Original post by Fournicolas What do you say? Would this kind of game story allow for a re-telling of History, with worrying too many people of propaganda? Would it seem acceptable? In a game, I mean?
If Knights of the Old Republic 2 is any indication, you'd have a number of players upset the game forces them to 'play along' with the rigid storyline all the way to the 'shocking' climax, although they (the player) were able to figure out this plot twist way in advance, and would ditch the hitler-to-be like a hot potato the very second they'd be given a chance...
There is always ways to get a villain back in the story. Magneto might have died a good dozen times, in X-Men. And he is still kicking...
The exemple I chose was merely a way of having a way of retelling History, in a way that involved ACTIVELY the player. If what I have come up with don't please you, then let's transport it 10 years in the future, and have it in 1936. The same Hitler is now rising steadily, and he is now sending parties to and fro, in order to retrieve Siegfried's lance and to achieve an obscure prophecy. He is not the only to believe in it, you believe it too. And you decide to hide it from Hitler. Only when you ultimetely find it, you realize that you've been keeping a pace in advance until now, and that Hitler's agents are closing on you.
And in the end, they DO close on you, and steal the lance you've been trying to hide from Hitler, thus giving him the power to achieve what YOU know as History.Let's make the main character a dedicated Time-Traveller. He travelled back in time to prevent history from happening, and ends up making the History happen, like the Time loop in Twelve Monkeys, by Terry GILLIAM...
Original post by Fournicolas There is always ways to get a villain back in the story. Magneto might have died a good dozen times, in X-Men. And he is still kicking...
Well, these are two different things you have here. Coming back to life over and over and over might be good for a comic book supervillain. But if the script of your game expects the player to educamate and influence young Hitler on his road to "enlightement", and the player doesn't *want* to do it because they can see what it leads to and they realize just leaving these laid back hippies to their bong would be the best course of action... except the game script doesn't have this option for them? That's what i was talking about. 'actively involving the player' is all fine as long as they *want* to be involved... but when they *don't* and you force them into it the game becomes a source of frustration, not entertainment.
Quote:
The exemple I chose was merely a way of having a way of retelling History, in a way that involved ACTIVELY the player. If what I have come up with don't please you, then let's transport it 10 years in the future, and have it in 1936. (..)
It's not that the idea doesn't please *me* personally. ^^ But you asked for feedback, and what i gave you is what you're likely to receive from considerable part of the playerbase if you make a game which puts the player in a story that --to them-- makes them "lose" ... not because of what they did and what choices they *made* but because the script from the start didn't include even an *option* for them to 'win' (because the only option to 'win' in the scenarios you present would be to *not play* the game, which is of course ridiculous)
Which, I guess, is the difference between mainstream games and those works of interactive fiction that aren't pure puzzles, but rather the exploration of a story.
Try Adam Cadre's excellent "Photopia" to see what I mean.
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." — Brian W. Kernighan
Original post by Fruny Which, I guess, is the difference between mainstream games and those works of interactive fiction that aren't pure puzzles, but rather the exploration of a story.
Aye, although one might argue if the story fails to captivate the reader enough to make them want to follow it instead of trying to invent their own, then it's likely at least part of the blame for that should be put on the story itself.
That Siegfried's Lance idea was great. I love twists like that and don't get upset if the bad guys win, but perhaps not everyone would like the game to end with Hitler stealing the lance and try to conquer the world.
A solution is to continue the story and let the player try to take back the lance and take it to the allies, or to destroy it. IMO Hitler shouldn't be killed (too non-historic), but perhaps one of his main henchmen is. It might still be this episode that makes Hitler decide to take over the world (or even cause his passion for mystic artifacts), but at least the player did his best to stop him.
IMO the main part of the game would be the search for the lance, and Hitler grabs it just before the end. For example, Hitler and his henchmen has followed you into the dungeon where you find the lance. He steals it and has his men seal you in. You make your way out, and just before Hitler can get away you manage to take the lance back and use it to kill his main henchman after a more or less lengthy fight. During the fight Hitler manages to slip away and only resurfaces years later and goes on to follow history as we know it.
Then the main character decides that the lance is too dangerous and destorys it / that Hitler and Germany is dangerous and brings it to England to be used in the impending conflict (it gets stored in a crate in a huge room filled with crates [smile]) / that the spear should be hidden away on Iceland (Brünhild's homeland) etc
BTW: I'd take "Way to run with it :D" as a compliment. You took a few ideas and wound it into a great story.
