I like that player choices are incorporated into the body of the text. In a way, it seems easier to navigate. The first stealing choice I made was going to the convenient store and stealing chips. I would have loved to read something that created tension, like if there was a spill on the floor or if I accidentally dropped a bag of chips that woke up the clerk/store owner and I had to choose to run or something.
Classroom sequence: I like the options presented, because they both have the potential to contain high value items. I noticed that the weight of the items seems to have an effect. I think this could be a great way to introduce risk into the game, the heavier your bag the more likely you are to get caught. I’m sure theres a way to implement a randomizer after an item is stolen so you don’t have to program whether or not a specific item will trigger a “caught” sequence.
I think a way to incorporate risk through the descriptions is to mention small details that could signal to the player that a choice is riskier than another. Like when going to the school, the player knows the guard is sleeping so choosing to go straight through doesn’t seem as risky. Perhaps if the guard was reading a book the player might be less inclined to go through until they completed the GO AROUND path. Also, this brings into question why the thief wants to steal items from the school. The story could be more direct in saying that the items at the school are worth more so it validates the risk of going to the school instead of the commercial area.
When the shop owner gets suspicious about your behavior, there should be options of what to do. Kinda like in Bethesda RPGs (Skyrim, Fallout series). The options could allude to safer dialogue or it could all be risky and that would heighten the interaction.
“You are standing in front of the gate…”
- “Through” is currently spelled “trhough”
Dorms path: mixture of languages. Was this intentional?
-Kyle W.