100%. When Twine first appeared, simplicity and ease of use were its main attractions, coupled with the ability to modify the player interface in an infinite number of ways. Now I just find it… confusing. As a beginner I wouldn’t know where to start. But here’s my hot take: the big problem with Twine is the node graph.
I loved Twine when I first discovered it, and I’ve published two Twine games, one medium-sized and one massive. The node-graph was its chief selling point. My first Twine game was adapted from a huge pen-and-paper choice-based game I’d been writing since childhood, and it was fun to see what it actually looked like as a branching story. But the node graph is precisely I won’t use it again. Every single piece of content in a game requires a new node, meaning that the map became very unwieldy, and even my fast, VFX-optimised computer lags when I try to scroll around it.
I’m rewriting that game, for the umpteenth time, in ChoiceScript, which is a much better fit. ChoiceScript is a dream to use, especially when using the unofficial IDE CSIDE. But the inability to change the user interface is limiting. Every ChoiceScript game looks exactly the same.
So I’ve been learning Ink, which in my opinion is the Rolls Royce of choice-based systems. @HanonO once described it to me in an email as “ChoiceScript on steroids.” It’s not as easy to use as ChoiceScript, but the possibilities it offers make me giddy. I’m not sure why it isn’t more popular with authors who use this forum, but perhaps it’s because the learning curve is that bit steeper.
Ink’s co-creator, Jon Ingold explains much better than me why a node graph or flow chart isn’t the best way to think about choice-based IF. These quotes come from Jon’s posts on the Ink Discord server:
I don’t see the flow chart as a selling point for writers who are comfortable with interactivity and branching, since it’s over-simplified. I see it as more of a crutch.
So the line I usually use when trying to explain the point is - a flow diagram is a picture, and picture tells a thousand words - but give a writer a thousand words and they can give you a hundred pictures, and that’s what ink is like.
The format we write in matters. The limit on what a interactive writer can do isn’t down to the computer can handle - computers are fine. It’s down to what the writer can express, and manipulate. And any visual representation becomes a big mess super fast - the simplest weave looks like a massive tangle.