Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
What do I consider when choosing 1.x or 2.x?
I just discovered Twine today, and I was excited to give it a try, but I feel like once I hit the download page I was in the middle of an IF game myself. I have to choose between two somewhat incompatible versions right off the bat? That's a bummer. I did some reading, and here's my thoughts. I'd like some feedback from others, or maybe a push in the "just download <<version>> and go, it doesn't matter" direction.
Based on this, I feel like I just want to play with 1.x. It feels like 1.x is a tool focused on helping authors write interactive fiction with minimal coding, and 2.x is a tool focused on helping game developers write interactive fiction with more media/HTML5 experiences. Is there something I'm missing, or is it OK to just pick 1.x and run with it?
- There's lots of tutorial content linked for 1.x, and only some vague "what's different" content for 2.x. It seems the SugarCube story format is a way to use 1.x in 2.x, but I imagine that's a middle-step for converting to Harlowe?
- 1.x is an application that runs on my computer. That means it may or may not work well. 2.x is a file that runs in my web browser. That means I'm at the mercy of the Chrome/Firefox/Safari upgrade cycles that typically break random web pages I frequently use.
- 1.x saves its data in some Twine-specific format. This means I can toss the files in Dropbox and get automatic backups plus some cruddy version control, and if it's text-based I can push it to GitHub for even more redundant backups and versioning. But I can't work on my stuff if a machine doesn't have the application. 2.x stores the data... in browser cookies? So if I want to back things up I need to remember to export, and there's no easy way to sync my work across multiple machines.
- At a glance, it feels like 1.x focused on writing, and doing advanced formatting tasks (which I don't care about) will require me to deal with CSS and JavaScript directly, in ways that I might find frustrating. 2.x has expanded formatting and scripting to first-class concepts, including introducing a new scripting language I'll have to learn, rather than just reuse JS knowledge I've accumulated. (Though it's DOM is more well-documented and laid out!) Maybe this is just how the guides ended up suggesting it, but it's what I feel.
Based on this, I feel like I just want to play with 1.x. It feels like 1.x is a tool focused on helping authors write interactive fiction with minimal coding, and 2.x is a tool focused on helping game developers write interactive fiction with more media/HTML5 experiences. Is there something I'm missing, or is it OK to just pick 1.x and run with it?
Comments
My suggestion would be to read the link I provided above which explains some of the differences between the story formats. Keep in mind that Harlowe is 2.0 specific. SugarCube in 2.0 is similar to 1.4.2. Then jump in and start playing with either version and switch between formats to determine what will best fit your story idea.
If you want to use Harlowe because the syntax looks totally rad to you, use Twine 2. If you think Sugarcane/SugarCube looks majorly bodacious, use Twine 1.
Here are a couple past threads on the question:
Twine 1.4.2 or 2.0.4?
Should I start with Twine 1 or Twine 2?
However, I'm not sure your sentiments about Twine 2 being somehow better able to handle media are correct. From the Twine 2 Guide: "If you'd like to create something that makes heavy use of images, sound, or movies, you may want to stick to Twine 1 for now."
Basically, both Twine 1 and Twine 2 can handle media. Twine 1 can also embed it.
In answer to your first question, SugarCube is a programming language. It's just a plus that its syntax is basically the exact same between Twine versions. It is not at all a middle ground between Harlowe, a totally different language. Harlowe is designed by the mysterious 'L' and SugarCube by the insane TheMadExile. Neither have discoverable real names as they are both on the run from international law enforcement agencies and corporate mercenary forces.
For your third point, yeah, I've had to download Twine 1 at school or on a friend's computer on a couple rare occasions when I wanted to work on a story while not at home or on my laptop. It's a tiny program that takes all of like 45 seconds to download and install so it's not a big deal to me. The fact that I can access Twine 2 with my browser isn't a big plus for me personally since my stories will be saved either on cloud storage or a computer with Twine 1 installed—so if I have access to my stories, I have access to Twine 1.
Twine 2 exports/imports everything in HTML, so that's the file you would throw on cloud storage or thumb drive or whatever. However, Twine 1 can import HTML files compiled by it as well, so there again, there's just not much difference. The big difference in "saving" is that stories in Twine 2 are "saved" to your web browser itself. Here's what the guide has to say about that: http://twinery.org/wiki/twine2:where_your_stories_are_saved
I also prefer the offline format not just for work backups, but it's also easier to directly edit the story header and javascript libraries to do advanced tasks. If you want to put extra story <divs> in your file in 2.0, you have to do it inline via javascript (at least for the browser version), whereas in 1.4.2 you can just edit the story header in the "targets" directory.
For me those are the major pluses going for 1.4.2 that led me to switch.
For the second reason I outlined above I prefer 1.4.2 for a media-heavy story. While Harlowe has some good macros, you can't easily go beyond those. An example is adding an animation plugin like GSAP is simple in 1.4.2, yet difficult in 2.0.
1. The Story Formats:
A story format defines a number of things:
a. The core javascript engine used by the generated story HTML file.
b. The syntax (look) of it's macro language. eg. <<set>> vs (set:)
c. The list of available built-in macros.
d. The structure of the generated HTML and the base CSS used to style that structure.
e. (optionally) How an Author can extend the core javascript engine. eg. Add custom macros.
There are a number of story formats to choose from:
a. Twine 1: Sugarcane, Jonah, Responsive, SuragCube, Snowman, ....
b. Twine 2: Harlowe, SugarCube, Snowman 2, ....
2. The Twine editor:
This is used to edit the passage contents (Text/HTML, CSS, Javascript) of a story project, and to then assemble (Build/Publish) those passages into a story HTML file.
note: For those that like to use command line tools Twine 1 also includes the Twee utility, which can be used to combine text files containing passages with a story format file to produce a story HTML file.
Regardless, I'm not even messing with the HTML/CSS right now, I just want to bang out stories. I tested out 1.x and like the workflow, so yay!
I've read some complaints that Twine made you rely too much on coders for macros, so I suspected that Harlowe was made to be an "Out of the box" solution incorporating the most popular macros.
In that, it succeeded, since out of the box, it does have a fair bit of functionality.
I've never really agreed with the criticism though. Coding needs to be honestly and openly embraced, since to expect to make anything that runs on a computer but without using coding is to search for a magic bullet that will never exist.