I really like the choice format. I used to like Twine games, but for some reason the scattered hyperlinks bother me too much now . I’ve also never been much of a fan of parse games. I prefer the one with more story than exploration.
But all power to the author! All I’m trying to say is that I wish CoG would upgrade the engine with some features long asked for . Like proper arrays (and other data structures), proper loop syntax, more option to format the text, etc.
I think a nice feature would be the possibility to easily overlay images. Imagine a fantasy world map where I could change the character token to display on top of the city they’re currently at. Or a character creation like that of Choices that allows me to pick face, hair and clothes separately because they’re different layers superimposed.
That’s not to abandon the text-based nature of these games, just to increment them a little bit.
By the way, what you think is the differentiator of your engine? Twine gives more control, but I don’t like its format. The text gets scattered, each node is basically a few sentences long. I like the idea of visualizing the story as a graph. I don’t like the idea of only visualizing the story as a graph. Choice script on the other hand is too limited and the syntax is too verbose. It kind of gets under my skin sometimes. I feel like I’m trying to hack it instead of actually doing what i wanted to. Inform, ink, tads, they get further and further away from what I’d like in an engine game. They serve other purposes and other authors.
I think the perfect one would somewhere between ChoiceScript and Twine. I’ve thought of writing an engine myself, but that would be too much of a detour .
Maybe use a restructuredtext engine like Sphinx with a custom Plugin. That doesn’t sound so bad…
Good luck and keep us posted! There’s definitely room for more game engines.