GAME LINK
https://shirleyjwei.itch.io/the-last-light
OVERVIEW
This game is a nuclear apocalypse survival interactive fiction where players navigate a post-disaster world, making critical decisions in order to reach the safety zone and survive. As the game progresses, the challenges of handling radiation exposure, scarce resources, and the hesitancy between moral and survival decisions add suspense and intensity. The protagonist is forced to confront an imminent survival crisis, where each choice leads to the outcome. Survival or Death is in the player’s hand.
I was inspired by a game I played before that left a deep impression on me. The thrill of balancing survival and moral dilemmas in a world teetering on the edge of collapse was unforgettable. In that game, survival often meant making choices that went against one’s ethics. What struck me most was that when players believed they had made it to the end, an unexpected yet logical twist would happen, leading to their ultimate downfall. It was a thought-provoking ending that lingered with me.
Hence, when I started designing this game, I was initially drawn to the idea of a no-survivor ending. But when I went along, I realized that not everyone enjoy the unexpected endings. For example, in the reviews of that game I played, many players expressed frustration that if all paths lead to death, it felt like a waste of time to play.
Therefore, I designed three general types of endings for this game.
- Death；
- Let players think they’ve survived only to face an unforseen event leading to death；
- A true survival ending.
Throughout the story, I’ve incorporated character skills and a countdown element to heighten the tension. Players must overcome physical limitations and navigate deep emotional connections, and their choices will affect not only their survival but also the relationships among the characters.
PLAYTEST & HISTORY VERSIONS OF GAME
I conducted 9 playtests.
Playtest 1:
The first “playtest” took place on October 19. I received feedback from Amy. She said, “Nuclear fallout stories thrive on moral choices. Survival can push people to their limits, forcing them to decide whether to save themselves or help others. These decisions can add depth to the story and reveal the characters’ true natures.”
At the same time, she offered three main suggestions. First, “You could add a survival element where players have to manage limited resources like food, water, and clean air. How they distribute or hoard these resources could impact relationships with other survivors and shape the story’s outcome.” Second, “Let the player decide who to trust, knowing that every decision could lead to safety or ruin. Maybe some survivors are slightly altered by exposure, leading to physical changes or enhanced abilities—this could create tension between ‘normal’ and ‘mutated’ humans.” Finally, she suggested, “You can embed the titles into the story or use more ambiguous or neutral wording in the option title. For example, ‘Trust the stranger’ instead of ‘Follow the stranger.’”
Revision 1:
Based on Amy’s suggestions, I modified the ambiguous or neutral wording in the titles and options. I think her idea to add survival elements is great and could make the game much more engaging. However, I noticed that the foundational storyline logic in my game is not yet very tight and smooth. So, before moving on to more complex plot elements, I plan to first refine the basic storyline to ensure it flows smoothly and makes sense.
Playtest 2:
The second game test took place on October 20. The playtester was Zed, a PhD student in Education at the University of Valencia in Spain, currently a visiting scholar at Stanford.
He said the game was enjoyable and the storyline was interesting. But he felt the story was a bit short, reaching the ending quite quickly. When Zed was playing the game, I also noticed that some options directly show “Ending,” which alerts the player prematurely, signaling, “If you choose this option, it means you’re reaching the end.” Because of this, Zed responded similarly—when he saw the “Ending” option appear, he remarked, “Is this the end already? I wanted to keep playing, so I’ll choose a different option,” and avoided that ending by selecting another path. Additionally, Zed shared his thoughts on the story outcome: “Leaving John behind and surviving with Lisa is the most reasonable ending, as the younger sister is the smallest, lightest, and consumes less food. In an apocalypse, it makes sense to prioritize her.” Regarding the ending, Zed and I had similar ideas. He suggested, “What if everyone dies in the end, with the only ‘good’ ending being where ‘I’ survive and reach a safe zone? There could be a follow-up twist—although food is plentiful, greed leads to chaos within the safe zone, making it no longer safe, and ‘I’ end up dying as well.”
Revision 2:
Based on Zed’s feedback, I first adjusted some of the option titles so players wouldn’t know the story is ending before they click. This allows them to make choices without being influenced by the ending indicator. Additionally, I took the bold step of incorporating my originally envisioned “no survivors” ending.
Playtest 3:
The third game test was conducted in class on October 21, with Gracielly as the playtester. She raised the word count and the narrative formation. She mentioned that the text is a bit too lengthy, with long paragraphs that can make players reluctant to read. She suggested condensing the narrative and presenting it in sequential segments. As for the ending, she personally preferred a mix of good and bad outcomes, she thought if all the endings are negative, it can feel too bleak.
Revision 3:
The main change this time was to structure the narrative so that it unfolds one paragraph at a time with each click (click:?page). This adjustment made the story’s pacing more concise and readable, encouraging players to continue. I kept the “no survivors” ending for now, as I’d like to gather more feedback before deciding whether to reintroduce some of the original endings.
Playtest 4
Grace joined the fourth playtest. She felt the game currently has too many instances where the player dies easily. She suggested adding a blood-bar feature, where the character loses health points gradually and can regain some in specific scenarios. Regarding the ending, Grace also expressed a preference against the “everyone dies” outcome.
Revision 4:
Following Grace’s feedback, I decided to bring back the original positive ending. Although the “all characters die” outcome is unexpected, having at least one positive ending gives players the motivation to keep playing.
Playtest 5:
Amy provided feedback again, noting, “It would be clearer if the choices appeared simultaneously rather than one at a time, as the current setup might confuse players about whether multiple options are available. To integrate choices more seamlessly into the narrative, consider phrasing them within the context of the character’s internal dialogue, like, ‘You’re unsure if you want to do XYZ or maybe ABC.’ This approach can give more insight into the player’s emotional state. Additionally, some descriptions feel a bit generic—adding more depth to the player’s feelings or intensifying the scenario could give it more impact. Using dialogue instead of just describing emotions could also make the story feel more realistic and engaging.”
Revision 5:
Following Amy’s suggestions, I added more interaction between characters and worked on deepening the player’s emotional engagement. However, I couldn’t find a solution in class to make the choices appear simultaneously. In the end, I adjusted it so that the options appear together with the last part of the narrative to ensure they all show up at once.
Playtest 6:
The sixth game test was conducted in class, with Sam as the playtester. Unlike most players, who chose to go out in search of supplies, he opted to stay home. When faced with the choice to sacrifice a family member, he said, “SO SAD.” He thought the storyline was well written and enjoyed the “aftermath” accident story. He also felt the story setup encouraged replayability, as he wanted to see what choices would lead to survival.
Playtest 7:
The seventh playtest took place on November 1, with James as the playtester. Initially, he chose to go out for food and reached a safe zone, where he saw the “aftermath” storyline. He was intrigued by the unexpected twist and found it engaging. After not surviving the first playthrough, James restarted, choosing to stay home this time. He was shocked by the family member’s sacrifice, though he noted it aligned well with the story’s theme. In the end, he survived and enjoyed the game.
Playtest 8 & 9:
The eighth and ninth playtests were conducted on the evening of November 3, with Justin and Lyn as the playtesters. Justin found the game very enjoyable, particularly appreciating the unexpected endings. He suggested adding images to enhance the experience. Lyn thought the game was interesting, saying that each choice was significant and that the storyline was well-crafted and fit the game’s thematic background.
Revision 6:
I didn’t receive many improvement suggestions from the last four playtests, as most feedback was simply that the game was enjoyable. So, I conducted a final run-through and made minor adjustments to polish the details. Regarding Justin’s suggestion to add images, I chose not to implement it. The narrative sections are already quite lengthy, covering almost the entire screen, leaving little room for images. Additionally, after some research and asking around, I confirmed that Twine doesn’t support image integration. With these final tweaks, this became my last version.
REFLECTION
In creating my nuclear apocalypse survival interactive fiction game, I focused on crafting a storyline filled with suspense, difficult choices, and realistic challenges that players might face in a post-nuclear world. I dedicated significant time to building a layered narrative, ensuring that players felt immersed and invested in the outcome of each decision they made. I also experimented with balancing the urgency of survival with moments that allowed for character development, giving players a chance to connect with the characters’ motivations and dilemmas.
Through this process, I learned a lot about pacing in storytelling. Meanwhile, I learned how to structure decision points effectively to enhance player engagement and to make each choice impactful.
Next time, I will focus more on developing branching story paths and creating more complex game mechanics. I plan to map out multiple paths early in the design phase to enhance gameplay and give players the sense that every choice offers a unique experience. I’ll allocate more time to refining the feedback and consequences players receive after each decision, ensuring they feel the weight of each choice in a way that deepens their experience. I’ll also consider adding engaging game mechanics, such as resource management or a health bar system, to increase both complexity and playability. Additionally, if I have more time, I would love to visualize the game with other software. This would help players avoid the burden of lengthy text and create a more immersive gameplay experience.
