> My question for Sam is, how much latitude should we take in interpreting what constitutes a "win"? Can we define it loosely as "satisfactory closure" to the story? In that case you could use a "win" sequence to describe a tragic ending to the game that's really more like a "losing" scenario.
>
> Of course, you wouldn't want to make a "losing" ending short and unsatisfying; it should have the same buildup and climactic energy given to its tragedy as a traditional win has for its positive ending.

As far as the engine and my guidelines about AGL games go, yes, this is acceptable to a degree. The engine is capable of doing this, and assuming all issues of gameplay are resolved, I don't have a problem with a game being constructed such that one way to win is made impossible so long as another is still possible.

However, note that the engine will display "You won! Congratulations! Your name has been added to the hall of fame for this game," following your "win" text, and that has to make sense in the context of the particular "win" the player just made. Secondly, the player's name will indeed be added to the hall of fame on a win, and there will be no distinction in the hall of fame between a player who won the game via one way and those who won the game via another. So your endings may be different, but they should be somehow "equivalent."

As far as gameplay issues are concerned, there are a few other problems. One is what Stephen already posted in response to this -- the game has to be constructed so that players aren't going to mind redoing the parts that are common to all endings. Two, all endings should be somehow satisfactory. That doesn't preclude tragic endings, but it does make it difficult to pull off. If some endings are tragic and others aren't, I would also think you'd want to indicate that to the player up front (in the instructions?) or something. But that's a comparatively minor matter.