
2 Likes
I don’t think that’s necessarily true at all. I use a lot of *fake_choice functions for things that have big effects later on. The difference for me is that a *fake_choice choice will usually have a boolean dug into there set true or false that can have some major repercussions later on.
Or I use *fake_choice because while, say, two out of the three possible choices there will redirect the player to an entirely different scenario, the third scenario is directly below, so it cuts out a *goto and just generally makes everything easier for me to reread and edit as I go along.
In fact, I pretty much use mainly *fake_choice functions, with some *goto functions within there but I find that they allow me more freedom and ease of mind when it comes to flow. (Even if *choice would serve essentially the same purpose.)
… Maybe that’s just me.
3 Likes
No you aren’t the only one as I too use *fake_choice Command a lot because of exactly same reasons as yours
1 Like
Lol, I dunno. To me, a “fake choice” is a choice that has absolutely no effect on the rest of the game. Everything else is just a “choice”. Most stories have a set path to follow and the choices people make only effect the stats or the events happening in that particular chapter, but whatever choices people make, the game will still just progress from chapter 1 to chapter 2 to chapter 3. In my experience, it’s quite rare for a COG to have choices that’ll take the game in a completely different direction.
1 Like
But you can *goto from *fake_choice so in my opinion it can’t be called a fake choice.
In fact, (if we’re talking about the Choice Of line COGs), the writing guidelines specifically say not to have choices that don’t take the reader from Chapter 1 to Chapter 2 to Chapter 3, if I remember correctly.
2 Likes
There is no point in having pointed that out, I loterally said that larger games do that. With this in consideration, I never even said that this should be the future for CoG, I simply stated the point that that’s the view on mobile games. It eludes me to why everyone continues to tell me that CoG can’t do that, I’m well aware. I simply am saying that this is just expected from mobile games and that’s why nobody expects to have to pay for a mobile game.