quote:
Original post by Shadowdancer
Generally, my opinion on that stuff is that it is great, but only for so long. The FedEx point is very valid. Have a look at the Privateer and Freelancer games as an example, or if you want a very negative example, take the X series. In those games, you have literally no choice but to FedEx through large parts of the game, only because you need to make money to buy a suitable ship for the next stage of the game.
Okay, having played these games, I have to ask: Why is there so little gameplay that the only thing you have to look forward to is a cool ship in order to fight? Why can’t you fight right out of the gate? Why isn’t there a need for shuttles with cheap guns to fight skirmishes among miners, squabbling homesteaders and up and coming gangs?
And why isn’t trade interesting enough to nearly stand on its own? Why can’t there be treasure hunting? Waypoint based ship racing? Rewards for scanning dangerous areas in the midst of tumultous anomalies?
The thing I hate is that we get this choice between a super-scripted, non-replayable game like Tachyon, where you can’t even leave the base without missions holding your hand, or huge empty worlds without meaning because there’s no story placing you at the center of the universe.
There has got to be a better way.
quote:
(OK, in the first Privateer you basically just traded and flew random missions until you had a maxed-out Centurion).
Hah, I always went for the fighters loaded with lasers versus those evil Retros!
quote:
A potential problem with "interrupting events" is a loss of "realism".
But this goes both ways. If a region is pirate infested and generates alot of pirate encounters, will you find it odd that they’re suddenly quiet everytime you get a mission?
Worse, yet, you could easily use this system to powermax: Take a mission you have no intention of finishing just to get to a lucrative trade area. In pirate infested communities, prices would be sky high due to scarcity. So you just take a mission, the game quiets the encounters, and then you make a killing without any risk—which becomes VERY boring.
quote:
It just is not right when you are on a story mission that requires your presence to save someone from an attack and then head off to save some bozo who couldn't steer around an asteroid.
Right there I see that as a problem: By creating a bozo who couldn’t steer mission, you lose respect for the other NPCs. But what about someone who’s been disabled in a system filled with dangerous fast moving gas and dust? I’ve changed the situation only to see if that makes any difference in how you feel.
quote:
This should not be possible if the current story mission is "time critical". You don't even actually need a timer, just make it very clear to the player that not directly going for the mission waypoints will be loss of mission, and perhaps suppress random events for that duration (a possible explanation would be "limited battlegroup communications" or something).
What if the game told you there would be a tradeoff via dialog / NPCs. For instance, you get a mission to disable a jumpgate before a main invasion force gets through. Skirmishes already dot the system, though. Your mission giver says to you, “Don’t get distracted out there. If you don’t disable that gate in time, this system is lost.” And it would be, the system would change hands if you failed.
quote:
Oh, and make sure to get the quantities right. If you get a distress call every 5 minutes, you'd probably quickly come to the conclusion that there must be a "dumb pilots" faction with a very large base somewhere.
I agree pacing is important, but I can’t not see making allowances for large-scale situations like war and disaster. But otherwise, I think you’re right.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
[edited by - Wavinator on June 10, 2004 12:49:49 AM]
