Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[harrumph]

I find that a lot of the time the author just wants to tell a good story and a game developer just wants to make a good game.

Totally, and I don't think critical interpretation necessarily detracts from that. We can have our cake and eat it too!

By the way, Alex, if you told me you were from the Iron Range (in Minnesota), I probably wouldn't so much as blink.

[XpanD]

Off-topic: That podcast is fun stuff! Good to hear the person behind the username sometimes.

Somewhat on-topic: I'm hard at work writing a piece of lore (2.5 A4s so far) for my Worksmen mod, which I'm trying to tie in with what I've understood of the main story so far. Really helpful thread for working out the details!

[Pendragon]

Something that I was toying with was a lore justification for the command point and deployment system that is currently used in combat as I have not seen one so far. Here is what I came up with:

Ships equipped for combat, in addition to the normal sensor suite and other standard systems, are also equipped with broad-spectrum jamming tools that flood local space with interference and mean that normal communication is virtually impossible. Under these circumstances the only way to communicate is by prearranged code blips of high-power transmission that can only transmit very basic orders regarding pre-arranged objectives and ship-identities. Anything more complicated is smothered by the blanket jamming.

The jamming tools are adaptive however and after a certain number of blips will adapt to block even these most basic of transmissions meaning that a commander must be very selective in who and what he orders, even limiting the number of ships he deploys. Deploying more is not safe as after a certain limit IFF systems are unable to cope and friendly fire is almost inevitable.

The extra power and systems gained by possession of objectives such as sensor stations, nav buoys and most especially comm stations enables a commander to cut through the static to order additional ships into combat and state additional objectives.

Thoughts?

[GUNINANRUNIN]

Something that I was toying with was a lore justification for the command point and deployment system that is currently used in combat as I have not seen one so far. Here is what I came up with:

Ships equipped for combat, in addition to the normal sensor suite and other standard systems, are also equipped with broad-spectrum jamming tools that flood local space with interference and mean that normal communication is virtually impossible. Under these circumstances the only way to communicate is by prearranged code blips of high-power transmission that can only transmit very basic orders regarding pre-arranged objectives and ship-identities. Anything more complicated is smothered by the blanket jamming.

The jamming tools are adaptive however and after a certain number of blips will adapt to block even these most basic of transmissions meaning that a commander must be very selective in who and what he orders, even limiting the number of ships he deploys. Deploying more is not safe as after a certain limit IFF systems are unable to cope and friendly fire is almost inevitable.

The extra power and systems gained by possession of objectives such as sensor stations, nav buoys and most especially comm stations enables a commander to cut through the static to order additional ships into combat and state additional objectives.

Thoughts?

That actually makes sense. Though I just thought points simply relied on the admiral's innate command abilities and those of his officers.

[Gothars]

That's a good explanation attempt, well done. I expect it will be somewhat impaired once character progression allows for more command points, though. You could still explain it by increasing coding/decoding ability, but that's something a communications officers does, not the character himself.

And even right now the description of Hornet's Nest speaks of a combat-inexperienced commander, represented by few command points.

[icepick37]

Yeah the lore doesn't really need to explicitly justify EVERY gameplay mechanic does it?

[Gothars]

Yeah the lore doesn't really need to explicitly justify EVERY gameplay mechanic does it?

Why not, I think it's fun to try. The fewer logic gaps there are, the easier it is to immerse in the game world, at least for me. As long as the gameplay is not altered just to be more explainable, but that's nothing I can see Alex do, ever.

[naufrago]

Yeah the lore doesn't really need to explicitly justify EVERY gameplay mechanic does it?

Why not, I think it's fun to try. The fewer logic gaps there are, the easier it is to immerse in the game world, at least for me. As long as the gameplay is not altered just to be more explainable, but that's nothing I can see Alex do, ever.

Something I miss about games from my childhood is how I used to be able to fill in the gaps with my imagination. Part of it is that, since I'm no longer a child, my imagination isn't as rampant, but also modern games feel the need to explain everything. I'm perfectly happy with a game not providing an explanation for every little thing since it leaves room for me to interject my own thoughts and theories.

That being said, I also really like story in my games. I'm okay with a game explaining things if it adds to that. I should really think up some question about the lore, since it's started to pique my interest.

EDIT: Ok, here are a couple-

• How is power derived from Infernium? Is it just a good source of nuclear energy or does it generate power through more exotic means?
• If it generates power through more exotic means, what makes certain isotopes of Infernium useful as energy and what ends up as depleted Infernium?
• Why use depleted Infernium as ammo in certain guns (like the Gauss cannon) rather than something plentiful and dense like lead?

[Gothars]

Something I miss about games from my childhood is how I used to be able to fill in the gaps with my imagination. Part of it is that, since I'm no longer a child, my imagination isn't as rampant, but also modern games feel the need to explain everything. I'm perfectly happy with a game not providing an explanation for every little thing since it leaves room for me to interject my own thoughts and theories.

That being said, I also really like story in my games. I'm okay with a game explaining things if it adds to that. I should really think up some question about the lore, since it's started to pique my interest.

For me it's not the lack of imagination that hinders immersion, but my much better understanding of how a game is designed, technic- and gameplay-wise. If I did not know to this day what polygons, sprites, collision borders or event triggers were I would never notice them and take a game for what it is meant to be, not for what it is. That's why I love those moments when the game is so interesting, the events so fascinating, the immersion so deep that I forget about all technicalities and just have the experience, naive as a child.

In games that rely heavily on immersion it can kill the entire thing for me. Once I understood how things worked in Skyrim (without ever attempting to) it suddenly seemed so mechanical, I lost interest and never finished it.

[naufrago]

In games that rely heavily on immersion it can kill the entire thing for me. Once I understood how things worked in Skyrim (without ever attempting to) it suddenly seemed so mechanical, I lost interest and never finished it.

That happened for me too with Skyrim. Once I saw through everything the game had to offer and I'd become as powerful as my character could become (well, I could have eked out a couple extra %, but for more effort than it would be worth), I lost interest. That's actually happened a lot to me recently. I've become so used to games that I've become too good at seeing through to the underlying mechanics in almost every game I play. Unless the mechanics themselves are fun (like in Starfarer or Super Mario Galaxy) or there's a story worth pursuing (like Chrono Trigger), I tend to lose interest.

As I like to put it, the magic is gone. When you get more experienced, rampant speculation gets replaced with educated guesses. You go from seeing boundless possibilities to seeing only limitations and boundaries. Once the mystery of how things work is gone, you're left with nothing but a pile of mechanics and a story. Those need to be sufficient to keep an experienced player hooked.

It's not necessarily a failing of modern games (although many certainly try too hard to capture the elusive concept of 'immersion'), but many games can't simply accept the fact that they're "games"; they try to be an experience. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's good to want to achieve greater heights, but sometimes you just want a game that is a game. They need to get the underlying mechanics right, then build on top of that. I think that's where a lot of games, modern or not, get it wrong.

[Pendragon]

That's a good explanation attempt, well done. I expect it will be somewhat impaired once character progression allows for more command points, though. You could still explain it by increasing coding/decoding ability, but that's something a communications officers does, not the character himself.

And even right now the description of Hornet's Nest speaks of a combat-inexperienced commander, represented by few command points.

Good point, though perhaps an experienced commander has a much better understanding and rapport with his captains than an inexperienced one. He discusses the battlespace and strategy with his captains before they enter combat and they understand from drills, combat simulations and past battles what he wants almost before he transmits his orders. This means that an experienced commander only needs to use two or three blips to communicate one command point's worth of orders while an inexperienced one is forced to use five or six and so has fewer command points overall. An experienced commander may even have blips left over to assign extra IFF designations allowing him to have more ships on the field without the need of the additional systems provided by objective buoys.

For me having a lore explanation for game mechanics is actually a massive increase in immersion as when I get frustrated for example, by a lack of command points, I'm not frustrated by a game mechanic, I'm frustrated by an aspect of the world which my character is grappling with just the same as I am. If I want to tell a ship to fall back but have no command points left it's not because my character's suddenly lost the ability to pick up the communicator, it's because my character's orders are getting lost in a sea of static and interference.

[PCCL]

are there artigrav (artificial gravity) in this universe?

if so, how common are they? (all ships? just the high tech ones? just the big ones?)

[dogboy123]

Alex is russian?... I have even more proof to my theory that russians make the best video games.

[Gothars]

Alex is russian?... I have even more proof to my theory that russians make the best video games.

On which games do you base that theory?

[dogboy123]

Alex is russian?... I have even more proof to my theory that russians make the best video games.

On which games do you base that theory?

Metro 2033 wich was so immersive,
The precursors (you can walk around on planets, fly ships and walk around in ships),Parkan II the same idea as the precursors but with better FPS combat inside ships, IL2 because I love flight sims.