> Sort of a weird concept, but I'm sort of against the idea of having to start a whole new game to see the other endings. I dunno...

I agree that this is a real pitfall of multiple endings, but I still think it's workable, using one of two methods. One is the method you suggest, of having the paths branch off very close to the ending, and coding the game so that it allows players to see all the various endings before actually finishing the game. The other is the method I described a few posts ago in this thread, which essentially takes the opposite approach: if the paths diverge early enough in the game and thereafter each leads to an inexorable outcome, then the player may actually enjoy re-playing the game, because most of it is different the second time around, after that early pivotal moment is reached. As I mentioned before, this would be incredibly difficult to design and code, and would probably double the effort required to produce the game. But to my mind, the game would also then be twice as interesting, and maybe twice as good. Just a thought, and I probably wouldn't attempt doing it myself, at least not anytime soon.

> One bit about my game: StinkWorks Swamp.

Sounds like a blast (although a blast from what region, I'm not yet sure ;-) ). My game design is starting to assume an Edgar Allen Poe-esque form. I'm trying to imbue it with as creepy an atmosphere as possible, and make the unraveling of the backstory the player's biggest objective. We'll see how it goes.

Anybody else? I'm interested in what we're all doing, or contemplating doing.

Iss