I shall be honest: I was looking forward to ‘Martian Job’ until I read the line about ‘start a revolution and topple the government’
I had a similar problem with Mysteries of Baroque: I loved the game until it became clear we are not only connected to the ancient gods, but also the only one able to save the world
It’s always a matter of taste, yes, but personally I am rather tired of games that go BIG when small would have done too.
What about you?
Which games did you love up until they went too big or too small for what you expected/hoped for?
And is this an issue for you at all?
When should a game go big, when small?
I don’t even reach the ending of the martial job. It is boring. They try so hard sell a story about Poor miners and something about Communism or bombs…
I pay for a Casino heist game casino heist is a small scene of five minutes… Then game became a totally different stuff about Save people and ideals and blah blah blah. I just stopped reading half way
Games have to have sense Not change theme half way. I don’t want a transcendent political game if i am trying to play Ocen eleven. It has no sense with first chapters.
Games should have a thematic and coherent structure not change in middle like they run out ideas. I prefer a 50,000 game with sense and about steal a Casino to a 150,000 that changes in the middle and became slow just to add wording
When it starts big. A “big” plot needs a “big” buildup in tension, and unless the game is giving 300,000 readable words per playthrough (which would require what, five or six million words total, including code?) there isn’t enough content to start small and build all the way up to the grand scale.
There is if author are made sagas. As @Cataphrak or @Havenstone that’s the only way to make a big deep game about politics, religion wars etc. You can’t in 150,000 or 300,000 alone it will feel rushed
I enjoy being able to make big changes to the world if it fits with the game. Haven’t played The Martian Job yet, but my favourite CoGs start out on a smaller scale and grow in scope and consequences through the game. I don’t think I’ve played one where the stakes seemed too grow too much - I like the progression.
maybe.
I love stories that go BIG after a build-up. But that’s the thing: With Baroque I felt like said built-up was missing.
Compare it if Fallen Hero or CCH, or Aetherfall or Heart of the House:
There’s built-up, you know something big will be coming, you’ve been working towards it. There’s a constant ‘there’s more’ feeling.
When a game puts the world at stake out of left field and goes ‘only you can save it’ there’s (to me) a sense of disconnect.
A different example is Hero Unmasked. The ending stays remotely small, but there’s the sense that it will become bigger unless you stop it. (I’d use another game as additional good example, but that one’s not out yet)
Many people prefer it big n’ juicy. I’m content with small ones. Less work. Same satisfying result.
On a serious note…
I think for a long game with nearly 1,000,000 words or so. The plot better be ass-big with many subplots to keep the reader entertained. Smaller games that tend to press the conflict more than it really is, seems pretty pointless to me since there is a set objective to accomplish. After that, what’s next? Some authors try to incorporate more content past the main conflict like defeating the big bad, and turns out there’s an even more OP big bad (Supposedly). But it is endgame and you probably have a finished stat line and can curbstomp them with a simple set of choices making it a severely underwhelming plot twist. Or your MC gets their ass handed to them and blacks out making the reader feel like it’s inevitable. That the first part of the story spent preparing for the final obstacle was wasted, and that time could’ve been spent elsewhere. When authors try to bite off more than they can chew that’s when it goes downhill.
Games with smaller plots can be rather bland and have little replayability which is why the choices must be an absolute priority of differences. Authors who make bigger plots and stories have the leisure to throw in flavor text and options that don’t really matter except at certain points where you, the reader, are exposed to part of the conflict. A way to remedy this is to separate your game into portions (series) if you don’t think you can handle it in one book without retconning to much and turning your reader off. Honestly, having a small plot to work with, where you can finish everything you need the reader to know to set up for the next book where you can go all out may be easier for you. I don’t know, everyone is different.
OP I don’t think your issue is the size or how grand the plot is. But how poorly and rushed it is written that overwhelms you at once.
Personally, I do not care much if an ending was “big” or “small”. What I do care about is that the ending does fit in with the overall plot of the story that I read through and tie up all loose ends that has been popping out throughout the story, unlike that Hero Project game.
I like both big and small endings, but I usually wince when I see “start a revolution and topple X” in the bulleted list. What that says to me is that the game has an unsatisfyingly shallow revolution plot, or will interrupt whatever the main plot is when I’m not playing a revolutionary to try to convince me to be one, or both.
And… well, this is something I’d like changed but know other people would probably hate being changed so I’m not going to insist, but a lot of the time in those games I run into choices where I’m vaguely annoyed an option is being offered. When I play a loyalist the whole game and get to the climax, I don’t want to even have an option to suddenly join the rebellion that I’ve previously at most not actively turned over to the authorities. It’s not just that I don’t want to take it, I don’t feel like it even makes sense to be able to. Especially when the climax is some kind of external threat; it doesn’t feel believable that my character would even consider the possibility.
That’s not a request for a change; I really wouldn’t want to take the option away from any player who does take it, but it feels as out of place as if a romance game had an option to go to the bar, go to the dance floor, or set the building on fire. Except if I got that option there’s a chance I’d take it because I want to know where this goes.
Where do you like to be “locked into” a character trajectory in terms of what choices are offered–about halfway through, even earlier, or just not in the climax?
YES If my character says five times in a row that doesn’t care rebellion and only want steal money and be famous. I wnt stop receiving choice fter choice after speech WHY DON’T YOU JOIN OUR FIGHT? character doesn’t want that.
it feels cheap and like game is trying to FORCE me down a path
Yeah, five times is a lot. I would like it if one of those turncoat choices is phrased something like “Abruptly, the truth dawns on you. You are one of the rebels after all.”
Something that acknowledges the about-face would be nice in the choice text.
I actually like it when I’m able to make a choice that’s out of character near the end of a story. To use your example…If after an entire game of remaining loyal to the state even in light of the abuse of power or whatever else, the climax of the story also being the moment when I’ve seen one crime too many and have to finally reject them could be a very satisfying moment.
That’s really what an ending needs to be (for me). Satisfying. All the threads of the plot have to come together in the climax, and be somehow resolved. Every ending I’ve ever hated has either been one that left too many threads hanging, or one that separated the resolution from the climactic moment.
No specific answer, really; it’s just that I always want to feel like all the options that aren’t greyed out make sense as the next step of the story so far. With the rebellion as a subplot, if my character has been basically ignoring it to focus on the main plot, what would make them reconsider at the exact moment the main plot is most urgent? That’s an answerable question, so it’s not an invalid choice to offer, but usually the times when it bothers me are when I’ve been playing a character who doesn’t even care about whatever’s motivating the rebellion.
It depends how is asked . but normally yes. You are negating my agency if I say no in all the options in all dilogues with all ncs … you re trying hard railroad me to the path you think is better. Is a typical if error
Late enough to have an idea what kind of conflict each trajectory may face, to choose between them. Early enough to avoid building tension in the “wrong” trajectory (thus sabotaging the trajectory actually chosen).
The end of the first act seems like a sensible time to do it, for narratives using a three-act structure. Introduce the setting. Meet the characters. Get a grasp of the motivations and goals in play. Hit the “inciting incident”, make (or rather finalize) a choice, and run with it. Something like that seems pretty good to me.
Same here. And I think for me, the ending has to follow the progression of the story. For example…
The Martian Job: Spoilers
For my first playthrough, I played an ex-con main character who didn’t care about anything except for focusing on the job and getting money. The character didn’t care about politics or personal matters and spent time casing the casino and making sure the team worked well together in order to have a better chance at pulling off the heist. The ending I got fit the “meh” attitude perfectly insofar as I was back on Earth, I got paid, and didn’t give a crap about what anyone else was doing, lol. So, I liked that ending!
