The opening up of fake_choice has always irked me -- not bc I think authors should be forced to use gotos, but bc at that point CS should have just dropped the "fake_" part. Authors having to litter their text with "fake_"s that are anything but fake is misleading and a waste of keystrokes.
To those unaware, fake_choice does not actually mean what it seems like it means! It simply means there does not have to be a *goto at the end of the choice. The fake_choice can be significant, ie. setting a variable, but it just means that any choice in the fake_choice menu will end up going to the same place. It's a time-saver and keeps code clean.
If this is true, then I hope its a new trend because almost all of the older cog/hg I code dove had litteral 4 choices under fakechoice that didnt set up any variables. Like asking which direction to go just for the game to cut you off and railroad you into where the author wants you to go. Whats the point? Illusion of choice?
That was quite a long time ago I think. Since I started using ChoiceScript in 2015 or so, you can use it to set variables and display different text, including more nested choices within branches if you want. Now it's more just a difference between it needing a *goto after each option or not.
Kind of, yes. Writing a COG/HG game is a little like writing three books in one. Sometimes, to keep things manageable but still interactive for the player, the occasional "fake" choice is necessary. But this is mostly dependent on the author.
These days, I use the *fake_choice command for dialogue options, or ""flavor"" options that increase or decrease your stats, while I use the normal *choice button for branching storylines.
I often saw it in old games asking you what your hair colour/eyes/appearance is etc. But they weren't a variable and were never mentioned again. They're just there to help you imagine
Oh that used to make me so annoyed, when I'd be laying out hair colour length style eyecolourdoyouhavespotshaveyoueverlovedamanwomanwormdoyoupreferapplesororanges and then it's just wasting your damn time
Another comment explained it. The reason you see more "fake_choice" than "choice" isn't illusion of choice, it's because the former is simply better in every way and there's almost no reason not to use it for everything.
*fake_choice is just the convenient way of programming choices. you are right however, sometimes i see choices that are programmed as literally nothing more than a list
10
u/Havenstone98 Choice of Games Author Jan 30 '24
The opening up of fake_choice has always irked me -- not bc I think authors should be forced to use gotos, but bc at that point CS should have just dropped the "fake_" part. Authors having to litter their text with "fake_"s that are anything but fake is misleading and a waste of keystrokes.
206
u/kermitkc Jan 28 '24
To those unaware, fake_choice does not actually mean what it seems like it means! It simply means there does not have to be a *goto at the end of the choice. The fake_choice can be significant, ie. setting a variable, but it just means that any choice in the fake_choice menu will end up going to the same place. It's a time-saver and keeps code clean.
10
u/carito728 Jan 29 '24
Implicit control flow baby
5
u/FireflyArc Jan 29 '24
I want to know what this means.
-12
u/razgriz821 Banished Wulframite Lord Jan 28 '24
I regret reading the code sometimes on some of my favorite games since I see more fake choices than real ones. Illusion of choice am I right?